Breast Cancer ICYMI

Among women with breast cancer being treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI), supplementation with vitamin D and calcium protected against bone loss after 5 years, according to results from a prospective cohort study in Brazil. The study found no difference in bone mineral density outcomes at 5 years between women with hormone receptor–positive cancers treated with aromatase inhibitors (AIG) and triple negative or HER-2 positive patients who were treated with another therapy (CG).

Courtesy Renata Flores

About two-thirds of women with breast cancer have tumors that are positive for hormone receptors, and so are often treated with endocrine therapy such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or AI. However, there are concerns that AI treatment may lead to a loss of bone mineral density and impacts on quality of life. This loss is influenced by a range of factors, including body weight, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, corticosteroid use, calcium in the diet, and circulating levels of vitamin D.

Vitamin D helps to regulate absorption of calcium and phosphorus, ensuring that their plasma concentrations are high enough for adequate bone health. But vitamin D deficiency is a common problem, even in tropical areas such as Brazil. “It is high in the general population and especially in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Thus, vitamin D and calcium supplementation has an impact on these women’s lives,” said lead author Marcelo Antonini, MD, who presented the study (abstract P1-13-04) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. He is a researcher at Hospital Servidor Publico Estadual in São Paulo, Brazil.

Although the findings are encouraging, more work needs to be done before it leads to a change in practice. “Larger studies must be carried out to prove this theory; however, in noncancer patients we have already well established the benefits of vitamin D and calcium supplementation,” Dr. Antonini said in an interview

The researchers examined women before the start of treatment, at 6 months, and at 5 years. Those with vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL received 7,000 IU/day for 8 weeks, followed by a 1,000 IU/day maintenance dose. Subjects with osteopenia received a calcium supplement (500 mg calcium carbonate), and those with osteoporosis received 4 mg zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis).

There were 140 patients in both the AIG and CG groups. The average age was 65 years. Sixty-four percent of the AIG group and 71% of the CG group were vitamin D deficient at baseline. At 5 years, the frequencies were 17% and 16%, respectively. Both groups showed significant declines in bone mineral density in the femoral neck and femur at both 6 months and 5 years, but there was no significant difference between them. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to bone density loss in the spine.

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center and had a small population size.

Another prospective observational study, published earlier this year, looked at vitamin D supplementation in 741 patients (mean age 61.9 years) being treated with aromatase inhibitors, whose baseline vitamin D levels were less 30 ng/mL. They received 16,000 IU dose of oral calcifediol every 2 weeks. At 3 months, individuals who achieved vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or higher were less likely to have joint pain (P < .05). At 12 months, data from 473 patients showed that for every 10-ng/mL increase in serum vitamin D at 3 months, there was a reduction in loss of bone marrow density in the lumbar spine (adjusted beta = +0.177%, P < .05), though there were no associations between vitamin D levels and BMD of the femur or total hip.

“Our results suggest that optimal levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of joint pain related to AI treatment. A target threshold (of vitamin D) levels was set at 40 ng/mL to significantly reduce the increase in joint pain. The authors noted that this threshold is well above the goal of 20 ng/mL recommended by the 2010 Institute of Medicine report.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Antonini has no relevant financial disclosures.

Among women with breast cancer being treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI), supplementation with vitamin D and calcium protected against bone loss after 5 years, according to results from a prospective cohort study in Brazil. The study found no difference in bone mineral density outcomes at 5 years between women with hormone receptor–positive cancers treated with aromatase inhibitors (AIG) and triple negative or HER-2 positive patients who were treated with another therapy (CG).

Courtesy Renata Flores

About two-thirds of women with breast cancer have tumors that are positive for hormone receptors, and so are often treated with endocrine therapy such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or AI. However, there are concerns that AI treatment may lead to a loss of bone mineral density and impacts on quality of life. This loss is influenced by a range of factors, including body weight, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, corticosteroid use, calcium in the diet, and circulating levels of vitamin D.

Vitamin D helps to regulate absorption of calcium and phosphorus, ensuring that their plasma concentrations are high enough for adequate bone health. But vitamin D deficiency is a common problem, even in tropical areas such as Brazil. “It is high in the general population and especially in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Thus, vitamin D and calcium supplementation has an impact on these women’s lives,” said lead author Marcelo Antonini, MD, who presented the study (abstract P1-13-04) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. He is a researcher at Hospital Servidor Publico Estadual in São Paulo, Brazil.

Although the findings are encouraging, more work needs to be done before it leads to a change in practice. “Larger studies must be carried out to prove this theory; however, in noncancer patients we have already well established the benefits of vitamin D and calcium supplementation,” Dr. Antonini said in an interview

The researchers examined women before the start of treatment, at 6 months, and at 5 years. Those with vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL received 7,000 IU/day for 8 weeks, followed by a 1,000 IU/day maintenance dose. Subjects with osteopenia received a calcium supplement (500 mg calcium carbonate), and those with osteoporosis received 4 mg zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis).

There were 140 patients in both the AIG and CG groups. The average age was 65 years. Sixty-four percent of the AIG group and 71% of the CG group were vitamin D deficient at baseline. At 5 years, the frequencies were 17% and 16%, respectively. Both groups showed significant declines in bone mineral density in the femoral neck and femur at both 6 months and 5 years, but there was no significant difference between them. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to bone density loss in the spine.

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center and had a small population size.

Another prospective observational study, published earlier this year, looked at vitamin D supplementation in 741 patients (mean age 61.9 years) being treated with aromatase inhibitors, whose baseline vitamin D levels were less 30 ng/mL. They received 16,000 IU dose of oral calcifediol every 2 weeks. At 3 months, individuals who achieved vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or higher were less likely to have joint pain (P < .05). At 12 months, data from 473 patients showed that for every 10-ng/mL increase in serum vitamin D at 3 months, there was a reduction in loss of bone marrow density in the lumbar spine (adjusted beta = +0.177%, P < .05), though there were no associations between vitamin D levels and BMD of the femur or total hip.

“Our results suggest that optimal levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of joint pain related to AI treatment. A target threshold (of vitamin D) levels was set at 40 ng/mL to significantly reduce the increase in joint pain. The authors noted that this threshold is well above the goal of 20 ng/mL recommended by the 2010 Institute of Medicine report.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Antonini has no relevant financial disclosures.

Among women with breast cancer being treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI), supplementation with vitamin D and calcium protected against bone loss after 5 years, according to results from a prospective cohort study in Brazil. The study found no difference in bone mineral density outcomes at 5 years between women with hormone receptor–positive cancers treated with aromatase inhibitors (AIG) and triple negative or HER-2 positive patients who were treated with another therapy (CG).

Courtesy Renata Flores

About two-thirds of women with breast cancer have tumors that are positive for hormone receptors, and so are often treated with endocrine therapy such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or AI. However, there are concerns that AI treatment may lead to a loss of bone mineral density and impacts on quality of life. This loss is influenced by a range of factors, including body weight, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, corticosteroid use, calcium in the diet, and circulating levels of vitamin D.

Vitamin D helps to regulate absorption of calcium and phosphorus, ensuring that their plasma concentrations are high enough for adequate bone health. But vitamin D deficiency is a common problem, even in tropical areas such as Brazil. “It is high in the general population and especially in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Thus, vitamin D and calcium supplementation has an impact on these women’s lives,” said lead author Marcelo Antonini, MD, who presented the study (abstract P1-13-04) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. He is a researcher at Hospital Servidor Publico Estadual in São Paulo, Brazil.

Although the findings are encouraging, more work needs to be done before it leads to a change in practice. “Larger studies must be carried out to prove this theory; however, in noncancer patients we have already well established the benefits of vitamin D and calcium supplementation,” Dr. Antonini said in an interview

The researchers examined women before the start of treatment, at 6 months, and at 5 years. Those with vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL received 7,000 IU/day for 8 weeks, followed by a 1,000 IU/day maintenance dose. Subjects with osteopenia received a calcium supplement (500 mg calcium carbonate), and those with osteoporosis received 4 mg zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis).

There were 140 patients in both the AIG and CG groups. The average age was 65 years. Sixty-four percent of the AIG group and 71% of the CG group were vitamin D deficient at baseline. At 5 years, the frequencies were 17% and 16%, respectively. Both groups showed significant declines in bone mineral density in the femoral neck and femur at both 6 months and 5 years, but there was no significant difference between them. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to bone density loss in the spine.

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center and had a small population size.

Another prospective observational study, published earlier this year, looked at vitamin D supplementation in 741 patients (mean age 61.9 years) being treated with aromatase inhibitors, whose baseline vitamin D levels were less 30 ng/mL. They received 16,000 IU dose of oral calcifediol every 2 weeks. At 3 months, individuals who achieved vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or higher were less likely to have joint pain (P < .05). At 12 months, data from 473 patients showed that for every 10-ng/mL increase in serum vitamin D at 3 months, there was a reduction in loss of bone marrow density in the lumbar spine (adjusted beta = +0.177%, P < .05), though there were no associations between vitamin D levels and BMD of the femur or total hip.

“Our results suggest that optimal levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of joint pain related to AI treatment. A target threshold (of vitamin D) levels was set at 40 ng/mL to significantly reduce the increase in joint pain. The authors noted that this threshold is well above the goal of 20 ng/mL recommended by the 2010 Institute of Medicine report.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Antonini has no relevant financial disclosures.

Adjuvant treatment with metformin did not improve outcomes in most patients with early breast cancer, according to new findings from a randomized controlled trial.

In the primary analysis, the addition of metformin to standard therapy in moderate/high-risk hormone receptor positive or negative breast cancer did not improve invasive disease–free survival (IDFS), overall survival, or other breast outcomes, explained lead author Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, FRCPC, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. “Metformin should not be used as breast cancer treatment in this population.”

However, an exploratory analysis suggested that metformin may have a beneficial effect in women with HER2-positive breast cancer, Dr. Goodwin noted.

In this subset, IDFS was improved in patients who received metformin (hazard ratio, 0.64; P = .03), as was overall survival (HR, 0.53; P = .04).

The findings were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“This trial arose from the observation that obesity is associated with poor breast cancer outcomes, and insulin levels are higher in obesity and may be more strongly associated with breast cancer outcomes than obesity,” said Dr. Goodwin.

Metformin was used because of its ability to promote modest weight loss and lower insulin by about 15%-20% in nondiabetic breast cancer survivors. It has also shown anticancer effects in preclinical studies. “In some window of opportunity neoadjuvant studies, it has been shown to reduce Ki67 in breast cancer cells,” she said. “And in preclinical in vitro and in vivo research, it slows growth of breast cancer.”

In addition, emerging evidence from observational studies suggests that the use of metformin to treat diabetes in breast cancer patients may be associated with better outcomes, strengthening the rationale for the study.

The negative results in breast cancer follow recent reports of negative findings in lung cancer, when metformin was found to be ineffective when used alongside chemotherapy in locally advanced lung cancer, as reported by this news organization.
 

No benefit seen

Metformin was compared to placebo in the phase 3 CCTG MA.32 trial, conducted in 3,649 patients aged 18-74 years with T1-3 N0-3 M0 breast cancer. All patients were treated with standard therapy and were randomized to receive metformin 850 mg twice daily for 5 years or placebo.

In 2016, “futility was declared in ER/PR-negative patients” after a second interim analysis conducted at 29.6 months’ median follow-up, Dr. Goodwin noted. The intervention was stopped in that group, although blinding and follow-up continued.

After that, the study’s primary analysis focused on the 2,533 ER/PR-positive patients (mean age, 52.7 years; mean body mass index, 28.8; approx. 60% postmenopausal).

Just over half of these patients had T2 tumor stage, and most disease was grade 2 or 3.

In addition, 16.5% (of metformin) and 17.4% (of placebo) patients had HER2-positive disease, with the majority (97%) of all HER2 patients receiving trastuzumab.

There was no difference between the two groups in IDFS events, occurring in 18.5% of patients receiving metformin and 18.3% who received placebo, with most (75.6%) events due to breast cancer (HR, 1.01; P = .92).

There were 131 deaths in the metformin arm and 119 in the placebo arm, with most (75.8%) of the deaths related to breast cancer (HR, 1.10; P = .47).

Other breast cancer outcomes had similar results, including distant disease-free survival (HR, 0.99; P = .94) and breast cancer–free interval (HR, 0.98; P = .87), both of which showed no advantage for metformin.
 

Possible HER2 advantage

However, the exploratory analysis suggested there may be an advantage for patients with HER2-positive disease, but primarily those who had at least one C allele of a prespecified ATM associated rs11212617 SNP. These patients achieved a higher pathologic complete response rate with metformin than that of those without the allele.

There were 620 patients with HER2-positive disease analyzed, with 99.4% receiving chemotherapy and 96.5% receiving trastuzumab. There were 99 IDFS events, and 47 OS events.

In the entire HER2-positive cohort, patients who received metformin had fewer IDFS events (HR, 0.64; P = .026) compared with the placebo arm. Mortality was lower with metformin (HR for overall survival, 0.53; P = .038).

“Subjects with HER2-positive breast cancer, notably those with at least one C allele of the ATM-associated rs11212617 SNP, experienced improved IDFS and overall survival with metformin,” Dr. Goodwin concluded. “However, no P-value ‘spend’ was allocated to this comparison. As a result, it requires replication in a prospective trial focusing on the HER2-positive population.”
 

More research?

Stephanie Bernik, MD, chief of breast surgery, Mount Sinai West, and associate professor of breast surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was approached by this news organization for an independent comment.

“It has long been known that obesity, which often correlates with diabetes, increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer,” she said.

“This study tried to show that using a medication that helps control insulin levels, even in those without diabetes, might decrease one’s risk of breast cancer,” she said. “Unfortunately, using metformin had no effect on outcomes in this study, even though it has shown promise in other studies. Perhaps more research needs to be carried out to try to pinpoint which mechanisms of action, if any, might be helpful to combat cancer in those with and without diabetes.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Breast Cancer Researcher Foundation, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Canadian Cancer Society, Apotex, Swiss Cancer Research, and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Dr. Goodwin has no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adjuvant treatment with metformin did not improve outcomes in most patients with early breast cancer, according to new findings from a randomized controlled trial.

In the primary analysis, the addition of metformin to standard therapy in moderate/high-risk hormone receptor positive or negative breast cancer did not improve invasive disease–free survival (IDFS), overall survival, or other breast outcomes, explained lead author Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, FRCPC, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. “Metformin should not be used as breast cancer treatment in this population.”

However, an exploratory analysis suggested that metformin may have a beneficial effect in women with HER2-positive breast cancer, Dr. Goodwin noted.

In this subset, IDFS was improved in patients who received metformin (hazard ratio, 0.64; P = .03), as was overall survival (HR, 0.53; P = .04).

The findings were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“This trial arose from the observation that obesity is associated with poor breast cancer outcomes, and insulin levels are higher in obesity and may be more strongly associated with breast cancer outcomes than obesity,” said Dr. Goodwin.

Metformin was used because of its ability to promote modest weight loss and lower insulin by about 15%-20% in nondiabetic breast cancer survivors. It has also shown anticancer effects in preclinical studies. “In some window of opportunity neoadjuvant studies, it has been shown to reduce Ki67 in breast cancer cells,” she said. “And in preclinical in vitro and in vivo research, it slows growth of breast cancer.”

In addition, emerging evidence from observational studies suggests that the use of metformin to treat diabetes in breast cancer patients may be associated with better outcomes, strengthening the rationale for the study.

The negative results in breast cancer follow recent reports of negative findings in lung cancer, when metformin was found to be ineffective when used alongside chemotherapy in locally advanced lung cancer, as reported by this news organization.
 

No benefit seen

Metformin was compared to placebo in the phase 3 CCTG MA.32 trial, conducted in 3,649 patients aged 18-74 years with T1-3 N0-3 M0 breast cancer. All patients were treated with standard therapy and were randomized to receive metformin 850 mg twice daily for 5 years or placebo.

In 2016, “futility was declared in ER/PR-negative patients” after a second interim analysis conducted at 29.6 months’ median follow-up, Dr. Goodwin noted. The intervention was stopped in that group, although blinding and follow-up continued.

After that, the study’s primary analysis focused on the 2,533 ER/PR-positive patients (mean age, 52.7 years; mean body mass index, 28.8; approx. 60% postmenopausal).

Just over half of these patients had T2 tumor stage, and most disease was grade 2 or 3.

In addition, 16.5% (of metformin) and 17.4% (of placebo) patients had HER2-positive disease, with the majority (97%) of all HER2 patients receiving trastuzumab.

There was no difference between the two groups in IDFS events, occurring in 18.5% of patients receiving metformin and 18.3% who received placebo, with most (75.6%) events due to breast cancer (HR, 1.01; P = .92).

There were 131 deaths in the metformin arm and 119 in the placebo arm, with most (75.8%) of the deaths related to breast cancer (HR, 1.10; P = .47).

Other breast cancer outcomes had similar results, including distant disease-free survival (HR, 0.99; P = .94) and breast cancer–free interval (HR, 0.98; P = .87), both of which showed no advantage for metformin.
 

Possible HER2 advantage

However, the exploratory analysis suggested there may be an advantage for patients with HER2-positive disease, but primarily those who had at least one C allele of a prespecified ATM associated rs11212617 SNP. These patients achieved a higher pathologic complete response rate with metformin than that of those without the allele.

There were 620 patients with HER2-positive disease analyzed, with 99.4% receiving chemotherapy and 96.5% receiving trastuzumab. There were 99 IDFS events, and 47 OS events.

In the entire HER2-positive cohort, patients who received metformin had fewer IDFS events (HR, 0.64; P = .026) compared with the placebo arm. Mortality was lower with metformin (HR for overall survival, 0.53; P = .038).

“Subjects with HER2-positive breast cancer, notably those with at least one C allele of the ATM-associated rs11212617 SNP, experienced improved IDFS and overall survival with metformin,” Dr. Goodwin concluded. “However, no P-value ‘spend’ was allocated to this comparison. As a result, it requires replication in a prospective trial focusing on the HER2-positive population.”
 

More research?

Stephanie Bernik, MD, chief of breast surgery, Mount Sinai West, and associate professor of breast surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was approached by this news organization for an independent comment.

“It has long been known that obesity, which often correlates with diabetes, increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer,” she said.

“This study tried to show that using a medication that helps control insulin levels, even in those without diabetes, might decrease one’s risk of breast cancer,” she said. “Unfortunately, using metformin had no effect on outcomes in this study, even though it has shown promise in other studies. Perhaps more research needs to be carried out to try to pinpoint which mechanisms of action, if any, might be helpful to combat cancer in those with and without diabetes.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Breast Cancer Researcher Foundation, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Canadian Cancer Society, Apotex, Swiss Cancer Research, and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Dr. Goodwin has no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adjuvant treatment with metformin did not improve outcomes in most patients with early breast cancer, according to new findings from a randomized controlled trial.

In the primary analysis, the addition of metformin to standard therapy in moderate/high-risk hormone receptor positive or negative breast cancer did not improve invasive disease–free survival (IDFS), overall survival, or other breast outcomes, explained lead author Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, FRCPC, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. “Metformin should not be used as breast cancer treatment in this population.”

However, an exploratory analysis suggested that metformin may have a beneficial effect in women with HER2-positive breast cancer, Dr. Goodwin noted.

In this subset, IDFS was improved in patients who received metformin (hazard ratio, 0.64; P = .03), as was overall survival (HR, 0.53; P = .04).

The findings were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“This trial arose from the observation that obesity is associated with poor breast cancer outcomes, and insulin levels are higher in obesity and may be more strongly associated with breast cancer outcomes than obesity,” said Dr. Goodwin.

Metformin was used because of its ability to promote modest weight loss and lower insulin by about 15%-20% in nondiabetic breast cancer survivors. It has also shown anticancer effects in preclinical studies. “In some window of opportunity neoadjuvant studies, it has been shown to reduce Ki67 in breast cancer cells,” she said. “And in preclinical in vitro and in vivo research, it slows growth of breast cancer.”

In addition, emerging evidence from observational studies suggests that the use of metformin to treat diabetes in breast cancer patients may be associated with better outcomes, strengthening the rationale for the study.

The negative results in breast cancer follow recent reports of negative findings in lung cancer, when metformin was found to be ineffective when used alongside chemotherapy in locally advanced lung cancer, as reported by this news organization.
 

No benefit seen

Metformin was compared to placebo in the phase 3 CCTG MA.32 trial, conducted in 3,649 patients aged 18-74 years with T1-3 N0-3 M0 breast cancer. All patients were treated with standard therapy and were randomized to receive metformin 850 mg twice daily for 5 years or placebo.

In 2016, “futility was declared in ER/PR-negative patients” after a second interim analysis conducted at 29.6 months’ median follow-up, Dr. Goodwin noted. The intervention was stopped in that group, although blinding and follow-up continued.

After that, the study’s primary analysis focused on the 2,533 ER/PR-positive patients (mean age, 52.7 years; mean body mass index, 28.8; approx. 60% postmenopausal).

Just over half of these patients had T2 tumor stage, and most disease was grade 2 or 3.

In addition, 16.5% (of metformin) and 17.4% (of placebo) patients had HER2-positive disease, with the majority (97%) of all HER2 patients receiving trastuzumab.

There was no difference between the two groups in IDFS events, occurring in 18.5% of patients receiving metformin and 18.3% who received placebo, with most (75.6%) events due to breast cancer (HR, 1.01; P = .92).

There were 131 deaths in the metformin arm and 119 in the placebo arm, with most (75.8%) of the deaths related to breast cancer (HR, 1.10; P = .47).

Other breast cancer outcomes had similar results, including distant disease-free survival (HR, 0.99; P = .94) and breast cancer–free interval (HR, 0.98; P = .87), both of which showed no advantage for metformin.
 

Possible HER2 advantage

However, the exploratory analysis suggested there may be an advantage for patients with HER2-positive disease, but primarily those who had at least one C allele of a prespecified ATM associated rs11212617 SNP. These patients achieved a higher pathologic complete response rate with metformin than that of those without the allele.

There were 620 patients with HER2-positive disease analyzed, with 99.4% receiving chemotherapy and 96.5% receiving trastuzumab. There were 99 IDFS events, and 47 OS events.

In the entire HER2-positive cohort, patients who received metformin had fewer IDFS events (HR, 0.64; P = .026) compared with the placebo arm. Mortality was lower with metformin (HR for overall survival, 0.53; P = .038).

“Subjects with HER2-positive breast cancer, notably those with at least one C allele of the ATM-associated rs11212617 SNP, experienced improved IDFS and overall survival with metformin,” Dr. Goodwin concluded. “However, no P-value ‘spend’ was allocated to this comparison. As a result, it requires replication in a prospective trial focusing on the HER2-positive population.”
 

More research?

Stephanie Bernik, MD, chief of breast surgery, Mount Sinai West, and associate professor of breast surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was approached by this news organization for an independent comment.

“It has long been known that obesity, which often correlates with diabetes, increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer,” she said.

“This study tried to show that using a medication that helps control insulin levels, even in those without diabetes, might decrease one’s risk of breast cancer,” she said. “Unfortunately, using metformin had no effect on outcomes in this study, even though it has shown promise in other studies. Perhaps more research needs to be carried out to try to pinpoint which mechanisms of action, if any, might be helpful to combat cancer in those with and without diabetes.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Breast Cancer Researcher Foundation, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Canadian Cancer Society, Apotex, Swiss Cancer Research, and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Dr. Goodwin has no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards says the state government plans to make the COVID-19 vaccine a required immunization for students 16 and older in the state’s public school system.

“I just think it’s really, really important to embrace the science and really it’s also important to not engage in misinformation,” said Gov. Edwards, a Democrat, according to The Advocate. “Absent some compelling reason, which I at present have not seen, I fully expect that we will be adding the vaccine to the schedule.”

Parents could opt out their children from the requirement with a letter from a medical provider or a simple signature in dissent, The Advocate reported. The new rule would go into effect at the start of the 2022 school year and at first would apply to students aged 16 and older.

Republican legislators voiced their opposition to the COVID-19 vaccine requirement at a hearing on Dec. 6, calling it unneeded and an example of governmental overreach.

“I believe the vaccine should be highly recommended but not mandated,” state Rep. Laurie Schlegel said, according to TV station WDSU.

State Sen. Cameron Henry of Metairie said he received “hundreds of emails” from parents asking him to prevent the rule from going into effect, WDSU said.

WDSU said the governor can overrule the committee if it rejects the proposed vaccine rule.

Louisiana State Health Officer Joseph Kanter, MD, testified on Dec. 6 that 18 children had died of COVID-19 in Louisiana and many others had become sick because of it.

“I can’t think of another disease on that childhood schedule that we’ve lost that many kids from. In my mind, it’s very much in the public interest. But it’s the family and the parents’ decision,” Dr. Kanter said.

The addition of the vaccine is being proposed by the Louisiana Department of Health, which has added other vaccines to the required list over the years. In 2015, the legislature added meningitis as a required shot with no controversy, The Advocate said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards says the state government plans to make the COVID-19 vaccine a required immunization for students 16 and older in the state’s public school system.

“I just think it’s really, really important to embrace the science and really it’s also important to not engage in misinformation,” said Gov. Edwards, a Democrat, according to The Advocate. “Absent some compelling reason, which I at present have not seen, I fully expect that we will be adding the vaccine to the schedule.”

Parents could opt out their children from the requirement with a letter from a medical provider or a simple signature in dissent, The Advocate reported. The new rule would go into effect at the start of the 2022 school year and at first would apply to students aged 16 and older.

Republican legislators voiced their opposition to the COVID-19 vaccine requirement at a hearing on Dec. 6, calling it unneeded and an example of governmental overreach.

“I believe the vaccine should be highly recommended but not mandated,” state Rep. Laurie Schlegel said, according to TV station WDSU.

State Sen. Cameron Henry of Metairie said he received “hundreds of emails” from parents asking him to prevent the rule from going into effect, WDSU said.

WDSU said the governor can overrule the committee if it rejects the proposed vaccine rule.

Louisiana State Health Officer Joseph Kanter, MD, testified on Dec. 6 that 18 children had died of COVID-19 in Louisiana and many others had become sick because of it.

“I can’t think of another disease on that childhood schedule that we’ve lost that many kids from. In my mind, it’s very much in the public interest. But it’s the family and the parents’ decision,” Dr. Kanter said.

The addition of the vaccine is being proposed by the Louisiana Department of Health, which has added other vaccines to the required list over the years. In 2015, the legislature added meningitis as a required shot with no controversy, The Advocate said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards says the state government plans to make the COVID-19 vaccine a required immunization for students 16 and older in the state’s public school system.

“I just think it’s really, really important to embrace the science and really it’s also important to not engage in misinformation,” said Gov. Edwards, a Democrat, according to The Advocate. “Absent some compelling reason, which I at present have not seen, I fully expect that we will be adding the vaccine to the schedule.”

Parents could opt out their children from the requirement with a letter from a medical provider or a simple signature in dissent, The Advocate reported. The new rule would go into effect at the start of the 2022 school year and at first would apply to students aged 16 and older.

Republican legislators voiced their opposition to the COVID-19 vaccine requirement at a hearing on Dec. 6, calling it unneeded and an example of governmental overreach.

“I believe the vaccine should be highly recommended but not mandated,” state Rep. Laurie Schlegel said, according to TV station WDSU.

State Sen. Cameron Henry of Metairie said he received “hundreds of emails” from parents asking him to prevent the rule from going into effect, WDSU said.

WDSU said the governor can overrule the committee if it rejects the proposed vaccine rule.

Louisiana State Health Officer Joseph Kanter, MD, testified on Dec. 6 that 18 children had died of COVID-19 in Louisiana and many others had become sick because of it.

“I can’t think of another disease on that childhood schedule that we’ve lost that many kids from. In my mind, it’s very much in the public interest. But it’s the family and the parents’ decision,” Dr. Kanter said.

The addition of the vaccine is being proposed by the Louisiana Department of Health, which has added other vaccines to the required list over the years. In 2015, the legislature added meningitis as a required shot with no controversy, The Advocate said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The erectile dysfunction medication Viagra could potentially be used as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Aging.

Patients who used the drug sildenafil, the generic name for Viagra, were 69% less likely to develop the disease than were nonusers.

“Sildenafil, which has been shown to significantly improve cognition and memory in preclinical models, presented as the best drug candidate,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, the lead study author in the Cleveland Clinic’s Genomic Medicine Institute, said in a statement.

“Notably, we found that sildenafil use reduced the likelihood of Alzheimer’s in individuals with coronary artery disease, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes, all of which are comorbidities significantly associated with risk of the disease, as well as in those without,” he said.

Alzheimer’s, which is the most common form of age-related dementia, affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The disease is expected to affect nearly 14 million Americans by 2050. There is no approved treatment for it.

Dr. Cheng and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic used a large gene-mapping network to analyze whether more than 1,600 Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs could work against Alzheimer’s. They gave higher scores to drugs that target both amyloid and tau proteins in the brain, which are two hallmarks of the disease. Sildenafil appeared at the top of the list.

Then the researchers used a database of health insurance claims for more than 7 million people in the U.S. to understand the relationship between sildenafil and Alzheimer’s disease outcomes. They compared sildenafil users to nonusers and found that those who used the drug were 69% less likely to have the neurodegenerative disease, even after 6 years of follow-up.

After that, the research team came up with a lab model that showed the sildenafil increased brain cell growth and targeted tau proteins. The lab model could indicate how the drug influences disease-related brain changes.

But Dr. Cheng cautioned against drawing strong conclusions. The study doesn’t demonstrate a causal relationship between sildenafil and Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers will need to conduct clinical trials with a placebo control to see how well the drug works.

Other researchers said the findings offer a new avenue for research but don’t yet provide solid answers.

“Being able to repurpose a drug already licensed for health conditions could help speed up the drug discovery process and bring about life-changing dementia treatments sooner,” Susan Kohlhaas, PhD, director of research at Alzheimer’s Research UK, told the Science Media Centre.

“Importantly, this research doesn’t prove that sildenafil is responsible for reducing dementia risk, or that it slows or stops the disease,” she continued. “If you want to discuss any treatments you are receiving, the first port of call is to speak to your doctor.”

And doctors won’t likely recommend it as a treatment just yet either.

“While these data are interesting scientifically, based on this study, I would not rush out to start taking sildenafil as a prevention for Alzheimer’s disease,” Tara Spires-Jones, PhD, deputy director of the Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The erectile dysfunction medication Viagra could potentially be used as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Aging.

Patients who used the drug sildenafil, the generic name for Viagra, were 69% less likely to develop the disease than were nonusers.

“Sildenafil, which has been shown to significantly improve cognition and memory in preclinical models, presented as the best drug candidate,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, the lead study author in the Cleveland Clinic’s Genomic Medicine Institute, said in a statement.

“Notably, we found that sildenafil use reduced the likelihood of Alzheimer’s in individuals with coronary artery disease, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes, all of which are comorbidities significantly associated with risk of the disease, as well as in those without,” he said.

Alzheimer’s, which is the most common form of age-related dementia, affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The disease is expected to affect nearly 14 million Americans by 2050. There is no approved treatment for it.

Dr. Cheng and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic used a large gene-mapping network to analyze whether more than 1,600 Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs could work against Alzheimer’s. They gave higher scores to drugs that target both amyloid and tau proteins in the brain, which are two hallmarks of the disease. Sildenafil appeared at the top of the list.

Then the researchers used a database of health insurance claims for more than 7 million people in the U.S. to understand the relationship between sildenafil and Alzheimer’s disease outcomes. They compared sildenafil users to nonusers and found that those who used the drug were 69% less likely to have the neurodegenerative disease, even after 6 years of follow-up.

After that, the research team came up with a lab model that showed the sildenafil increased brain cell growth and targeted tau proteins. The lab model could indicate how the drug influences disease-related brain changes.

But Dr. Cheng cautioned against drawing strong conclusions. The study doesn’t demonstrate a causal relationship between sildenafil and Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers will need to conduct clinical trials with a placebo control to see how well the drug works.

Other researchers said the findings offer a new avenue for research but don’t yet provide solid answers.

“Being able to repurpose a drug already licensed for health conditions could help speed up the drug discovery process and bring about life-changing dementia treatments sooner,” Susan Kohlhaas, PhD, director of research at Alzheimer’s Research UK, told the Science Media Centre.

“Importantly, this research doesn’t prove that sildenafil is responsible for reducing dementia risk, or that it slows or stops the disease,” she continued. “If you want to discuss any treatments you are receiving, the first port of call is to speak to your doctor.”

And doctors won’t likely recommend it as a treatment just yet either.

“While these data are interesting scientifically, based on this study, I would not rush out to start taking sildenafil as a prevention for Alzheimer’s disease,” Tara Spires-Jones, PhD, deputy director of the Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The erectile dysfunction medication Viagra could potentially be used as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Aging.

Patients who used the drug sildenafil, the generic name for Viagra, were 69% less likely to develop the disease than were nonusers.

“Sildenafil, which has been shown to significantly improve cognition and memory in preclinical models, presented as the best drug candidate,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, the lead study author in the Cleveland Clinic’s Genomic Medicine Institute, said in a statement.

“Notably, we found that sildenafil use reduced the likelihood of Alzheimer’s in individuals with coronary artery disease, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes, all of which are comorbidities significantly associated with risk of the disease, as well as in those without,” he said.

Alzheimer’s, which is the most common form of age-related dementia, affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The disease is expected to affect nearly 14 million Americans by 2050. There is no approved treatment for it.

Dr. Cheng and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic used a large gene-mapping network to analyze whether more than 1,600 Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs could work against Alzheimer’s. They gave higher scores to drugs that target both amyloid and tau proteins in the brain, which are two hallmarks of the disease. Sildenafil appeared at the top of the list.

Then the researchers used a database of health insurance claims for more than 7 million people in the U.S. to understand the relationship between sildenafil and Alzheimer’s disease outcomes. They compared sildenafil users to nonusers and found that those who used the drug were 69% less likely to have the neurodegenerative disease, even after 6 years of follow-up.

After that, the research team came up with a lab model that showed the sildenafil increased brain cell growth and targeted tau proteins. The lab model could indicate how the drug influences disease-related brain changes.

But Dr. Cheng cautioned against drawing strong conclusions. The study doesn’t demonstrate a causal relationship between sildenafil and Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers will need to conduct clinical trials with a placebo control to see how well the drug works.

Other researchers said the findings offer a new avenue for research but don’t yet provide solid answers.

“Being able to repurpose a drug already licensed for health conditions could help speed up the drug discovery process and bring about life-changing dementia treatments sooner,” Susan Kohlhaas, PhD, director of research at Alzheimer’s Research UK, told the Science Media Centre.

“Importantly, this research doesn’t prove that sildenafil is responsible for reducing dementia risk, or that it slows or stops the disease,” she continued. “If you want to discuss any treatments you are receiving, the first port of call is to speak to your doctor.”

And doctors won’t likely recommend it as a treatment just yet either.

“While these data are interesting scientifically, based on this study, I would not rush out to start taking sildenafil as a prevention for Alzheimer’s disease,” Tara Spires-Jones, PhD, deputy director of the Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Higher resting heart rate (RHR) is associated with increased risk for dementia and accelerated cognitive decline in older adults, independent of the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, new research shows.

“RHR is easy to measure and might be used to identify older people potentially at high risk of dementia and cognitive decline for early interventions,” Yume Imahori, MD, PhD, with the Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Health care professionals should be aware of potential cognitive consequences associated with elevated RHR in older people and may advise older people with high RHR to have a follow-up assessment of cognitive function,” Dr. Imahori said.

The study was published online Dec. 3, 2021, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Heart-brain connection

The findings are based on 2,147 adults (62% women) aged 60 years and older (mean age, 70.6 years) from the population-based Swedish National Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) study. All were free of dementia at baseline and were followed regularly from 2001-2004 to 2013-2016.

The average RHR at baseline was 65.7 bpm. Individuals in higher RHR groups were older, less educated, and were more likely to be smokers and sedentary and to have hypertension. There were no differences among RHR groups in the prevalence of CVD at baseline.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 289 participants were diagnosed with dementia.

In the fully adjusted model, participants with RHR of 80 bpm or higher had a 55% increased risk of developing dementia, compared with peers with lower RHR of 60 to 69 bpm (hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.06-2.27).

“This association was not due to underlying cardiovascular diseases such as atrial fibrillation and heart failure, which is important because elevated RHR is often related to heart disease,” Dr. Imahori said in an interview.

Regarding cognitive function, Mini-Mental State Examination scores declined over time during the follow-up period in all RHR groups, but participants with RHR 70-79 and 80+ bpm had a greater decline, compared with those with lower RHR of 60-69 bpm.

Dr. Imahori said these findings are in line with data from the U.S. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study linking elevated RHR of 80+ bpm in midlife to dementia and cognitive decline in late life.
 

Public health implications

Reached for comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, said this study adds to the “growing body of research showing the health of the heart and brain are closely connected. However, this study only shows a correlation between resting heart rate and cognition, not causation. More research is needed.

“Evidence shows that other risk factors for cardiovascular disease and stroke – obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes – negatively impact your cognitive health,” Dr. Sexton said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association believes the conversation about heart health management is something everyone should be having with their doctor,” she said.

“There are things you can do today to lower your risk for cardiovascular disease, including regular exercise and maintaining a healthy diet. Improving your heart health is an important step to maintaining your brain health as you age,” Dr. Sexton added.

SNAC-K is supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and the participating county councils and municipalities and in part by additional grants from the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare. Dr. Imahori and Dr. Sexton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher resting heart rate (RHR) is associated with increased risk for dementia and accelerated cognitive decline in older adults, independent of the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, new research shows.

“RHR is easy to measure and might be used to identify older people potentially at high risk of dementia and cognitive decline for early interventions,” Yume Imahori, MD, PhD, with the Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Health care professionals should be aware of potential cognitive consequences associated with elevated RHR in older people and may advise older people with high RHR to have a follow-up assessment of cognitive function,” Dr. Imahori said.

The study was published online Dec. 3, 2021, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Heart-brain connection

The findings are based on 2,147 adults (62% women) aged 60 years and older (mean age, 70.6 years) from the population-based Swedish National Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) study. All were free of dementia at baseline and were followed regularly from 2001-2004 to 2013-2016.

The average RHR at baseline was 65.7 bpm. Individuals in higher RHR groups were older, less educated, and were more likely to be smokers and sedentary and to have hypertension. There were no differences among RHR groups in the prevalence of CVD at baseline.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 289 participants were diagnosed with dementia.

In the fully adjusted model, participants with RHR of 80 bpm or higher had a 55% increased risk of developing dementia, compared with peers with lower RHR of 60 to 69 bpm (hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.06-2.27).

“This association was not due to underlying cardiovascular diseases such as atrial fibrillation and heart failure, which is important because elevated RHR is often related to heart disease,” Dr. Imahori said in an interview.

Regarding cognitive function, Mini-Mental State Examination scores declined over time during the follow-up period in all RHR groups, but participants with RHR 70-79 and 80+ bpm had a greater decline, compared with those with lower RHR of 60-69 bpm.

Dr. Imahori said these findings are in line with data from the U.S. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study linking elevated RHR of 80+ bpm in midlife to dementia and cognitive decline in late life.
 

Public health implications

Reached for comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, said this study adds to the “growing body of research showing the health of the heart and brain are closely connected. However, this study only shows a correlation between resting heart rate and cognition, not causation. More research is needed.

“Evidence shows that other risk factors for cardiovascular disease and stroke – obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes – negatively impact your cognitive health,” Dr. Sexton said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association believes the conversation about heart health management is something everyone should be having with their doctor,” she said.

“There are things you can do today to lower your risk for cardiovascular disease, including regular exercise and maintaining a healthy diet. Improving your heart health is an important step to maintaining your brain health as you age,” Dr. Sexton added.

SNAC-K is supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and the participating county councils and municipalities and in part by additional grants from the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare. Dr. Imahori and Dr. Sexton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher resting heart rate (RHR) is associated with increased risk for dementia and accelerated cognitive decline in older adults, independent of the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, new research shows.

“RHR is easy to measure and might be used to identify older people potentially at high risk of dementia and cognitive decline for early interventions,” Yume Imahori, MD, PhD, with the Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Health care professionals should be aware of potential cognitive consequences associated with elevated RHR in older people and may advise older people with high RHR to have a follow-up assessment of cognitive function,” Dr. Imahori said.

The study was published online Dec. 3, 2021, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Heart-brain connection

The findings are based on 2,147 adults (62% women) aged 60 years and older (mean age, 70.6 years) from the population-based Swedish National Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) study. All were free of dementia at baseline and were followed regularly from 2001-2004 to 2013-2016.

The average RHR at baseline was 65.7 bpm. Individuals in higher RHR groups were older, less educated, and were more likely to be smokers and sedentary and to have hypertension. There were no differences among RHR groups in the prevalence of CVD at baseline.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 289 participants were diagnosed with dementia.

In the fully adjusted model, participants with RHR of 80 bpm or higher had a 55% increased risk of developing dementia, compared with peers with lower RHR of 60 to 69 bpm (hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.06-2.27).

“This association was not due to underlying cardiovascular diseases such as atrial fibrillation and heart failure, which is important because elevated RHR is often related to heart disease,” Dr. Imahori said in an interview.

Regarding cognitive function, Mini-Mental State Examination scores declined over time during the follow-up period in all RHR groups, but participants with RHR 70-79 and 80+ bpm had a greater decline, compared with those with lower RHR of 60-69 bpm.

Dr. Imahori said these findings are in line with data from the U.S. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study linking elevated RHR of 80+ bpm in midlife to dementia and cognitive decline in late life.
 

Public health implications

Reached for comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, said this study adds to the “growing body of research showing the health of the heart and brain are closely connected. However, this study only shows a correlation between resting heart rate and cognition, not causation. More research is needed.

“Evidence shows that other risk factors for cardiovascular disease and stroke – obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes – negatively impact your cognitive health,” Dr. Sexton said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association believes the conversation about heart health management is something everyone should be having with their doctor,” she said.

“There are things you can do today to lower your risk for cardiovascular disease, including regular exercise and maintaining a healthy diet. Improving your heart health is an important step to maintaining your brain health as you age,” Dr. Sexton added.

SNAC-K is supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and the participating county councils and municipalities and in part by additional grants from the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare. Dr. Imahori and Dr. Sexton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Genomic profiling improves outcomes for patients with metastatic breast cancer as long as the alteration-drug match has good clinical trial evidence supporting its use, a new pooled analysis suggests.

“The message is very simple,” lead study author Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, research director, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, told this news organization during a virtual press briefing. “If a genomic alteration is validated, it is useful to give targeted therapy, but if the genomic alteration is not validated, we should not give a targeted therapy.”

The study, which pooled results from phase 2 randomized trials SAFIR02-BREAST and SAFIR-P13K, was presented Dec. 7 in a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

The new analysis explored two key questions: Is genomic testing of a cancer effective? And how should oncologists interpret a genomic report?

A total of 1,462 patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer underwent next-generation sequencing. After receiving six to eight cycles of chemotherapy, 238 patients (16%) were randomized to one of nine targeted therapies matched to the genomic alteration identified on testing or to maintenance chemotherapy.

Genomic alterations in the patients’ tumors were classified using the ESMO Scale of Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). A tier I ranking indicates that the alteration-drug match is associated with improved outcomes in clinical trials, while a tier II ranking means that the alteration-drug match is associated with antitumor activity but the magnitude of benefit remains unknown.

In an analysis of the overall trial population, Dr. Andre and colleagues found an improvement in progression-free survival in the targeted therapy group (median of 5.5 months) in comparison with the maintenance chemotherapy group (2.9 months), but the difference was not significant (P = .109).

In a subgroup of 115 patients presenting with I- or II-tier genomic alterations, median progression-free survival was 59% longer, at 9.1 months, among patients receiving targeted therapy, compared with 2.8 months in the maintenance chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001).

In addition, the team carried out single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analyses on 926 patients. They identified 21 genes that were altered more frequently in the metastases compared with the primary tumors, and they observed that a high homologous recombination deficiency score in patients with BCRA 1 or 2 mutations was associated with a longer progression-free survival in patients treated with olaparib.

“We also identified a subset of patients who are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors who presented with CDK4 amplification, and this amplification is associated with overexpression,” Dr. Andre explained.

When asked whether most oncologists were using genomic profiling to tailor treatment for breast cancer patients, Dr. Andre said that multigene sequencing is now widely used.

“The issue is not so much whether we should use or not use genomics; the issue here is to force everyone to put the genomic alteration in the right context in terms of its level of evidence,” Dr. Andre told this news organization.

Oncologists may overinterpret the genomic activation identified and give a targeted therapy that is not validated, but “oncologists should not use genomic information when the target has not been previously validated in a therapeutic trial,” he added.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, said in an interview that approximately 5 years ago, Dr. Andre was part of the first debate at the SABCS discussing whether oncologists should be conducting next-generation sequencing for their patients with breast cancer.

“At the time, [Dr.] Andre’s comment was that we should not be doing it,” recalled Dr. Kaklamani, who is also leader of the breast cancer program at the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health San Antonio MD Anderson. “At that point, I think it was clear that we did not have the data we needed to be able to use next-generation sequencing to change our clinical management.”

However, the evidence has evolved. “Based on this clinical trial, I think we now do have the data,” she said. “I think that [next-generation sequencing] is something we will be using more and more in practice and treating our patients based on [validated] genomic alterations.”

Dr. Andre has received grants or advisory board/speaker honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lily, and Novartis. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics, has received research funding from Eisai, and has served as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, and Genomic Health, among other companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Genomic profiling improves outcomes for patients with metastatic breast cancer as long as the alteration-drug match has good clinical trial evidence supporting its use, a new pooled analysis suggests.

“The message is very simple,” lead study author Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, research director, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, told this news organization during a virtual press briefing. “If a genomic alteration is validated, it is useful to give targeted therapy, but if the genomic alteration is not validated, we should not give a targeted therapy.”

The study, which pooled results from phase 2 randomized trials SAFIR02-BREAST and SAFIR-P13K, was presented Dec. 7 in a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

The new analysis explored two key questions: Is genomic testing of a cancer effective? And how should oncologists interpret a genomic report?

A total of 1,462 patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer underwent next-generation sequencing. After receiving six to eight cycles of chemotherapy, 238 patients (16%) were randomized to one of nine targeted therapies matched to the genomic alteration identified on testing or to maintenance chemotherapy.

Genomic alterations in the patients’ tumors were classified using the ESMO Scale of Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). A tier I ranking indicates that the alteration-drug match is associated with improved outcomes in clinical trials, while a tier II ranking means that the alteration-drug match is associated with antitumor activity but the magnitude of benefit remains unknown.

In an analysis of the overall trial population, Dr. Andre and colleagues found an improvement in progression-free survival in the targeted therapy group (median of 5.5 months) in comparison with the maintenance chemotherapy group (2.9 months), but the difference was not significant (P = .109).

In a subgroup of 115 patients presenting with I- or II-tier genomic alterations, median progression-free survival was 59% longer, at 9.1 months, among patients receiving targeted therapy, compared with 2.8 months in the maintenance chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001).

In addition, the team carried out single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analyses on 926 patients. They identified 21 genes that were altered more frequently in the metastases compared with the primary tumors, and they observed that a high homologous recombination deficiency score in patients with BCRA 1 or 2 mutations was associated with a longer progression-free survival in patients treated with olaparib.

“We also identified a subset of patients who are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors who presented with CDK4 amplification, and this amplification is associated with overexpression,” Dr. Andre explained.

When asked whether most oncologists were using genomic profiling to tailor treatment for breast cancer patients, Dr. Andre said that multigene sequencing is now widely used.

“The issue is not so much whether we should use or not use genomics; the issue here is to force everyone to put the genomic alteration in the right context in terms of its level of evidence,” Dr. Andre told this news organization.

Oncologists may overinterpret the genomic activation identified and give a targeted therapy that is not validated, but “oncologists should not use genomic information when the target has not been previously validated in a therapeutic trial,” he added.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, said in an interview that approximately 5 years ago, Dr. Andre was part of the first debate at the SABCS discussing whether oncologists should be conducting next-generation sequencing for their patients with breast cancer.

“At the time, [Dr.] Andre’s comment was that we should not be doing it,” recalled Dr. Kaklamani, who is also leader of the breast cancer program at the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health San Antonio MD Anderson. “At that point, I think it was clear that we did not have the data we needed to be able to use next-generation sequencing to change our clinical management.”

However, the evidence has evolved. “Based on this clinical trial, I think we now do have the data,” she said. “I think that [next-generation sequencing] is something we will be using more and more in practice and treating our patients based on [validated] genomic alterations.”

Dr. Andre has received grants or advisory board/speaker honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lily, and Novartis. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics, has received research funding from Eisai, and has served as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, and Genomic Health, among other companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Genomic profiling improves outcomes for patients with metastatic breast cancer as long as the alteration-drug match has good clinical trial evidence supporting its use, a new pooled analysis suggests.

“The message is very simple,” lead study author Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, research director, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, told this news organization during a virtual press briefing. “If a genomic alteration is validated, it is useful to give targeted therapy, but if the genomic alteration is not validated, we should not give a targeted therapy.”

The study, which pooled results from phase 2 randomized trials SAFIR02-BREAST and SAFIR-P13K, was presented Dec. 7 in a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

The new analysis explored two key questions: Is genomic testing of a cancer effective? And how should oncologists interpret a genomic report?

A total of 1,462 patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer underwent next-generation sequencing. After receiving six to eight cycles of chemotherapy, 238 patients (16%) were randomized to one of nine targeted therapies matched to the genomic alteration identified on testing or to maintenance chemotherapy.

Genomic alterations in the patients’ tumors were classified using the ESMO Scale of Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). A tier I ranking indicates that the alteration-drug match is associated with improved outcomes in clinical trials, while a tier II ranking means that the alteration-drug match is associated with antitumor activity but the magnitude of benefit remains unknown.

In an analysis of the overall trial population, Dr. Andre and colleagues found an improvement in progression-free survival in the targeted therapy group (median of 5.5 months) in comparison with the maintenance chemotherapy group (2.9 months), but the difference was not significant (P = .109).

In a subgroup of 115 patients presenting with I- or II-tier genomic alterations, median progression-free survival was 59% longer, at 9.1 months, among patients receiving targeted therapy, compared with 2.8 months in the maintenance chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001).

In addition, the team carried out single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analyses on 926 patients. They identified 21 genes that were altered more frequently in the metastases compared with the primary tumors, and they observed that a high homologous recombination deficiency score in patients with BCRA 1 or 2 mutations was associated with a longer progression-free survival in patients treated with olaparib.

“We also identified a subset of patients who are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors who presented with CDK4 amplification, and this amplification is associated with overexpression,” Dr. Andre explained.

When asked whether most oncologists were using genomic profiling to tailor treatment for breast cancer patients, Dr. Andre said that multigene sequencing is now widely used.

“The issue is not so much whether we should use or not use genomics; the issue here is to force everyone to put the genomic alteration in the right context in terms of its level of evidence,” Dr. Andre told this news organization.

Oncologists may overinterpret the genomic activation identified and give a targeted therapy that is not validated, but “oncologists should not use genomic information when the target has not been previously validated in a therapeutic trial,” he added.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, said in an interview that approximately 5 years ago, Dr. Andre was part of the first debate at the SABCS discussing whether oncologists should be conducting next-generation sequencing for their patients with breast cancer.

“At the time, [Dr.] Andre’s comment was that we should not be doing it,” recalled Dr. Kaklamani, who is also leader of the breast cancer program at the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health San Antonio MD Anderson. “At that point, I think it was clear that we did not have the data we needed to be able to use next-generation sequencing to change our clinical management.”

However, the evidence has evolved. “Based on this clinical trial, I think we now do have the data,” she said. “I think that [next-generation sequencing] is something we will be using more and more in practice and treating our patients based on [validated] genomic alterations.”

Dr. Andre has received grants or advisory board/speaker honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lily, and Novartis. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics, has received research funding from Eisai, and has served as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, and Genomic Health, among other companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Interruption of 4-6 cyclin D-dependent kinase inhibitors (CDK4/6i) was associated with a high rate of progression among women with metastatic breast cancer, particularly those with liver metastases. The treatment interruptions occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, out of concern that myelosuppression from the drugs might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, and that other side effects might be confused with symptoms of COVID-19 infection.

The finding comes from a multicenter study presented by Sophie Martin, PhD, at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. Dr. Martin is a researcher at ICANS Institut de cancérologie Strasbourg Europe. The patient population had a complete or partial response, or stable disease complete for at least 6 months.

Although CDK4/6i combined with endocrine therapy has led to significant improvements in outcomes among metastatic HR-positive, HER-2-negative patients, the treatment can lead to chronic toxicities that may affect quality of life.

In its 2020 guidance on management of cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Society for Medical Oncology noted that cancer patients are at higher risk of severe symptoms and worse outcomes. However, it points out that there is no direct evidence that neutropenia caused CDK4/6i or poly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymer inhibitors leads to an increase risk of COVID-19 infection.

The American Society for Clinical Oncology guidance for managing treatment of cancer patients in the context of COVID-19 also says there is little direct evidence to guide practice regarding therapies that may lead to immunosuppression. Therefore, the society recommends against changing or withholding those drugs. “The balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection is very uncertain,” the authors wrote.

There were 60 patients in the study, and the median age was 64 years. The average interruption period was 8 weeks. Twenty-two patients (37%) experienced radiological and/or clinical disease progression. Sixteen of the 22 (73%) restarted on CDK4/6I, while the remaining 4 patients initiated chemotherapy or targeted therapy. Two patients died during CDK4/6i treatment interruption. A univariate analysis found that the presence of liver metastases was associated with increased risk of progression during CDK4/6I withdrawal (odds ratio, 5.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-26.41).

There was also a trend toward greater likelihood of disease progression when the withdrawal period was 2 or more months (OR, 2.38), but the finding was not statistically significant. Although the study looked at treatment interruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors noted that the findings likely apply to other reasons for interruption, such as analgesic radiotherapy or programmed surgery.

Although the study authors advise against stopping CDK4/6i inhibitors, another small study conducted at a single German center suggested that treatment interruption might be an option in patients with stable disease. The authors examined elective CDK4/6i discontinuation among 22 patients with advanced, hormone receptor–positive, HER-2-negative breast cancer who had stable disease for at least 6 months with treatment regimens of CDK4/6i plus aromatase inhibitors or fulvestrant. After discontinuation of CDK4/6i but maintenance of endocrine therapy, 13 patients had stable disease, 8 had a partial response, and 1 had a complete response. After withdrawal, 5 patients had a local relapse and 1 experienced systemic progression. The patients restabilized with chemotherapy or retreatment with CDK4/6i.

“Discontinuation of CDK4/6 inhibitors seems to be safe in selected patients with metastatic HR-positive HER-2-negative breast cancer and prolonged disease control,” the authors wrote, although they noted that the results need to be backed up with prospective clinical trials.

Both studies had small sample sizes and were retrospective in nature.

One author on the COVID-19 study has received consulting fees from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Daïchi, Seagen, and AstraZeneca. Authors of the German study have received honoraria from Iomedico, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Sanofi, and BMS.

Interruption of 4-6 cyclin D-dependent kinase inhibitors (CDK4/6i) was associated with a high rate of progression among women with metastatic breast cancer, particularly those with liver metastases. The treatment interruptions occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, out of concern that myelosuppression from the drugs might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, and that other side effects might be confused with symptoms of COVID-19 infection.

The finding comes from a multicenter study presented by Sophie Martin, PhD, at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. Dr. Martin is a researcher at ICANS Institut de cancérologie Strasbourg Europe. The patient population had a complete or partial response, or stable disease complete for at least 6 months.

Although CDK4/6i combined with endocrine therapy has led to significant improvements in outcomes among metastatic HR-positive, HER-2-negative patients, the treatment can lead to chronic toxicities that may affect quality of life.

In its 2020 guidance on management of cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Society for Medical Oncology noted that cancer patients are at higher risk of severe symptoms and worse outcomes. However, it points out that there is no direct evidence that neutropenia caused CDK4/6i or poly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymer inhibitors leads to an increase risk of COVID-19 infection.

The American Society for Clinical Oncology guidance for managing treatment of cancer patients in the context of COVID-19 also says there is little direct evidence to guide practice regarding therapies that may lead to immunosuppression. Therefore, the society recommends against changing or withholding those drugs. “The balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection is very uncertain,” the authors wrote.

There were 60 patients in the study, and the median age was 64 years. The average interruption period was 8 weeks. Twenty-two patients (37%) experienced radiological and/or clinical disease progression. Sixteen of the 22 (73%) restarted on CDK4/6I, while the remaining 4 patients initiated chemotherapy or targeted therapy. Two patients died during CDK4/6i treatment interruption. A univariate analysis found that the presence of liver metastases was associated with increased risk of progression during CDK4/6I withdrawal (odds ratio, 5.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-26.41).

There was also a trend toward greater likelihood of disease progression when the withdrawal period was 2 or more months (OR, 2.38), but the finding was not statistically significant. Although the study looked at treatment interruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors noted that the findings likely apply to other reasons for interruption, such as analgesic radiotherapy or programmed surgery.

Although the study authors advise against stopping CDK4/6i inhibitors, another small study conducted at a single German center suggested that treatment interruption might be an option in patients with stable disease. The authors examined elective CDK4/6i discontinuation among 22 patients with advanced, hormone receptor–positive, HER-2-negative breast cancer who had stable disease for at least 6 months with treatment regimens of CDK4/6i plus aromatase inhibitors or fulvestrant. After discontinuation of CDK4/6i but maintenance of endocrine therapy, 13 patients had stable disease, 8 had a partial response, and 1 had a complete response. After withdrawal, 5 patients had a local relapse and 1 experienced systemic progression. The patients restabilized with chemotherapy or retreatment with CDK4/6i.

“Discontinuation of CDK4/6 inhibitors seems to be safe in selected patients with metastatic HR-positive HER-2-negative breast cancer and prolonged disease control,” the authors wrote, although they noted that the results need to be backed up with prospective clinical trials.

Both studies had small sample sizes and were retrospective in nature.

One author on the COVID-19 study has received consulting fees from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Daïchi, Seagen, and AstraZeneca. Authors of the German study have received honoraria from Iomedico, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Sanofi, and BMS.

Interruption of 4-6 cyclin D-dependent kinase inhibitors (CDK4/6i) was associated with a high rate of progression among women with metastatic breast cancer, particularly those with liver metastases. The treatment interruptions occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, out of concern that myelosuppression from the drugs might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, and that other side effects might be confused with symptoms of COVID-19 infection.

The finding comes from a multicenter study presented by Sophie Martin, PhD, at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. Dr. Martin is a researcher at ICANS Institut de cancérologie Strasbourg Europe. The patient population had a complete or partial response, or stable disease complete for at least 6 months.

Although CDK4/6i combined with endocrine therapy has led to significant improvements in outcomes among metastatic HR-positive, HER-2-negative patients, the treatment can lead to chronic toxicities that may affect quality of life.

In its 2020 guidance on management of cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Society for Medical Oncology noted that cancer patients are at higher risk of severe symptoms and worse outcomes. However, it points out that there is no direct evidence that neutropenia caused CDK4/6i or poly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymer inhibitors leads to an increase risk of COVID-19 infection.

The American Society for Clinical Oncology guidance for managing treatment of cancer patients in the context of COVID-19 also says there is little direct evidence to guide practice regarding therapies that may lead to immunosuppression. Therefore, the society recommends against changing or withholding those drugs. “The balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection is very uncertain,” the authors wrote.

There were 60 patients in the study, and the median age was 64 years. The average interruption period was 8 weeks. Twenty-two patients (37%) experienced radiological and/or clinical disease progression. Sixteen of the 22 (73%) restarted on CDK4/6I, while the remaining 4 patients initiated chemotherapy or targeted therapy. Two patients died during CDK4/6i treatment interruption. A univariate analysis found that the presence of liver metastases was associated with increased risk of progression during CDK4/6I withdrawal (odds ratio, 5.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-26.41).

There was also a trend toward greater likelihood of disease progression when the withdrawal period was 2 or more months (OR, 2.38), but the finding was not statistically significant. Although the study looked at treatment interruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors noted that the findings likely apply to other reasons for interruption, such as analgesic radiotherapy or programmed surgery.

Although the study authors advise against stopping CDK4/6i inhibitors, another small study conducted at a single German center suggested that treatment interruption might be an option in patients with stable disease. The authors examined elective CDK4/6i discontinuation among 22 patients with advanced, hormone receptor–positive, HER-2-negative breast cancer who had stable disease for at least 6 months with treatment regimens of CDK4/6i plus aromatase inhibitors or fulvestrant. After discontinuation of CDK4/6i but maintenance of endocrine therapy, 13 patients had stable disease, 8 had a partial response, and 1 had a complete response. After withdrawal, 5 patients had a local relapse and 1 experienced systemic progression. The patients restabilized with chemotherapy or retreatment with CDK4/6i.

“Discontinuation of CDK4/6 inhibitors seems to be safe in selected patients with metastatic HR-positive HER-2-negative breast cancer and prolonged disease control,” the authors wrote, although they noted that the results need to be backed up with prospective clinical trials.

Both studies had small sample sizes and were retrospective in nature.

One author on the COVID-19 study has received consulting fees from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Daïchi, Seagen, and AstraZeneca. Authors of the German study have received honoraria from Iomedico, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Sanofi, and BMS.

As compared with standard of care, an investigational oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) demonstrated a 30% lower risk of death or disease progression in women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Findings from the phase 3 EMERALD trial, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed that the effects of elacestrant (Menarini and Radius Health) were even more pronounced in women with ESR1 mutations. Women in the elacestrant arm had a 45% reduced risk of death or disease progression in comparison with those who received standard of care.

This new agent is the “first oral SERD to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement of progression-free survival in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the second- and third-line settings,” said lead author Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at Mass General Cancer Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “Clinically, elacestrant has the potential to become the new standard of care in the study population.”

Endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors remain the mainstay for the management of ER-positive/HER2 metastatic breast cancer. However, most patients will eventually develop resistance to these agents, often caused by the development of ESR1 mutations.

At the current time, fulvestrant is the only SERD available on the U.S. market, which means there is an urgent unmet need for new, effective SERDs in this setting, especially for patients harboring ESR1 mutations, Dr. Bardia explained.

In an early phase 1 trial, Dr. Bardia and his team evaluated elacestrant for safety and antitumor activity and found it had an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated single-agent activity with confirmed partial responses in heavily pretreated patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.

This trial provided the rationale for investigating elacestrant in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Bardia said.

The multicenter, randomized, controlled phase 3 EMERALD trial included 477 postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one line of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients had also progressed on prior treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Patients were randomized to elacestrant 400 mg orally daily (n = 239) or standard of care (investigator’s choice of fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor, n = 238). The cohorts were further stratified by ESR1 mutation status, prior fulvestrant exposure, and presence of visceral disease.

The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in patients with tumors harboring ESR1 mutations and in the entire cohort. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, safety, tolerability, and quality of life.

“This was a positive study as it met both primary endpoints,” said Dr. Bardia.

The team found a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death in the elacestrant arm for all patients (hazard ratio, 0.697; P = .0018) and a 45% (HR, 0.546; P =.0005) reduction in the risk of progression or death among those with ESR1 mutations.

At 12 months, the progression-free survival rate was 22.32% with elacestrant versus 9.42% for those receiving the standard of care. Among the ESR1 mutation group, those rates were slightly more pronounced: 26.76% with elacestrant versus 8.19% with standard of care.

Overall survival data were not yet mature but trended in favor of elacestrant in all patients (HR, 0.751; P = .0821) as well as those with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.592; P = .0325). The final overall survival analysis is expected next year, Dr. Bardia said.

Common treatment-related adverse events with elacestrant versus standard of care included mostly grade 1 or 2 nausea (25.3% vs. 8.7%), vomiting (11% vs. 2.6%), and fatigue (11% vs. 7.9%). The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 7.2% in the elacestrant arm versus 3.1% in the standard of care group and was mainly driven by nausea. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation of elacestrant or standard of care were infrequent in both arms (6.3% and 4.4%, respectively). No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group.

Dr. Bardia added that further studies are planned and assess the efficacy of elacestrant during earlier lines of treatment and in combination with other therapies, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Weighing in on the recent findings, Carlos Arteaga, MD, who was not involved in the research, said this represents an important study evaluating a therapeutic priority.

“The data suggest that [elacestrant] may be a new option, not only as monotherapy but in combination with other therapies,” Dr. Arteaga, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of SABCS, said in an interview.

Coral Omene, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and assistant professor of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, both in New Brunswick, also commented on the importance of the EMERALD results.

“I would think that this is practice changing,” said Dr. Omene, who was also not involved in the research. The new oral SERD “demonstrates a significant advantage in progression-free survival over either fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.”

An oral drug could also potentially save patients from painful injections that can occasionally result in injection-site abscesses from long-term administration, she explained. “It’s also more convenient to take oral pills at home. It saves on transportation and omits waiting in treatment rooms for administrations.”

Although the overall survival data are not yet mature and the rate of adverse events was higher with elacestrant, “progression-free survival is a surrogate endpoint widely used for overall survival and is reasonable to consider a treatment regimen based on this while awaiting mature survival data,” Dr. Omene added. “The increase in nausea and vomiting seen in oral SERD arm is likely manageable, as there were no significant differences in discontinuation in both arms of treatment.”

The study was supported by Radius Health. Dr. Bardia has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Radius Health, Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Immunomedics/Gilead, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Phillips, Eli Lilly, and Foundation Medicine. He has conducted contracted research or received grants from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Natera, and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As compared with standard of care, an investigational oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) demonstrated a 30% lower risk of death or disease progression in women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Findings from the phase 3 EMERALD trial, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed that the effects of elacestrant (Menarini and Radius Health) were even more pronounced in women with ESR1 mutations. Women in the elacestrant arm had a 45% reduced risk of death or disease progression in comparison with those who received standard of care.

This new agent is the “first oral SERD to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement of progression-free survival in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the second- and third-line settings,” said lead author Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at Mass General Cancer Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “Clinically, elacestrant has the potential to become the new standard of care in the study population.”

Endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors remain the mainstay for the management of ER-positive/HER2 metastatic breast cancer. However, most patients will eventually develop resistance to these agents, often caused by the development of ESR1 mutations.

At the current time, fulvestrant is the only SERD available on the U.S. market, which means there is an urgent unmet need for new, effective SERDs in this setting, especially for patients harboring ESR1 mutations, Dr. Bardia explained.

In an early phase 1 trial, Dr. Bardia and his team evaluated elacestrant for safety and antitumor activity and found it had an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated single-agent activity with confirmed partial responses in heavily pretreated patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.

This trial provided the rationale for investigating elacestrant in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Bardia said.

The multicenter, randomized, controlled phase 3 EMERALD trial included 477 postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one line of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients had also progressed on prior treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Patients were randomized to elacestrant 400 mg orally daily (n = 239) or standard of care (investigator’s choice of fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor, n = 238). The cohorts were further stratified by ESR1 mutation status, prior fulvestrant exposure, and presence of visceral disease.

The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in patients with tumors harboring ESR1 mutations and in the entire cohort. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, safety, tolerability, and quality of life.

“This was a positive study as it met both primary endpoints,” said Dr. Bardia.

The team found a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death in the elacestrant arm for all patients (hazard ratio, 0.697; P = .0018) and a 45% (HR, 0.546; P =.0005) reduction in the risk of progression or death among those with ESR1 mutations.

At 12 months, the progression-free survival rate was 22.32% with elacestrant versus 9.42% for those receiving the standard of care. Among the ESR1 mutation group, those rates were slightly more pronounced: 26.76% with elacestrant versus 8.19% with standard of care.

Overall survival data were not yet mature but trended in favor of elacestrant in all patients (HR, 0.751; P = .0821) as well as those with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.592; P = .0325). The final overall survival analysis is expected next year, Dr. Bardia said.

Common treatment-related adverse events with elacestrant versus standard of care included mostly grade 1 or 2 nausea (25.3% vs. 8.7%), vomiting (11% vs. 2.6%), and fatigue (11% vs. 7.9%). The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 7.2% in the elacestrant arm versus 3.1% in the standard of care group and was mainly driven by nausea. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation of elacestrant or standard of care were infrequent in both arms (6.3% and 4.4%, respectively). No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group.

Dr. Bardia added that further studies are planned and assess the efficacy of elacestrant during earlier lines of treatment and in combination with other therapies, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Weighing in on the recent findings, Carlos Arteaga, MD, who was not involved in the research, said this represents an important study evaluating a therapeutic priority.

“The data suggest that [elacestrant] may be a new option, not only as monotherapy but in combination with other therapies,” Dr. Arteaga, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of SABCS, said in an interview.

Coral Omene, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and assistant professor of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, both in New Brunswick, also commented on the importance of the EMERALD results.

“I would think that this is practice changing,” said Dr. Omene, who was also not involved in the research. The new oral SERD “demonstrates a significant advantage in progression-free survival over either fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.”

An oral drug could also potentially save patients from painful injections that can occasionally result in injection-site abscesses from long-term administration, she explained. “It’s also more convenient to take oral pills at home. It saves on transportation and omits waiting in treatment rooms for administrations.”

Although the overall survival data are not yet mature and the rate of adverse events was higher with elacestrant, “progression-free survival is a surrogate endpoint widely used for overall survival and is reasonable to consider a treatment regimen based on this while awaiting mature survival data,” Dr. Omene added. “The increase in nausea and vomiting seen in oral SERD arm is likely manageable, as there were no significant differences in discontinuation in both arms of treatment.”

The study was supported by Radius Health. Dr. Bardia has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Radius Health, Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Immunomedics/Gilead, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Phillips, Eli Lilly, and Foundation Medicine. He has conducted contracted research or received grants from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Natera, and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As compared with standard of care, an investigational oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) demonstrated a 30% lower risk of death or disease progression in women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Findings from the phase 3 EMERALD trial, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed that the effects of elacestrant (Menarini and Radius Health) were even more pronounced in women with ESR1 mutations. Women in the elacestrant arm had a 45% reduced risk of death or disease progression in comparison with those who received standard of care.

This new agent is the “first oral SERD to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement of progression-free survival in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the second- and third-line settings,” said lead author Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at Mass General Cancer Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “Clinically, elacestrant has the potential to become the new standard of care in the study population.”

Endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors remain the mainstay for the management of ER-positive/HER2 metastatic breast cancer. However, most patients will eventually develop resistance to these agents, often caused by the development of ESR1 mutations.

At the current time, fulvestrant is the only SERD available on the U.S. market, which means there is an urgent unmet need for new, effective SERDs in this setting, especially for patients harboring ESR1 mutations, Dr. Bardia explained.

In an early phase 1 trial, Dr. Bardia and his team evaluated elacestrant for safety and antitumor activity and found it had an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated single-agent activity with confirmed partial responses in heavily pretreated patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.

This trial provided the rationale for investigating elacestrant in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Bardia said.

The multicenter, randomized, controlled phase 3 EMERALD trial included 477 postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one line of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients had also progressed on prior treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Patients were randomized to elacestrant 400 mg orally daily (n = 239) or standard of care (investigator’s choice of fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor, n = 238). The cohorts were further stratified by ESR1 mutation status, prior fulvestrant exposure, and presence of visceral disease.

The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in patients with tumors harboring ESR1 mutations and in the entire cohort. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, safety, tolerability, and quality of life.

“This was a positive study as it met both primary endpoints,” said Dr. Bardia.

The team found a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death in the elacestrant arm for all patients (hazard ratio, 0.697; P = .0018) and a 45% (HR, 0.546; P =.0005) reduction in the risk of progression or death among those with ESR1 mutations.

At 12 months, the progression-free survival rate was 22.32% with elacestrant versus 9.42% for those receiving the standard of care. Among the ESR1 mutation group, those rates were slightly more pronounced: 26.76% with elacestrant versus 8.19% with standard of care.

Overall survival data were not yet mature but trended in favor of elacestrant in all patients (HR, 0.751; P = .0821) as well as those with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.592; P = .0325). The final overall survival analysis is expected next year, Dr. Bardia said.

Common treatment-related adverse events with elacestrant versus standard of care included mostly grade 1 or 2 nausea (25.3% vs. 8.7%), vomiting (11% vs. 2.6%), and fatigue (11% vs. 7.9%). The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 7.2% in the elacestrant arm versus 3.1% in the standard of care group and was mainly driven by nausea. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation of elacestrant or standard of care were infrequent in both arms (6.3% and 4.4%, respectively). No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group.

Dr. Bardia added that further studies are planned and assess the efficacy of elacestrant during earlier lines of treatment and in combination with other therapies, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Weighing in on the recent findings, Carlos Arteaga, MD, who was not involved in the research, said this represents an important study evaluating a therapeutic priority.

“The data suggest that [elacestrant] may be a new option, not only as monotherapy but in combination with other therapies,” Dr. Arteaga, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of SABCS, said in an interview.

Coral Omene, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and assistant professor of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, both in New Brunswick, also commented on the importance of the EMERALD results.

“I would think that this is practice changing,” said Dr. Omene, who was also not involved in the research. The new oral SERD “demonstrates a significant advantage in progression-free survival over either fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.”

An oral drug could also potentially save patients from painful injections that can occasionally result in injection-site abscesses from long-term administration, she explained. “It’s also more convenient to take oral pills at home. It saves on transportation and omits waiting in treatment rooms for administrations.”

Although the overall survival data are not yet mature and the rate of adverse events was higher with elacestrant, “progression-free survival is a surrogate endpoint widely used for overall survival and is reasonable to consider a treatment regimen based on this while awaiting mature survival data,” Dr. Omene added. “The increase in nausea and vomiting seen in oral SERD arm is likely manageable, as there were no significant differences in discontinuation in both arms of treatment.”

The study was supported by Radius Health. Dr. Bardia has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Radius Health, Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Immunomedics/Gilead, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Phillips, Eli Lilly, and Foundation Medicine. He has conducted contracted research or received grants from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Natera, and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Black women who undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) as part of their treatment for breast cancer are at much higher risk of developing lymphedema than comparably treated White women, according to a prospective cohort screening study.

“Axillary lymph node dissection remains the main risk factor for the development of lymphedema,” Andrea Barrio, MD, associate attending physician, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said at a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

“We observed a higher incidence of lymphedema in Black women treated with ALND and RT [radiotherapy] after adjustment for other variables,” Dr. Barrio added. “While the etiology for this increased incidence is largely unknown, future studies should address the biologic mechanisms behind racial disparities in lymphedema development.”

Dr. Barrio and colleagues included 276 patients in the analysis – 60% were White, 20% Black, 11% Asian, and 6% Hispanic. The remaining 3% did not report race or ethnicity. Patients’ median age at baseline was 48 years, and the median body mass index was 26.4 kg/m2. Slightly over-two thirds of participants had hormone receptor (HR)–positive/HER2-negative breast cancer.

All patients underwent unilateral ALND. About 70% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and the remainder had upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Ninety-five percent of patients received radiotherapy, and almost all underwent nodal radiotherapy as well.

The median number of lymph nodes removed was 18, and the median number of positive lymph nodes was two. Using a perometer, arm volume was measured at baseline, postoperatively, and every 6 months for a total of 2 years. Lymphedema was defined as a relative increase in arm volume of greater than or equal to 10% from baseline.

At 24 months, almost 25% of the group had lymphedema, but the incidence differed significantly by race and ethnicity. The highest incidence was observed among Black women, at 39.4%, compared to 27.7% of Hispanic women, 23.4% of Asian women, and 20.5% of White women in the study.

The incidence of lymphedema also varied significantly by treatment group. The incidence was twofold greater among women treated with NAC in comparison with those who underwent upfront surgery (30.9% vs. 11.1%), Dr. Barrio noted.

On multivariate analysis, Black race was the strongest predictor of lymphedema. Compared to White women, Black women had a 3.5-fold greater risk of lymphedema. Hispanic women also had a threefold increased risk compared to White women, but Dr. Barrio cautioned that there were only 16 Hispanic patients in the study.

Older age and increasing time from surgery were also both modestly associated with an increased risk of lymphedema. Among women who ultimately developed lymphedema, “severity did not vary across race or ethnicity with similar relative volume changes observed,” Dr. Barrio said.

Given that the study found that NAC was an independent predictor of lymphedema, should alternatives to NAC be favored?

Although oncologists provide NAC for a variety of reasons, women with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease – which represent the majority of patients in the current analysis – are most likely to have residual disease after NAC, Dr. Barrio noted. This suggests that oncologists need to start looking at surgical de-escalation trials in this group of patients to help them avoid ALND.

Asked whether oncologists still underestimate the impact that lymphedema has on patients’ quality of life, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine, UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, said the oncology community has come a long way.

“Any surgeon or medical oncologist will tell you that in the 1960s and 70s, women were having much higher rates of lymphedema than they are now, so this is something that we do recognize and we are a lot more careful about,” she told this news organization.

Surgical techniques are also better now, and the number of lymph nodes that are being removed is much reduced. Nevertheless, when physicians add ALND and radiation to the axilla, “rates of lymphedema go up,” Dr. Kaklamani acknowledged. “We need these women to have physical therapy before they develop lymphedema.”

Dr. Barrio agreed, adding that if oncologists could identify earlier thresholds for lymphedema, before patients develop arm swelling, “we may be able to intervene and see a reduction in its development.”

In the meantime, Dr. Barrio and colleagues are testing the protective value of offering immediate lymphatic reconstruction following ALND versus no reconstruction. In addition, they will be studying banked tissue from Black women to better understand any racial differences in inflammatory responses, the risk of fibrosis, and the reaction to radiotherapy.

“I think we see that inflammation is a key driver of lymphedema development, and so maybe Black women are predisposed to a different inflammatory reaction to treatment or perhaps have higher levels of inflammation at baseline,” Dr. Barrio speculated.

“I think it’s also important to stratify a woman’s risk for lymphedema, and once we can tailor that risk, we can start to identify which patients might benefit from preventative strategies,” she added.

Dr. Barrio has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics and as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seattle Genetics. She has also received research funding from Eisai.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Black women who undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) as part of their treatment for breast cancer are at much higher risk of developing lymphedema than comparably treated White women, according to a prospective cohort screening study.

“Axillary lymph node dissection remains the main risk factor for the development of lymphedema,” Andrea Barrio, MD, associate attending physician, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said at a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

“We observed a higher incidence of lymphedema in Black women treated with ALND and RT [radiotherapy] after adjustment for other variables,” Dr. Barrio added. “While the etiology for this increased incidence is largely unknown, future studies should address the biologic mechanisms behind racial disparities in lymphedema development.”

Dr. Barrio and colleagues included 276 patients in the analysis – 60% were White, 20% Black, 11% Asian, and 6% Hispanic. The remaining 3% did not report race or ethnicity. Patients’ median age at baseline was 48 years, and the median body mass index was 26.4 kg/m2. Slightly over-two thirds of participants had hormone receptor (HR)–positive/HER2-negative breast cancer.

All patients underwent unilateral ALND. About 70% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and the remainder had upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Ninety-five percent of patients received radiotherapy, and almost all underwent nodal radiotherapy as well.

The median number of lymph nodes removed was 18, and the median number of positive lymph nodes was two. Using a perometer, arm volume was measured at baseline, postoperatively, and every 6 months for a total of 2 years. Lymphedema was defined as a relative increase in arm volume of greater than or equal to 10% from baseline.

At 24 months, almost 25% of the group had lymphedema, but the incidence differed significantly by race and ethnicity. The highest incidence was observed among Black women, at 39.4%, compared to 27.7% of Hispanic women, 23.4% of Asian women, and 20.5% of White women in the study.

The incidence of lymphedema also varied significantly by treatment group. The incidence was twofold greater among women treated with NAC in comparison with those who underwent upfront surgery (30.9% vs. 11.1%), Dr. Barrio noted.

On multivariate analysis, Black race was the strongest predictor of lymphedema. Compared to White women, Black women had a 3.5-fold greater risk of lymphedema. Hispanic women also had a threefold increased risk compared to White women, but Dr. Barrio cautioned that there were only 16 Hispanic patients in the study.

Older age and increasing time from surgery were also both modestly associated with an increased risk of lymphedema. Among women who ultimately developed lymphedema, “severity did not vary across race or ethnicity with similar relative volume changes observed,” Dr. Barrio said.

Given that the study found that NAC was an independent predictor of lymphedema, should alternatives to NAC be favored?

Although oncologists provide NAC for a variety of reasons, women with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease – which represent the majority of patients in the current analysis – are most likely to have residual disease after NAC, Dr. Barrio noted. This suggests that oncologists need to start looking at surgical de-escalation trials in this group of patients to help them avoid ALND.

Asked whether oncologists still underestimate the impact that lymphedema has on patients’ quality of life, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine, UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, said the oncology community has come a long way.

“Any surgeon or medical oncologist will tell you that in the 1960s and 70s, women were having much higher rates of lymphedema than they are now, so this is something that we do recognize and we are a lot more careful about,” she told this news organization.

Surgical techniques are also better now, and the number of lymph nodes that are being removed is much reduced. Nevertheless, when physicians add ALND and radiation to the axilla, “rates of lymphedema go up,” Dr. Kaklamani acknowledged. “We need these women to have physical therapy before they develop lymphedema.”

Dr. Barrio agreed, adding that if oncologists could identify earlier thresholds for lymphedema, before patients develop arm swelling, “we may be able to intervene and see a reduction in its development.”

In the meantime, Dr. Barrio and colleagues are testing the protective value of offering immediate lymphatic reconstruction following ALND versus no reconstruction. In addition, they will be studying banked tissue from Black women to better understand any racial differences in inflammatory responses, the risk of fibrosis, and the reaction to radiotherapy.

“I think we see that inflammation is a key driver of lymphedema development, and so maybe Black women are predisposed to a different inflammatory reaction to treatment or perhaps have higher levels of inflammation at baseline,” Dr. Barrio speculated.

“I think it’s also important to stratify a woman’s risk for lymphedema, and once we can tailor that risk, we can start to identify which patients might benefit from preventative strategies,” she added.

Dr. Barrio has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics and as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seattle Genetics. She has also received research funding from Eisai.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Black women who undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) as part of their treatment for breast cancer are at much higher risk of developing lymphedema than comparably treated White women, according to a prospective cohort screening study.

“Axillary lymph node dissection remains the main risk factor for the development of lymphedema,” Andrea Barrio, MD, associate attending physician, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said at a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

“We observed a higher incidence of lymphedema in Black women treated with ALND and RT [radiotherapy] after adjustment for other variables,” Dr. Barrio added. “While the etiology for this increased incidence is largely unknown, future studies should address the biologic mechanisms behind racial disparities in lymphedema development.”

Dr. Barrio and colleagues included 276 patients in the analysis – 60% were White, 20% Black, 11% Asian, and 6% Hispanic. The remaining 3% did not report race or ethnicity. Patients’ median age at baseline was 48 years, and the median body mass index was 26.4 kg/m2. Slightly over-two thirds of participants had hormone receptor (HR)–positive/HER2-negative breast cancer.

All patients underwent unilateral ALND. About 70% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and the remainder had upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Ninety-five percent of patients received radiotherapy, and almost all underwent nodal radiotherapy as well.

The median number of lymph nodes removed was 18, and the median number of positive lymph nodes was two. Using a perometer, arm volume was measured at baseline, postoperatively, and every 6 months for a total of 2 years. Lymphedema was defined as a relative increase in arm volume of greater than or equal to 10% from baseline.

At 24 months, almost 25% of the group had lymphedema, but the incidence differed significantly by race and ethnicity. The highest incidence was observed among Black women, at 39.4%, compared to 27.7% of Hispanic women, 23.4% of Asian women, and 20.5% of White women in the study.

The incidence of lymphedema also varied significantly by treatment group. The incidence was twofold greater among women treated with NAC in comparison with those who underwent upfront surgery (30.9% vs. 11.1%), Dr. Barrio noted.

On multivariate analysis, Black race was the strongest predictor of lymphedema. Compared to White women, Black women had a 3.5-fold greater risk of lymphedema. Hispanic women also had a threefold increased risk compared to White women, but Dr. Barrio cautioned that there were only 16 Hispanic patients in the study.

Older age and increasing time from surgery were also both modestly associated with an increased risk of lymphedema. Among women who ultimately developed lymphedema, “severity did not vary across race or ethnicity with similar relative volume changes observed,” Dr. Barrio said.

Given that the study found that NAC was an independent predictor of lymphedema, should alternatives to NAC be favored?

Although oncologists provide NAC for a variety of reasons, women with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease – which represent the majority of patients in the current analysis – are most likely to have residual disease after NAC, Dr. Barrio noted. This suggests that oncologists need to start looking at surgical de-escalation trials in this group of patients to help them avoid ALND.

Asked whether oncologists still underestimate the impact that lymphedema has on patients’ quality of life, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine, UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, said the oncology community has come a long way.

“Any surgeon or medical oncologist will tell you that in the 1960s and 70s, women were having much higher rates of lymphedema than they are now, so this is something that we do recognize and we are a lot more careful about,” she told this news organization.

Surgical techniques are also better now, and the number of lymph nodes that are being removed is much reduced. Nevertheless, when physicians add ALND and radiation to the axilla, “rates of lymphedema go up,” Dr. Kaklamani acknowledged. “We need these women to have physical therapy before they develop lymphedema.”

Dr. Barrio agreed, adding that if oncologists could identify earlier thresholds for lymphedema, before patients develop arm swelling, “we may be able to intervene and see a reduction in its development.”

In the meantime, Dr. Barrio and colleagues are testing the protective value of offering immediate lymphatic reconstruction following ALND versus no reconstruction. In addition, they will be studying banked tissue from Black women to better understand any racial differences in inflammatory responses, the risk of fibrosis, and the reaction to radiotherapy.

“I think we see that inflammation is a key driver of lymphedema development, and so maybe Black women are predisposed to a different inflammatory reaction to treatment or perhaps have higher levels of inflammation at baseline,” Dr. Barrio speculated.

“I think it’s also important to stratify a woman’s risk for lymphedema, and once we can tailor that risk, we can start to identify which patients might benefit from preventative strategies,” she added.

Dr. Barrio has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics and as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seattle Genetics. She has also received research funding from Eisai.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The surgical resection rates of the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer has declined in recent years, possibly reflecting changes in practice following randomized, controlled trials that have not consistently shown a survival benefit.

Retrospective studies have suggested a possible benefit to resection, according to Sasha Douglas, MD, who presented the study (abstract PD7-06) at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “Intuitively, you would think that you would want to get the primary tumor out even if it’s metastasized, so that it couldn’t metastasize more,” said Dr. Douglas, who is a surgical resident at the University of California, San Diego.

However, clinical trials have yielded mixed results, and the picture is complicated by the various molecular subtypes of breast cancer, metastatic sites, and other factors. “Different studies, whether it’s retrospective, and a really large database that has lots of numbers of patients, can give you a different answer than a smaller prospective randomized, controlled study in a different cohort of patients. So, we just thought it would be really interesting to look at all the trends over time at Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals. Do they seem to be following what the latest literature is showing?” Dr. Douglas said in an interview.

The researchers used data from 87,331 cases from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and examined rates of primary surgery as well as palliative care in women with metastatic breast cancer who had responded well to systemic therapy.

Between 2004 and 2009, the frequency of primary tumor resection remained near 35% (with a peak of 37% in 2009), then began a steady descent to 18% by 2017. The researchers found similar trends in estrogen receptor–positive/progesterone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (ER/PR+HERer2–); HER2-positive; and triple-negative subtypes.

In 2004, 48% of patients received only systemic therapy, while 37% received some combination of surgery and radiation to the primary tumor. By 2019, 69% received only systemic therapy and 20% received locoregional therapy (P < .001). “It seems that surgeons and providers and medical oncologists are becoming more selective about who they’re going to offer surgery to, and I think that’s very appropriate,” said Dr. Douglas.

But another finding suggests room for improvement: Just 21% of patients received palliative care. “I think that everybody with a major systemic illness like this would benefit from palliative care, just on a supportive basis. The palliative care team can really help people with quality of life, but I think it still has that stigma, and I think that’s what we’ve seen from our study,” said Dr. Douglas.

“We’re just postulating, [but] a lot of that could be from the stigma of thinking that palliative care means giving up. It doesn’t necessarily mean that. It means you’re dealing with a difficult chronic illness, and [palliative care] can be very, very helpful for patients,” said Dr. Douglas.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, and palliative care might be underreported in the NCDB.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Douglas has no financial disclosures.

The surgical resection rates of the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer has declined in recent years, possibly reflecting changes in practice following randomized, controlled trials that have not consistently shown a survival benefit.

Retrospective studies have suggested a possible benefit to resection, according to Sasha Douglas, MD, who presented the study (abstract PD7-06) at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “Intuitively, you would think that you would want to get the primary tumor out even if it’s metastasized, so that it couldn’t metastasize more,” said Dr. Douglas, who is a surgical resident at the University of California, San Diego.

However, clinical trials have yielded mixed results, and the picture is complicated by the various molecular subtypes of breast cancer, metastatic sites, and other factors. “Different studies, whether it’s retrospective, and a really large database that has lots of numbers of patients, can give you a different answer than a smaller prospective randomized, controlled study in a different cohort of patients. So, we just thought it would be really interesting to look at all the trends over time at Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals. Do they seem to be following what the latest literature is showing?” Dr. Douglas said in an interview.

The researchers used data from 87,331 cases from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and examined rates of primary surgery as well as palliative care in women with metastatic breast cancer who had responded well to systemic therapy.

Between 2004 and 2009, the frequency of primary tumor resection remained near 35% (with a peak of 37% in 2009), then began a steady descent to 18% by 2017. The researchers found similar trends in estrogen receptor–positive/progesterone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (ER/PR+HERer2–); HER2-positive; and triple-negative subtypes.

In 2004, 48% of patients received only systemic therapy, while 37% received some combination of surgery and radiation to the primary tumor. By 2019, 69% received only systemic therapy and 20% received locoregional therapy (P < .001). “It seems that surgeons and providers and medical oncologists are becoming more selective about who they’re going to offer surgery to, and I think that’s very appropriate,” said Dr. Douglas.

But another finding suggests room for improvement: Just 21% of patients received palliative care. “I think that everybody with a major systemic illness like this would benefit from palliative care, just on a supportive basis. The palliative care team can really help people with quality of life, but I think it still has that stigma, and I think that’s what we’ve seen from our study,” said Dr. Douglas.

“We’re just postulating, [but] a lot of that could be from the stigma of thinking that palliative care means giving up. It doesn’t necessarily mean that. It means you’re dealing with a difficult chronic illness, and [palliative care] can be very, very helpful for patients,” said Dr. Douglas.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, and palliative care might be underreported in the NCDB.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Douglas has no financial disclosures.

The surgical resection rates of the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer has declined in recent years, possibly reflecting changes in practice following randomized, controlled trials that have not consistently shown a survival benefit.

Retrospective studies have suggested a possible benefit to resection, according to Sasha Douglas, MD, who presented the study (abstract PD7-06) at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “Intuitively, you would think that you would want to get the primary tumor out even if it’s metastasized, so that it couldn’t metastasize more,” said Dr. Douglas, who is a surgical resident at the University of California, San Diego.

However, clinical trials have yielded mixed results, and the picture is complicated by the various molecular subtypes of breast cancer, metastatic sites, and other factors. “Different studies, whether it’s retrospective, and a really large database that has lots of numbers of patients, can give you a different answer than a smaller prospective randomized, controlled study in a different cohort of patients. So, we just thought it would be really interesting to look at all the trends over time at Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals. Do they seem to be following what the latest literature is showing?” Dr. Douglas said in an interview.

The researchers used data from 87,331 cases from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and examined rates of primary surgery as well as palliative care in women with metastatic breast cancer who had responded well to systemic therapy.

Between 2004 and 2009, the frequency of primary tumor resection remained near 35% (with a peak of 37% in 2009), then began a steady descent to 18% by 2017. The researchers found similar trends in estrogen receptor–positive/progesterone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (ER/PR+HERer2–); HER2-positive; and triple-negative subtypes.

In 2004, 48% of patients received only systemic therapy, while 37% received some combination of surgery and radiation to the primary tumor. By 2019, 69% received only systemic therapy and 20% received locoregional therapy (P < .001). “It seems that surgeons and providers and medical oncologists are becoming more selective about who they’re going to offer surgery to, and I think that’s very appropriate,” said Dr. Douglas.

But another finding suggests room for improvement: Just 21% of patients received palliative care. “I think that everybody with a major systemic illness like this would benefit from palliative care, just on a supportive basis. The palliative care team can really help people with quality of life, but I think it still has that stigma, and I think that’s what we’ve seen from our study,” said Dr. Douglas.

“We’re just postulating, [but] a lot of that could be from the stigma of thinking that palliative care means giving up. It doesn’t necessarily mean that. It means you’re dealing with a difficult chronic illness, and [palliative care] can be very, very helpful for patients,” said Dr. Douglas.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, and palliative care might be underreported in the NCDB.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Douglas has no financial disclosures.