Metastatic Breast Cancer

Results of the KEYNOTE-522 clinical trial highlight the importance of neoadjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab for improving survival in patients with early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

The findings were presented in Chicago June 4 and 5 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology by study author Lajos Pusztai, MD, D.Phil, director of Breast Cancer Translational Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

KEYNOTE-522 is the first prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab for early-stage TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.

The study included 1,174 patients (median age 49 years) with previously untreated stage II or III triple-negative breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant therapy with four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel and carboplatin, followed by four cycles of pembrolizumab or placebo plus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide. After surgery, patients received pembrolizumab or placebeo for 9 cycles or until recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end points were pathological complete response and event-free survival.

A total of 784 patients were treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, and the second group of 390 patients received a placebo and chemotherapy. After surgery, patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group) or placebo and chemotherapy for every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles.

The estimated event-free survival at 36 months was 84.5% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, compared with 76.8% in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.82; P <0.001). Adverse events occurred predominantly during the neoadjuvant phase and were consistent with the established safety profiles of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy.

At the first interim analysis, 64.8% achieved pathological complete response in the pembrolizumab group versus 51.2% in the placebo group. At the fourth interim analysis at 36 months, event-free survival was 76.8% in the placebo arm and 84.5% in the pembrolizumab arm. RCB-0 status was achieved by 63.4% and 56.2% of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively.

Pembrolizumab did contribute immune-related adverse events, mostly grades 1-2, in about 17% of patients with thyroid function abnormalities most common with most occurring 20 weeks prior to surgical treatment.

Treatment with pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, shifted residual cancer burden to lower categories across the entire spectrum of patients in the trial.

The hazard ratio for event-free survival with RCB-0, which Dr. Pusztai said is equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR), was 0.70 (0.38-1.31). For RCB-1 (minimal residual disease) it was 0.92 (0.39-2.20); for RCB-2 (moderate residual disease) it was 0.52 (0.32-0.82); and for RCB-3 (extensive residual disease) it was 1.24 (0.69-2.23).

“The most important finding is that patients in RCB-2, a group with a moderate amount of residual disease, experienced significant improvement with pembrolizumab. This clearly indicates not only that pembrolizumab leads to higher pCR rates but also that the pembrolizumCR/RCB-0 ... extends to patients who do not achieve pCR,” Dr. Pusztai said.

The benefit, he suggested, could be a result of the adjuvant pembrolizumab maintenance phase.

Patients in the RCB-3 category do poorly regardless of treatment (EFS of 34.6 % and 26.2% in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively).

“The RCB-3 population represents an unmet medical need, and they will need better drugs, and additional postoperative adjuvant therapy,” Dr. Pusztai said. The current standard of care is capecitabine for 6-8 cycles. Emerging new therapies, such as antibody drug conjugates, will be tested, he said.

In terms of limitations, adjuvant capecitabine was not allowed. “It remains uncertain how much better the RCB-2 and -3 patient outcomes would have been if capecitabine were administered,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Pusztai has received consulting fees and honoraria from Merck.

Results of the KEYNOTE-522 clinical trial highlight the importance of neoadjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab for improving survival in patients with early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

The findings were presented in Chicago June 4 and 5 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology by study author Lajos Pusztai, MD, D.Phil, director of Breast Cancer Translational Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

KEYNOTE-522 is the first prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab for early-stage TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.

The study included 1,174 patients (median age 49 years) with previously untreated stage II or III triple-negative breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant therapy with four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel and carboplatin, followed by four cycles of pembrolizumab or placebo plus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide. After surgery, patients received pembrolizumab or placebeo for 9 cycles or until recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end points were pathological complete response and event-free survival.

A total of 784 patients were treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, and the second group of 390 patients received a placebo and chemotherapy. After surgery, patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group) or placebo and chemotherapy for every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles.

The estimated event-free survival at 36 months was 84.5% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, compared with 76.8% in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.82; P <0.001). Adverse events occurred predominantly during the neoadjuvant phase and were consistent with the established safety profiles of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy.

At the first interim analysis, 64.8% achieved pathological complete response in the pembrolizumab group versus 51.2% in the placebo group. At the fourth interim analysis at 36 months, event-free survival was 76.8% in the placebo arm and 84.5% in the pembrolizumab arm. RCB-0 status was achieved by 63.4% and 56.2% of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively.

Pembrolizumab did contribute immune-related adverse events, mostly grades 1-2, in about 17% of patients with thyroid function abnormalities most common with most occurring 20 weeks prior to surgical treatment.

Treatment with pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, shifted residual cancer burden to lower categories across the entire spectrum of patients in the trial.

The hazard ratio for event-free survival with RCB-0, which Dr. Pusztai said is equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR), was 0.70 (0.38-1.31). For RCB-1 (minimal residual disease) it was 0.92 (0.39-2.20); for RCB-2 (moderate residual disease) it was 0.52 (0.32-0.82); and for RCB-3 (extensive residual disease) it was 1.24 (0.69-2.23).

“The most important finding is that patients in RCB-2, a group with a moderate amount of residual disease, experienced significant improvement with pembrolizumab. This clearly indicates not only that pembrolizumab leads to higher pCR rates but also that the pembrolizumCR/RCB-0 ... extends to patients who do not achieve pCR,” Dr. Pusztai said.

The benefit, he suggested, could be a result of the adjuvant pembrolizumab maintenance phase.

Patients in the RCB-3 category do poorly regardless of treatment (EFS of 34.6 % and 26.2% in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively).

“The RCB-3 population represents an unmet medical need, and they will need better drugs, and additional postoperative adjuvant therapy,” Dr. Pusztai said. The current standard of care is capecitabine for 6-8 cycles. Emerging new therapies, such as antibody drug conjugates, will be tested, he said.

In terms of limitations, adjuvant capecitabine was not allowed. “It remains uncertain how much better the RCB-2 and -3 patient outcomes would have been if capecitabine were administered,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Pusztai has received consulting fees and honoraria from Merck.

Results of the KEYNOTE-522 clinical trial highlight the importance of neoadjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab for improving survival in patients with early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

The findings were presented in Chicago June 4 and 5 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology by study author Lajos Pusztai, MD, D.Phil, director of Breast Cancer Translational Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

KEYNOTE-522 is the first prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab for early-stage TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.

The study included 1,174 patients (median age 49 years) with previously untreated stage II or III triple-negative breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant therapy with four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel and carboplatin, followed by four cycles of pembrolizumab or placebo plus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide. After surgery, patients received pembrolizumab or placebeo for 9 cycles or until recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end points were pathological complete response and event-free survival.

A total of 784 patients were treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, and the second group of 390 patients received a placebo and chemotherapy. After surgery, patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group) or placebo and chemotherapy for every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles.

The estimated event-free survival at 36 months was 84.5% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, compared with 76.8% in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.82; P <0.001). Adverse events occurred predominantly during the neoadjuvant phase and were consistent with the established safety profiles of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy.

At the first interim analysis, 64.8% achieved pathological complete response in the pembrolizumab group versus 51.2% in the placebo group. At the fourth interim analysis at 36 months, event-free survival was 76.8% in the placebo arm and 84.5% in the pembrolizumab arm. RCB-0 status was achieved by 63.4% and 56.2% of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively.

Pembrolizumab did contribute immune-related adverse events, mostly grades 1-2, in about 17% of patients with thyroid function abnormalities most common with most occurring 20 weeks prior to surgical treatment.

Treatment with pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, shifted residual cancer burden to lower categories across the entire spectrum of patients in the trial.

The hazard ratio for event-free survival with RCB-0, which Dr. Pusztai said is equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR), was 0.70 (0.38-1.31). For RCB-1 (minimal residual disease) it was 0.92 (0.39-2.20); for RCB-2 (moderate residual disease) it was 0.52 (0.32-0.82); and for RCB-3 (extensive residual disease) it was 1.24 (0.69-2.23).

“The most important finding is that patients in RCB-2, a group with a moderate amount of residual disease, experienced significant improvement with pembrolizumab. This clearly indicates not only that pembrolizumab leads to higher pCR rates but also that the pembrolizumCR/RCB-0 ... extends to patients who do not achieve pCR,” Dr. Pusztai said.

The benefit, he suggested, could be a result of the adjuvant pembrolizumab maintenance phase.

Patients in the RCB-3 category do poorly regardless of treatment (EFS of 34.6 % and 26.2% in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively).

“The RCB-3 population represents an unmet medical need, and they will need better drugs, and additional postoperative adjuvant therapy,” Dr. Pusztai said. The current standard of care is capecitabine for 6-8 cycles. Emerging new therapies, such as antibody drug conjugates, will be tested, he said.

In terms of limitations, adjuvant capecitabine was not allowed. “It remains uncertain how much better the RCB-2 and -3 patient outcomes would have been if capecitabine were administered,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Pusztai has received consulting fees and honoraria from Merck.

CHICAGO -- Breast cancer patients with low levels of HER2 expression, previously considered untreatable with HER2-targeted therapies, benefited from the anti-HER2 antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The therapy doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) and low levels of HER2.

“Overall, these results establish HER2 low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” said Shanu Modi, MD, during a press conference held in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

“I think the results of this trial clearly will be practice changing,” said ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, during the press conference. “I think what this trial does is really extend the benefits of this agent to a whole new group of patients that traditionally is really quite difficult to treat. I think this will offer a wonderful new option for patients and also will really fundamentally change the way we think about HER2 status and how we classify this in our metastatic patients,” Dr. Meisel added.

The conjugate includes the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab and the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan, which interferes with DNA replication. Trastuzumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with high levels of HER2 expression, and trastuzumab-deruxtecan received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer in patients who had previously received an anti-HER2 regimen.

However, anti-HER2 agents had not been shown to benefit HER2-low patients, defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+. About 60% of breast cancer patients traditionally thought of HER2 negative could be classified as HER2 low, according to Dr. Modi, who is a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Asked why she thought trastuzumab deruxtecan succeeded where other anti-HER2 therapies failed in this population, Dr. Modi highlighted the nature of the drug conjugate, including a high drug payload and the use of a topoisomerase inhibitor, which is rarely employed against breast cancer. Once released from the antibody, the drug retains its ability to cross cell membranes and enter the tumor microenvironment. That ‘knock on’ effect might allow it to reach neighboring cells that don’t express HER2. “We know HER2 expression is very heterogeneous. I think that’s why, for the first time, we’re seeing activity for a targeted agent,” Dr. Modi said.

The DESTINY-Breast04 study included 557 patients in Asia, Europe, and North America with HR-negative or HR-positive, HER2-low, unresectable, and/or metastatic breast cancer. Patients were randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of several standard chemotherapy drugs. After a median follow-up of 18.4 months, compared with the chemotherapy group, patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm had a 49% reduction in risk of progression and a 36% reduction in mortality. The group also had longer progression-free survival (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months) and overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months).

Although adverse events were similar between the two groups (52.6% in trastuzumab deruxtecan, 67.4% in chemotherapy), lung toxicity occurred in 12% of the group, and there were 3 fatalities as a result (0.8%). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis has been linked to trastuzumab treatment in the past, with one meta-analysis finding a frequency of 2.4% and fatality rate of 0.2%.

Additional studies are in progress to determine the minimum threshold of HER2 expression needed to gain a benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi has advised, consulted for, or received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO -- Breast cancer patients with low levels of HER2 expression, previously considered untreatable with HER2-targeted therapies, benefited from the anti-HER2 antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The therapy doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) and low levels of HER2.

“Overall, these results establish HER2 low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” said Shanu Modi, MD, during a press conference held in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

“I think the results of this trial clearly will be practice changing,” said ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, during the press conference. “I think what this trial does is really extend the benefits of this agent to a whole new group of patients that traditionally is really quite difficult to treat. I think this will offer a wonderful new option for patients and also will really fundamentally change the way we think about HER2 status and how we classify this in our metastatic patients,” Dr. Meisel added.

The conjugate includes the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab and the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan, which interferes with DNA replication. Trastuzumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with high levels of HER2 expression, and trastuzumab-deruxtecan received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer in patients who had previously received an anti-HER2 regimen.

However, anti-HER2 agents had not been shown to benefit HER2-low patients, defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+. About 60% of breast cancer patients traditionally thought of HER2 negative could be classified as HER2 low, according to Dr. Modi, who is a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Asked why she thought trastuzumab deruxtecan succeeded where other anti-HER2 therapies failed in this population, Dr. Modi highlighted the nature of the drug conjugate, including a high drug payload and the use of a topoisomerase inhibitor, which is rarely employed against breast cancer. Once released from the antibody, the drug retains its ability to cross cell membranes and enter the tumor microenvironment. That ‘knock on’ effect might allow it to reach neighboring cells that don’t express HER2. “We know HER2 expression is very heterogeneous. I think that’s why, for the first time, we’re seeing activity for a targeted agent,” Dr. Modi said.

The DESTINY-Breast04 study included 557 patients in Asia, Europe, and North America with HR-negative or HR-positive, HER2-low, unresectable, and/or metastatic breast cancer. Patients were randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of several standard chemotherapy drugs. After a median follow-up of 18.4 months, compared with the chemotherapy group, patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm had a 49% reduction in risk of progression and a 36% reduction in mortality. The group also had longer progression-free survival (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months) and overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months).

Although adverse events were similar between the two groups (52.6% in trastuzumab deruxtecan, 67.4% in chemotherapy), lung toxicity occurred in 12% of the group, and there were 3 fatalities as a result (0.8%). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis has been linked to trastuzumab treatment in the past, with one meta-analysis finding a frequency of 2.4% and fatality rate of 0.2%.

Additional studies are in progress to determine the minimum threshold of HER2 expression needed to gain a benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi has advised, consulted for, or received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO -- Breast cancer patients with low levels of HER2 expression, previously considered untreatable with HER2-targeted therapies, benefited from the anti-HER2 antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The therapy doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) and low levels of HER2.

“Overall, these results establish HER2 low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” said Shanu Modi, MD, during a press conference held in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

“I think the results of this trial clearly will be practice changing,” said ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, during the press conference. “I think what this trial does is really extend the benefits of this agent to a whole new group of patients that traditionally is really quite difficult to treat. I think this will offer a wonderful new option for patients and also will really fundamentally change the way we think about HER2 status and how we classify this in our metastatic patients,” Dr. Meisel added.

The conjugate includes the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab and the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan, which interferes with DNA replication. Trastuzumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with high levels of HER2 expression, and trastuzumab-deruxtecan received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer in patients who had previously received an anti-HER2 regimen.

However, anti-HER2 agents had not been shown to benefit HER2-low patients, defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+. About 60% of breast cancer patients traditionally thought of HER2 negative could be classified as HER2 low, according to Dr. Modi, who is a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Asked why she thought trastuzumab deruxtecan succeeded where other anti-HER2 therapies failed in this population, Dr. Modi highlighted the nature of the drug conjugate, including a high drug payload and the use of a topoisomerase inhibitor, which is rarely employed against breast cancer. Once released from the antibody, the drug retains its ability to cross cell membranes and enter the tumor microenvironment. That ‘knock on’ effect might allow it to reach neighboring cells that don’t express HER2. “We know HER2 expression is very heterogeneous. I think that’s why, for the first time, we’re seeing activity for a targeted agent,” Dr. Modi said.

The DESTINY-Breast04 study included 557 patients in Asia, Europe, and North America with HR-negative or HR-positive, HER2-low, unresectable, and/or metastatic breast cancer. Patients were randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of several standard chemotherapy drugs. After a median follow-up of 18.4 months, compared with the chemotherapy group, patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm had a 49% reduction in risk of progression and a 36% reduction in mortality. The group also had longer progression-free survival (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months) and overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months).

Although adverse events were similar between the two groups (52.6% in trastuzumab deruxtecan, 67.4% in chemotherapy), lung toxicity occurred in 12% of the group, and there were 3 fatalities as a result (0.8%). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis has been linked to trastuzumab treatment in the past, with one meta-analysis finding a frequency of 2.4% and fatality rate of 0.2%.

Additional studies are in progress to determine the minimum threshold of HER2 expression needed to gain a benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi has advised, consulted for, or received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO -- An antibody drug conjugate that targets a cell-surface antigen found on most breast and bladder cancers demonstrated improved progression-free survival over standard chemotherapy in patients with endocrine-resistant hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer.

The agent, called sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead), was approved on an accelerated basis in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. It received regular approval in 2021.

The conjugate includes an antibody that targets the Trop-2 protein. The antibody is bound to govitecan, which is the active metabolite of the topoisomerase inhibitor 1 irinotecan.

“Sacituzumab demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful benefit, compared with chemotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated endocrine resistant hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer and should be considered a potential treatment in this heavily pretreated patient population,” said lead author Hope S. Rugo, MD, during a press conference held June 4 in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Rugo is director of Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education at the University of California, San Francisco comprehensive cancer center.

The results drew praise from ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, since patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer who become resistant to endocrine therapy are left with only sequential, single-agent chemotherapy. “We’ve all been eagerly awaiting the results of this trial. These estrogen positive endocrine negative resistant patients really are an area of great unmet clinical need, and their cancers can be very difficult to treat,” Dr. Meisel said during the press conference.

Approximately, 74% of all breast cancers are HR positive/HER2 negative. And, of these, 92% of patients live beyond five years, according to the American Cancer Society.

The study found a relatively small 1.5 months difference in median progression-free survival, but the results are nevertheless clinically important, especially given that 21% of patients were progression-free at one year, compared with 7% in the chemotherapy arm. “When you look at the patients who do respond on sacituzumab govitecan, it seems that they tend to respond better and longer. The idea that someone with such heavily pretreated disease could walk into your clinic and you could offer them an option that would allow them a one in five chance of still not having progressed at one year is really huge from a clinical standpoint,” Dr. Meisel said.

“This is what we need, incremental options that may be different or better than chemotherapy, so I think this really represents a step forward for the field,” he said.

Two other antibody-drug conjugates that are FDA approved for HER2-positive breast cancer include ado-trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla, Genentech) and fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo). This new wave of therapies is exciting, according to Julie Gralow, MD, who is chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO. “I think this way of delivering chemotherapy inside the cancer cell by having an antibody directed to something on the cell surface and then internalization is really, really very interesting,” Dr. Gralow said during the press conference.

The study included 543 patients from 113 international centers who had previously received endocrine therapy, CDK4/6 inhibitors, and at least two previous regimens of chemotherapy. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.5 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group and 4.0 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.66; P <.001). PFS was more frequent at 6 months (46% vs. 30%) and 12 months (21% vs. 7%). There was no significant improvement in overall survival (13.9 months vs. 12.3 months). The sacituzumab govitecan group had higher rates of overall response (21% vs. 14%) and clinical benefit (34% vs. 22%), as well as a longer median duration of response (7.4 vs. 5.6 months).

Adverse events were more common with sacituzumab govitecan (74% vs. 60%), including low white blood cell counts (51% vs. 39%) and diarrhea (10% vs. 1%). Both groups had low rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (6% in sacituzumab govitecan vs. 4% in chemotherapy).

Dr. Rugo has received honoraria from Puma Biotechnology and Samsung Bioepis, has consulted for Napo Pharmaceuticals, and has received funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and Total Health Conferencing. She has advised or consulted for AstraZeneca, Curio Science, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and SeaGen. She has received research funding from Pfizer and Seattle Genetics. She has received travel, accommodation, or expenses from Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, and Total Health Conferencing.

CHICAGO -- An antibody drug conjugate that targets a cell-surface antigen found on most breast and bladder cancers demonstrated improved progression-free survival over standard chemotherapy in patients with endocrine-resistant hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer.

The agent, called sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead), was approved on an accelerated basis in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. It received regular approval in 2021.

The conjugate includes an antibody that targets the Trop-2 protein. The antibody is bound to govitecan, which is the active metabolite of the topoisomerase inhibitor 1 irinotecan.

“Sacituzumab demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful benefit, compared with chemotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated endocrine resistant hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer and should be considered a potential treatment in this heavily pretreated patient population,” said lead author Hope S. Rugo, MD, during a press conference held June 4 in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Rugo is director of Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education at the University of California, San Francisco comprehensive cancer center.

The results drew praise from ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, since patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer who become resistant to endocrine therapy are left with only sequential, single-agent chemotherapy. “We’ve all been eagerly awaiting the results of this trial. These estrogen positive endocrine negative resistant patients really are an area of great unmet clinical need, and their cancers can be very difficult to treat,” Dr. Meisel said during the press conference.

Approximately, 74% of all breast cancers are HR positive/HER2 negative. And, of these, 92% of patients live beyond five years, according to the American Cancer Society.

The study found a relatively small 1.5 months difference in median progression-free survival, but the results are nevertheless clinically important, especially given that 21% of patients were progression-free at one year, compared with 7% in the chemotherapy arm. “When you look at the patients who do respond on sacituzumab govitecan, it seems that they tend to respond better and longer. The idea that someone with such heavily pretreated disease could walk into your clinic and you could offer them an option that would allow them a one in five chance of still not having progressed at one year is really huge from a clinical standpoint,” Dr. Meisel said.

“This is what we need, incremental options that may be different or better than chemotherapy, so I think this really represents a step forward for the field,” he said.

Two other antibody-drug conjugates that are FDA approved for HER2-positive breast cancer include ado-trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla, Genentech) and fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo). This new wave of therapies is exciting, according to Julie Gralow, MD, who is chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO. “I think this way of delivering chemotherapy inside the cancer cell by having an antibody directed to something on the cell surface and then internalization is really, really very interesting,” Dr. Gralow said during the press conference.

The study included 543 patients from 113 international centers who had previously received endocrine therapy, CDK4/6 inhibitors, and at least two previous regimens of chemotherapy. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.5 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group and 4.0 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.66; P <.001). PFS was more frequent at 6 months (46% vs. 30%) and 12 months (21% vs. 7%). There was no significant improvement in overall survival (13.9 months vs. 12.3 months). The sacituzumab govitecan group had higher rates of overall response (21% vs. 14%) and clinical benefit (34% vs. 22%), as well as a longer median duration of response (7.4 vs. 5.6 months).

Adverse events were more common with sacituzumab govitecan (74% vs. 60%), including low white blood cell counts (51% vs. 39%) and diarrhea (10% vs. 1%). Both groups had low rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (6% in sacituzumab govitecan vs. 4% in chemotherapy).

Dr. Rugo has received honoraria from Puma Biotechnology and Samsung Bioepis, has consulted for Napo Pharmaceuticals, and has received funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and Total Health Conferencing. She has advised or consulted for AstraZeneca, Curio Science, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and SeaGen. She has received research funding from Pfizer and Seattle Genetics. She has received travel, accommodation, or expenses from Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, and Total Health Conferencing.

CHICAGO -- An antibody drug conjugate that targets a cell-surface antigen found on most breast and bladder cancers demonstrated improved progression-free survival over standard chemotherapy in patients with endocrine-resistant hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer.

The agent, called sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead), was approved on an accelerated basis in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. It received regular approval in 2021.

The conjugate includes an antibody that targets the Trop-2 protein. The antibody is bound to govitecan, which is the active metabolite of the topoisomerase inhibitor 1 irinotecan.

“Sacituzumab demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful benefit, compared with chemotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated endocrine resistant hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer and should be considered a potential treatment in this heavily pretreated patient population,” said lead author Hope S. Rugo, MD, during a press conference held June 4 in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Rugo is director of Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education at the University of California, San Francisco comprehensive cancer center.

The results drew praise from ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, since patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer who become resistant to endocrine therapy are left with only sequential, single-agent chemotherapy. “We’ve all been eagerly awaiting the results of this trial. These estrogen positive endocrine negative resistant patients really are an area of great unmet clinical need, and their cancers can be very difficult to treat,” Dr. Meisel said during the press conference.

Approximately, 74% of all breast cancers are HR positive/HER2 negative. And, of these, 92% of patients live beyond five years, according to the American Cancer Society.

The study found a relatively small 1.5 months difference in median progression-free survival, but the results are nevertheless clinically important, especially given that 21% of patients were progression-free at one year, compared with 7% in the chemotherapy arm. “When you look at the patients who do respond on sacituzumab govitecan, it seems that they tend to respond better and longer. The idea that someone with such heavily pretreated disease could walk into your clinic and you could offer them an option that would allow them a one in five chance of still not having progressed at one year is really huge from a clinical standpoint,” Dr. Meisel said.

“This is what we need, incremental options that may be different or better than chemotherapy, so I think this really represents a step forward for the field,” he said.

Two other antibody-drug conjugates that are FDA approved for HER2-positive breast cancer include ado-trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla, Genentech) and fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo). This new wave of therapies is exciting, according to Julie Gralow, MD, who is chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO. “I think this way of delivering chemotherapy inside the cancer cell by having an antibody directed to something on the cell surface and then internalization is really, really very interesting,” Dr. Gralow said during the press conference.

The study included 543 patients from 113 international centers who had previously received endocrine therapy, CDK4/6 inhibitors, and at least two previous regimens of chemotherapy. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.5 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group and 4.0 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.66; P <.001). PFS was more frequent at 6 months (46% vs. 30%) and 12 months (21% vs. 7%). There was no significant improvement in overall survival (13.9 months vs. 12.3 months). The sacituzumab govitecan group had higher rates of overall response (21% vs. 14%) and clinical benefit (34% vs. 22%), as well as a longer median duration of response (7.4 vs. 5.6 months).

Adverse events were more common with sacituzumab govitecan (74% vs. 60%), including low white blood cell counts (51% vs. 39%) and diarrhea (10% vs. 1%). Both groups had low rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (6% in sacituzumab govitecan vs. 4% in chemotherapy).

Dr. Rugo has received honoraria from Puma Biotechnology and Samsung Bioepis, has consulted for Napo Pharmaceuticals, and has received funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and Total Health Conferencing. She has advised or consulted for AstraZeneca, Curio Science, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and SeaGen. She has received research funding from Pfizer and Seattle Genetics. She has received travel, accommodation, or expenses from Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, and Total Health Conferencing.

CHICAGO -- Circulating tumor DNA successfully identified minimal residual disease in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence – generally years before metastases occurs. The findings come from the CHiRP study, which included patients who were at least 5 years post diagnosis.

The researchers and other groups previously showed that minimal residual disease (MRD) status is associated with distant-recurrence free survival, “yet little is known about ctDNA in the late adjuvant setting in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer,” said Marla Lipsyc-Sharf, MD, a clinical fellow in medicine at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf presented her findings June 4 in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was simultaneously published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Plasma samples were collected at follow-up visits every 6-12 months, and a personalized version of the RaDaR assay was used to detect ctDNA associated with MRD. Although the technology is currently only useful for research, the team hopes it can soon provide clinical guidance. “The CHiRP study is an important first step toward an understanding of the baseline prevalence and role of ctDNA in this setting. Multiple prospective clinical trials are underway or beginning to establish the clinical utility of ctDNA assays in this setting and understand whether intervention after MRD detection improves patient outcomes, such as survival or quality of life,” she said.

Ben Ho Park, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., described the findings as encouraging.

“I think most of us saw this very striking data that you could actually predict who’s going to recur and that all patients who did recur were ctDNA positive. The numbers are really, indeed very encouraging that we can develop assays now that detect minimal residual disease with serum monitoring. It really opens up the floodgates for designing studies [to determine] who to treat with additional adjuvant therapies while they’re still in the adjuvant phase of breast cancer therapy,” Dr. Park said during a discussion that followed the presentation.

The study included 83 patients with high-risk HR+ breast cancer and no evidence of recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis. High risk was defined as T3/T4 and/or N2/N3 disease; T1/N1 disease with 3 or more lymph nodes involved; or T2N1 disease with Ki67 ≥ 20%, grade 3, or oncotype DX score ≥ 26.

For each patient, clinicians designed a tumor-informed liquid biopsy assay to detect plasma ctDNA. A total of 68.7% of participants had stage 3 disease. A total of 90.4% received curative-intent chemotherapy, and all received endocrine therapy. A total of 47% remained on endocrine therapy at their last follow-up.

A total of 93.2% of patients who completed adjuvant endocrine therapy had at least 5 years of treatment. A median of 8.4 years elapsed between diagnosis and first ctDNA sample, and the median follow-up was 10.4 years from diagnosis and 1.8 years from the first sample.

A total of 5% of patients had MRD when they entered the study, and 10% were found to have MRD at any time. Of 6 patients (7.2%) who experienced a metastatic recurrence, all were MRD+, and ctDNA evidence appeared as soon as 37.6 months before diagnosis (median 12.4 months). Of eight patients who were MRD+ at some point, two of them had not had a recurrence at the latest follow-up, and one patient had no follow-up at all, and the other had a follow-up 15.4 months after ctDNA detection.

Limitations of the study included a limited follow-up period and low rate of recurrence, as well as infrequent plasma sampling.

Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Park has financial relationships and/or has received funding from Celcuity, Loxo, Casdin Capital, EQRx, Guardant Health, Hologic, Horizon Discovery, Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, GE Healthcare, Lilly, Pfizer, Horizon Discovery, and Tempus.

CHICAGO -- Circulating tumor DNA successfully identified minimal residual disease in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence – generally years before metastases occurs. The findings come from the CHiRP study, which included patients who were at least 5 years post diagnosis.

The researchers and other groups previously showed that minimal residual disease (MRD) status is associated with distant-recurrence free survival, “yet little is known about ctDNA in the late adjuvant setting in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer,” said Marla Lipsyc-Sharf, MD, a clinical fellow in medicine at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf presented her findings June 4 in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was simultaneously published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Plasma samples were collected at follow-up visits every 6-12 months, and a personalized version of the RaDaR assay was used to detect ctDNA associated with MRD. Although the technology is currently only useful for research, the team hopes it can soon provide clinical guidance. “The CHiRP study is an important first step toward an understanding of the baseline prevalence and role of ctDNA in this setting. Multiple prospective clinical trials are underway or beginning to establish the clinical utility of ctDNA assays in this setting and understand whether intervention after MRD detection improves patient outcomes, such as survival or quality of life,” she said.

Ben Ho Park, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., described the findings as encouraging.

“I think most of us saw this very striking data that you could actually predict who’s going to recur and that all patients who did recur were ctDNA positive. The numbers are really, indeed very encouraging that we can develop assays now that detect minimal residual disease with serum monitoring. It really opens up the floodgates for designing studies [to determine] who to treat with additional adjuvant therapies while they’re still in the adjuvant phase of breast cancer therapy,” Dr. Park said during a discussion that followed the presentation.

The study included 83 patients with high-risk HR+ breast cancer and no evidence of recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis. High risk was defined as T3/T4 and/or N2/N3 disease; T1/N1 disease with 3 or more lymph nodes involved; or T2N1 disease with Ki67 ≥ 20%, grade 3, or oncotype DX score ≥ 26.

For each patient, clinicians designed a tumor-informed liquid biopsy assay to detect plasma ctDNA. A total of 68.7% of participants had stage 3 disease. A total of 90.4% received curative-intent chemotherapy, and all received endocrine therapy. A total of 47% remained on endocrine therapy at their last follow-up.

A total of 93.2% of patients who completed adjuvant endocrine therapy had at least 5 years of treatment. A median of 8.4 years elapsed between diagnosis and first ctDNA sample, and the median follow-up was 10.4 years from diagnosis and 1.8 years from the first sample.

A total of 5% of patients had MRD when they entered the study, and 10% were found to have MRD at any time. Of 6 patients (7.2%) who experienced a metastatic recurrence, all were MRD+, and ctDNA evidence appeared as soon as 37.6 months before diagnosis (median 12.4 months). Of eight patients who were MRD+ at some point, two of them had not had a recurrence at the latest follow-up, and one patient had no follow-up at all, and the other had a follow-up 15.4 months after ctDNA detection.

Limitations of the study included a limited follow-up period and low rate of recurrence, as well as infrequent plasma sampling.

Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Park has financial relationships and/or has received funding from Celcuity, Loxo, Casdin Capital, EQRx, Guardant Health, Hologic, Horizon Discovery, Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, GE Healthcare, Lilly, Pfizer, Horizon Discovery, and Tempus.

CHICAGO -- Circulating tumor DNA successfully identified minimal residual disease in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence – generally years before metastases occurs. The findings come from the CHiRP study, which included patients who were at least 5 years post diagnosis.

The researchers and other groups previously showed that minimal residual disease (MRD) status is associated with distant-recurrence free survival, “yet little is known about ctDNA in the late adjuvant setting in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer,” said Marla Lipsyc-Sharf, MD, a clinical fellow in medicine at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf presented her findings June 4 in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was simultaneously published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Plasma samples were collected at follow-up visits every 6-12 months, and a personalized version of the RaDaR assay was used to detect ctDNA associated with MRD. Although the technology is currently only useful for research, the team hopes it can soon provide clinical guidance. “The CHiRP study is an important first step toward an understanding of the baseline prevalence and role of ctDNA in this setting. Multiple prospective clinical trials are underway or beginning to establish the clinical utility of ctDNA assays in this setting and understand whether intervention after MRD detection improves patient outcomes, such as survival or quality of life,” she said.

Ben Ho Park, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., described the findings as encouraging.

“I think most of us saw this very striking data that you could actually predict who’s going to recur and that all patients who did recur were ctDNA positive. The numbers are really, indeed very encouraging that we can develop assays now that detect minimal residual disease with serum monitoring. It really opens up the floodgates for designing studies [to determine] who to treat with additional adjuvant therapies while they’re still in the adjuvant phase of breast cancer therapy,” Dr. Park said during a discussion that followed the presentation.

The study included 83 patients with high-risk HR+ breast cancer and no evidence of recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis. High risk was defined as T3/T4 and/or N2/N3 disease; T1/N1 disease with 3 or more lymph nodes involved; or T2N1 disease with Ki67 ≥ 20%, grade 3, or oncotype DX score ≥ 26.

For each patient, clinicians designed a tumor-informed liquid biopsy assay to detect plasma ctDNA. A total of 68.7% of participants had stage 3 disease. A total of 90.4% received curative-intent chemotherapy, and all received endocrine therapy. A total of 47% remained on endocrine therapy at their last follow-up.

A total of 93.2% of patients who completed adjuvant endocrine therapy had at least 5 years of treatment. A median of 8.4 years elapsed between diagnosis and first ctDNA sample, and the median follow-up was 10.4 years from diagnosis and 1.8 years from the first sample.

A total of 5% of patients had MRD when they entered the study, and 10% were found to have MRD at any time. Of 6 patients (7.2%) who experienced a metastatic recurrence, all were MRD+, and ctDNA evidence appeared as soon as 37.6 months before diagnosis (median 12.4 months). Of eight patients who were MRD+ at some point, two of them had not had a recurrence at the latest follow-up, and one patient had no follow-up at all, and the other had a follow-up 15.4 months after ctDNA detection.

Limitations of the study included a limited follow-up period and low rate of recurrence, as well as infrequent plasma sampling.

Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Park has financial relationships and/or has received funding from Celcuity, Loxo, Casdin Capital, EQRx, Guardant Health, Hologic, Horizon Discovery, Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, GE Healthcare, Lilly, Pfizer, Horizon Discovery, and Tempus.

Results from a new phase IIb, 2x2 randomized, open-label trial (GeparSEPTO) showed no improvement in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates when the RANKL inhibitor denosumab was added to anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of primary breast cancer. The study found that a weekly anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy led to improved pCR compared to an every 3-week schedule both overall and in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), though it was associated with greater toxicity.

“Currently, I do not see a place for antiosteolytic agents as part of the neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer,” said lead author Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, who is a breast cancer researcher at Goethe (Germany) University. The researchers can’t exclude the possibility of a long-term benefit, and patients will be followed for disease-free and overall survival.

The disappointing result comes after previous studies of denosumab or bisphosphonates as additions to adjuvant therapy reduced metastases and increased survival in breast cancer, prompting optimism that the agents might improve pCR rates and improve survival rates in the neoadjuvant setting.

The failure may be because of the shorter treatment duration, and it’s possible that pCR is not the best endpoint to study for a drug that has long-acting potential, according to Dr. Loibl.

Patients were randomized to 120 mg denosumab every 4 weeks for six cycles or to receive no supplementary treatment. Patients with or without denosumab either received nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m² weekly for 12 weeks or on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, over four cycles (eight total doses), then epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, 90/600 mg/m² (every 2 and 3 weeks, respectively). Patients with triple-negative breast cancer also received carboplatin. Patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer received the trastuzumab biosimilar ABP980 plus pertuzumab.

The study included 780 patients (1 male), with a median age of 49.0 years. There was no difference in pCR among denosumab recipients and nonrecipients (41.0% versus 42.8%; P = .58). Weekly nab-paclitaxel led to a higher pCR rate than a schedule of days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (44.9% versus 39.0%; P = .06, significance level of alpha = .10). Among subgroups, there was only a difference in pCR rates among those with TNBC (60.4% versus 50.0%; P = .06). Grade 3-4 toxic effects were similar regardless of denosumab exposure, but nonhematologic grade 3-4 toxicity was higher with weekly nab-paclitaxel (33.7% versus 24.1%; P = .004).

“The overall pCR difference (with nab-paclitaxel as neoadjuvant chemotherapy) seems small, but looking at the data from the GeparSEPTO study we would expect a transformation into a better invasive disease-free survival. Looking specifically into patients with TNBC, there is clear pCR increase by using the weekly regimen. With just over 60%, this is the highest pCR rate reported so far for a chemotherapy-only regimen. I would prefer to use nab-paclitaxel also in early breast cancer and would use the weekly regimen for women with TNBC who are at high risk,” Dr. Loibl said.

The study was limited by an imbalance of tumor subtypes between the treatment groups. The authors wrote that the results should guide further research, but nab-paclitaxel should not currently be viewed as a standard neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer.

The study was funded by the German Breast Group, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Amgen. Dr. Loibl has served on the advisory boards or given lectures for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Celgene, EirGenix, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Puma, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Prime/Medscape, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Ipsen, Roche, and Samsung. She also holds a related patent.

Results from a new phase IIb, 2x2 randomized, open-label trial (GeparSEPTO) showed no improvement in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates when the RANKL inhibitor denosumab was added to anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of primary breast cancer. The study found that a weekly anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy led to improved pCR compared to an every 3-week schedule both overall and in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), though it was associated with greater toxicity.

“Currently, I do not see a place for antiosteolytic agents as part of the neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer,” said lead author Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, who is a breast cancer researcher at Goethe (Germany) University. The researchers can’t exclude the possibility of a long-term benefit, and patients will be followed for disease-free and overall survival.

The disappointing result comes after previous studies of denosumab or bisphosphonates as additions to adjuvant therapy reduced metastases and increased survival in breast cancer, prompting optimism that the agents might improve pCR rates and improve survival rates in the neoadjuvant setting.

The failure may be because of the shorter treatment duration, and it’s possible that pCR is not the best endpoint to study for a drug that has long-acting potential, according to Dr. Loibl.

Patients were randomized to 120 mg denosumab every 4 weeks for six cycles or to receive no supplementary treatment. Patients with or without denosumab either received nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m² weekly for 12 weeks or on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, over four cycles (eight total doses), then epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, 90/600 mg/m² (every 2 and 3 weeks, respectively). Patients with triple-negative breast cancer also received carboplatin. Patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer received the trastuzumab biosimilar ABP980 plus pertuzumab.

The study included 780 patients (1 male), with a median age of 49.0 years. There was no difference in pCR among denosumab recipients and nonrecipients (41.0% versus 42.8%; P = .58). Weekly nab-paclitaxel led to a higher pCR rate than a schedule of days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (44.9% versus 39.0%; P = .06, significance level of alpha = .10). Among subgroups, there was only a difference in pCR rates among those with TNBC (60.4% versus 50.0%; P = .06). Grade 3-4 toxic effects were similar regardless of denosumab exposure, but nonhematologic grade 3-4 toxicity was higher with weekly nab-paclitaxel (33.7% versus 24.1%; P = .004).

“The overall pCR difference (with nab-paclitaxel as neoadjuvant chemotherapy) seems small, but looking at the data from the GeparSEPTO study we would expect a transformation into a better invasive disease-free survival. Looking specifically into patients with TNBC, there is clear pCR increase by using the weekly regimen. With just over 60%, this is the highest pCR rate reported so far for a chemotherapy-only regimen. I would prefer to use nab-paclitaxel also in early breast cancer and would use the weekly regimen for women with TNBC who are at high risk,” Dr. Loibl said.

The study was limited by an imbalance of tumor subtypes between the treatment groups. The authors wrote that the results should guide further research, but nab-paclitaxel should not currently be viewed as a standard neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer.

The study was funded by the German Breast Group, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Amgen. Dr. Loibl has served on the advisory boards or given lectures for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Celgene, EirGenix, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Puma, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Prime/Medscape, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Ipsen, Roche, and Samsung. She also holds a related patent.

Results from a new phase IIb, 2x2 randomized, open-label trial (GeparSEPTO) showed no improvement in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates when the RANKL inhibitor denosumab was added to anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of primary breast cancer. The study found that a weekly anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy led to improved pCR compared to an every 3-week schedule both overall and in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), though it was associated with greater toxicity.

“Currently, I do not see a place for antiosteolytic agents as part of the neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer,” said lead author Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, who is a breast cancer researcher at Goethe (Germany) University. The researchers can’t exclude the possibility of a long-term benefit, and patients will be followed for disease-free and overall survival.

The disappointing result comes after previous studies of denosumab or bisphosphonates as additions to adjuvant therapy reduced metastases and increased survival in breast cancer, prompting optimism that the agents might improve pCR rates and improve survival rates in the neoadjuvant setting.

The failure may be because of the shorter treatment duration, and it’s possible that pCR is not the best endpoint to study for a drug that has long-acting potential, according to Dr. Loibl.

Patients were randomized to 120 mg denosumab every 4 weeks for six cycles or to receive no supplementary treatment. Patients with or without denosumab either received nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m² weekly for 12 weeks or on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, over four cycles (eight total doses), then epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, 90/600 mg/m² (every 2 and 3 weeks, respectively). Patients with triple-negative breast cancer also received carboplatin. Patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer received the trastuzumab biosimilar ABP980 plus pertuzumab.

The study included 780 patients (1 male), with a median age of 49.0 years. There was no difference in pCR among denosumab recipients and nonrecipients (41.0% versus 42.8%; P = .58). Weekly nab-paclitaxel led to a higher pCR rate than a schedule of days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (44.9% versus 39.0%; P = .06, significance level of alpha = .10). Among subgroups, there was only a difference in pCR rates among those with TNBC (60.4% versus 50.0%; P = .06). Grade 3-4 toxic effects were similar regardless of denosumab exposure, but nonhematologic grade 3-4 toxicity was higher with weekly nab-paclitaxel (33.7% versus 24.1%; P = .004).

“The overall pCR difference (with nab-paclitaxel as neoadjuvant chemotherapy) seems small, but looking at the data from the GeparSEPTO study we would expect a transformation into a better invasive disease-free survival. Looking specifically into patients with TNBC, there is clear pCR increase by using the weekly regimen. With just over 60%, this is the highest pCR rate reported so far for a chemotherapy-only regimen. I would prefer to use nab-paclitaxel also in early breast cancer and would use the weekly regimen for women with TNBC who are at high risk,” Dr. Loibl said.

The study was limited by an imbalance of tumor subtypes between the treatment groups. The authors wrote that the results should guide further research, but nab-paclitaxel should not currently be viewed as a standard neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer.

The study was funded by the German Breast Group, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Amgen. Dr. Loibl has served on the advisory boards or given lectures for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Celgene, EirGenix, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Puma, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Prime/Medscape, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Ipsen, Roche, and Samsung. She also holds a related patent.

Learning that a family member has cancer can be devastating enough. Waiting to find out whether a loved one can afford their treatment takes the concern to another level.

That was the case for health policy expert Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, when her mother was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.

“There is this period where you are waiting to learn more about the cancer type and treatment options, and, of course, what might be covered by your health plan,” Dr. Dusetzina, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “Knowing as much as I do about coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare Part D, I was worried we would be in a situation where my mom had to spend over $15,000 out-of-pocket every year for one of these drugs.”

That $15,000 would have taken a large chunk of her retirement income and could make treatment unaffordable down the line.

This situation is hardly unique.

Many patients with cancer who rely on Medicare Part D face an impossible choice: “Your money or your life,” Dr. Dusetzina said.

In a recent perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Dusetzina detailed how subtle variations in people’s cancer type can have major implications for their out-of-pocket drug costs.

The difference in cost comes down to whether drugs are delivered as pills or infusions. Oral agents are almost always covered under a health plan’s pharmacy benefit (Medicare Part D), while physician-administered drugs are covered under the medical benefit (Medicare Part B).

According to Dr. Dusetzina, Medicare beneficiaries can face substantial, possibly “unlimited,” out-of-pocket costs for drugs covered under Part D if they don’t qualify for low-income subsidies. On the other hand, most beneficiaries receiving physician-administered drugs covered under Part B have supplemental coverage, which reduces or eliminates out-of-pocket costs.

Dr. Dusetzina broke down the expected first fill and yearly out-of-pocket costs associated with 10 oral cancer drugs covered under Part D. These costs ranged from $3,100 to $3,392 for a first fill and $10,592 to $14,067 for one year.

In a candid Twitter thread, Dr. Dusetzina opened up more about the issues highlighted in her piece: “This paper is about #PartD and Cancer. It is also about #pharmacoequity ... This is about how screwed you are if you need cancer treatment and your treatment happens to be covered by #PartD and not #PartB.”

“This is ARBITRARY and INEQUITABLE,” she added.

What’s “arbitrary,” Dr. Dusetzina explains, is that a rather small, chance distinction in cancer type or subtype can be the difference between affording and not affording treatment – and potentially between life and death.

Take the drug costs for two similar patients with breast cancer.

Patient A has hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer and thus would likely receive first-line therapy with two oral agents: an aromatase inhibitor and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, most often palbociclib (Ibrance).

For palbociclib alone, out-of-pocket costs would come to $3,100 for the first fill and nearly $10,600 over a year for a Part D beneficiary who doesn’t qualify for low-income subsidies.

Now take patient B who has HER2–positive metastatic breast cancer. This person would likely receive first-line treatment with trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and a taxane – a combination covered under Part B, which would be subject to an out-of-pocket cap or covered with limited or no cost sharing.

This difference in cancer subtype leaves some patients “paying substantially more for their cancer treatment than others, despite the same goal of extending or improving their lives,” Dr. Dusetzina writes.

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

Learning that a family member has cancer can be devastating enough. Waiting to find out whether a loved one can afford their treatment takes the concern to another level.

That was the case for health policy expert Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, when her mother was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.

“There is this period where you are waiting to learn more about the cancer type and treatment options, and, of course, what might be covered by your health plan,” Dr. Dusetzina, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “Knowing as much as I do about coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare Part D, I was worried we would be in a situation where my mom had to spend over $15,000 out-of-pocket every year for one of these drugs.”

That $15,000 would have taken a large chunk of her retirement income and could make treatment unaffordable down the line.

This situation is hardly unique.

Many patients with cancer who rely on Medicare Part D face an impossible choice: “Your money or your life,” Dr. Dusetzina said.

In a recent perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Dusetzina detailed how subtle variations in people’s cancer type can have major implications for their out-of-pocket drug costs.

The difference in cost comes down to whether drugs are delivered as pills or infusions. Oral agents are almost always covered under a health plan’s pharmacy benefit (Medicare Part D), while physician-administered drugs are covered under the medical benefit (Medicare Part B).

According to Dr. Dusetzina, Medicare beneficiaries can face substantial, possibly “unlimited,” out-of-pocket costs for drugs covered under Part D if they don’t qualify for low-income subsidies. On the other hand, most beneficiaries receiving physician-administered drugs covered under Part B have supplemental coverage, which reduces or eliminates out-of-pocket costs.

Dr. Dusetzina broke down the expected first fill and yearly out-of-pocket costs associated with 10 oral cancer drugs covered under Part D. These costs ranged from $3,100 to $3,392 for a first fill and $10,592 to $14,067 for one year.

In a candid Twitter thread, Dr. Dusetzina opened up more about the issues highlighted in her piece: “This paper is about #PartD and Cancer. It is also about #pharmacoequity ... This is about how screwed you are if you need cancer treatment and your treatment happens to be covered by #PartD and not #PartB.”

“This is ARBITRARY and INEQUITABLE,” she added.

What’s “arbitrary,” Dr. Dusetzina explains, is that a rather small, chance distinction in cancer type or subtype can be the difference between affording and not affording treatment – and potentially between life and death.

Take the drug costs for two similar patients with breast cancer.

Patient A has hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer and thus would likely receive first-line therapy with two oral agents: an aromatase inhibitor and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, most often palbociclib (Ibrance).

For palbociclib alone, out-of-pocket costs would come to $3,100 for the first fill and nearly $10,600 over a year for a Part D beneficiary who doesn’t qualify for low-income subsidies.

Now take patient B who has HER2–positive metastatic breast cancer. This person would likely receive first-line treatment with trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and a taxane – a combination covered under Part B, which would be subject to an out-of-pocket cap or covered with limited or no cost sharing.

This difference in cancer subtype leaves some patients “paying substantially more for their cancer treatment than others, despite the same goal of extending or improving their lives,” Dr. Dusetzina writes.

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

Learning that a family member has cancer can be devastating enough. Waiting to find out whether a loved one can afford their treatment takes the concern to another level.

That was the case for health policy expert Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, when her mother was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.

“There is this period where you are waiting to learn more about the cancer type and treatment options, and, of course, what might be covered by your health plan,” Dr. Dusetzina, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “Knowing as much as I do about coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare Part D, I was worried we would be in a situation where my mom had to spend over $15,000 out-of-pocket every year for one of these drugs.”

That $15,000 would have taken a large chunk of her retirement income and could make treatment unaffordable down the line.

This situation is hardly unique.

Many patients with cancer who rely on Medicare Part D face an impossible choice: “Your money or your life,” Dr. Dusetzina said.

In a recent perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Dusetzina detailed how subtle variations in people’s cancer type can have major implications for their out-of-pocket drug costs.

The difference in cost comes down to whether drugs are delivered as pills or infusions. Oral agents are almost always covered under a health plan’s pharmacy benefit (Medicare Part D), while physician-administered drugs are covered under the medical benefit (Medicare Part B).

According to Dr. Dusetzina, Medicare beneficiaries can face substantial, possibly “unlimited,” out-of-pocket costs for drugs covered under Part D if they don’t qualify for low-income subsidies. On the other hand, most beneficiaries receiving physician-administered drugs covered under Part B have supplemental coverage, which reduces or eliminates out-of-pocket costs.

Dr. Dusetzina broke down the expected first fill and yearly out-of-pocket costs associated with 10 oral cancer drugs covered under Part D. These costs ranged from $3,100 to $3,392 for a first fill and $10,592 to $14,067 for one year.

In a candid Twitter thread, Dr. Dusetzina opened up more about the issues highlighted in her piece: “This paper is about #PartD and Cancer. It is also about #pharmacoequity ... This is about how screwed you are if you need cancer treatment and your treatment happens to be covered by #PartD and not #PartB.”

“This is ARBITRARY and INEQUITABLE,” she added.

What’s “arbitrary,” Dr. Dusetzina explains, is that a rather small, chance distinction in cancer type or subtype can be the difference between affording and not affording treatment – and potentially between life and death.

Take the drug costs for two similar patients with breast cancer.

Patient A has hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer and thus would likely receive first-line therapy with two oral agents: an aromatase inhibitor and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, most often palbociclib (Ibrance).

For palbociclib alone, out-of-pocket costs would come to $3,100 for the first fill and nearly $10,600 over a year for a Part D beneficiary who doesn’t qualify for low-income subsidies.

Now take patient B who has HER2–positive metastatic breast cancer. This person would likely receive first-line treatment with trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and a taxane – a combination covered under Part B, which would be subject to an out-of-pocket cap or covered with limited or no cost sharing.

This difference in cancer subtype leaves some patients “paying substantially more for their cancer treatment than others, despite the same goal of extending or improving their lives,” Dr. Dusetzina writes.

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

Male breast cancer is linked to infertility, according to a new case-control study from the Institute of Cancer Research in London. The report follows other studies that generally failed to identify a statistically significant association, but the resources of Great Britain’s National Health Service made it possible to achieve greater power than previous efforts.

“It’s a very difficult disease to study because it’s about 100 times rarer than female breast cancer. To do the equivalent study, you either have to make your study 100 times bigger, or think laterally and approach it a different way. (That’s) why we did a case control study where you identify the cases and find controls, rather than wait for men to develop breast cancer,” said Michael Edwin Jones, PhD, the lead author of the study, which was published online in Breast Cancer Research.

The new study found that men who self-reported infertility had a doubled risk of breast cancer, while there was no difference if the fertility was linked to their female partner. Sex hormones are known to play a key role in female breast cancer, and they have a suspected role in male breast cancer as well, though it’s hard to pin down because there is no concentrated source of exposure like hormone therapy or activity from the ovary to cause spiked levels. “It’s more subtle in men, but there’s a reason to think it’s important,” Dr. Jones said.

Although the results hint at a possible role of sex hormones, the research can’t confirm that. Blood draws were taken from participants, but many were conducted after treatment had begun, leading to inconsistent results. Dr. Jones called for more research into biological mechanisms that might explain the increased risk, and suggested that such efforts could lead to a better understanding of breast cancer overall, since the disease in men is not effected by factors like pregnancy and menopause.

Historically, few clinical trials for breast cancer drugs included men, and this has resulted in few approved treatments. However, the impact of breast cancer on men is increasingly being recognized, and most such trials now accept male patients. The Food and Drug Administration has even produced a guidance document for inclusion of men in development of breast cancer drugs, which states that men should be excluded only if there is a clear scientific rationale. When there are too few male participants to draw direct conclusions, it may be possible to extrapolate findings in women to men for FDA approval, provided the mechanism of action suggests that there should be no difference in efficacy.

The Breast Cancer Now study included 1,998 cases and 1,597 controls, who were asked about infertility and whether they had children. Men with male-origin infertility had a higher risk of breast cancer (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-3.49), but not men who reported female-origin infertility (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.51-1.45). There was also a heightened risk among men who had not fathered children versus those who had (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86).

The association was statistically significant for invasive tumors (OR, 1.96; P = .02), but only a trend was observed for in situ breast cancer (OR, 1.72; P = .39). A possible explanation is that diagnosis of in situ breast cancer is less common than invasive cancer in men, which could have led to the study being underpowered. “Unfortunately, there were too few in-situ breast cancers to allow us to say anything definitive,” said Dr. Jones.

Dr. Jones has no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by Breast Cancer Now.

Male breast cancer is linked to infertility, according to a new case-control study from the Institute of Cancer Research in London. The report follows other studies that generally failed to identify a statistically significant association, but the resources of Great Britain’s National Health Service made it possible to achieve greater power than previous efforts.

“It’s a very difficult disease to study because it’s about 100 times rarer than female breast cancer. To do the equivalent study, you either have to make your study 100 times bigger, or think laterally and approach it a different way. (That’s) why we did a case control study where you identify the cases and find controls, rather than wait for men to develop breast cancer,” said Michael Edwin Jones, PhD, the lead author of the study, which was published online in Breast Cancer Research.

The new study found that men who self-reported infertility had a doubled risk of breast cancer, while there was no difference if the fertility was linked to their female partner. Sex hormones are known to play a key role in female breast cancer, and they have a suspected role in male breast cancer as well, though it’s hard to pin down because there is no concentrated source of exposure like hormone therapy or activity from the ovary to cause spiked levels. “It’s more subtle in men, but there’s a reason to think it’s important,” Dr. Jones said.

Although the results hint at a possible role of sex hormones, the research can’t confirm that. Blood draws were taken from participants, but many were conducted after treatment had begun, leading to inconsistent results. Dr. Jones called for more research into biological mechanisms that might explain the increased risk, and suggested that such efforts could lead to a better understanding of breast cancer overall, since the disease in men is not effected by factors like pregnancy and menopause.

Historically, few clinical trials for breast cancer drugs included men, and this has resulted in few approved treatments. However, the impact of breast cancer on men is increasingly being recognized, and most such trials now accept male patients. The Food and Drug Administration has even produced a guidance document for inclusion of men in development of breast cancer drugs, which states that men should be excluded only if there is a clear scientific rationale. When there are too few male participants to draw direct conclusions, it may be possible to extrapolate findings in women to men for FDA approval, provided the mechanism of action suggests that there should be no difference in efficacy.

The Breast Cancer Now study included 1,998 cases and 1,597 controls, who were asked about infertility and whether they had children. Men with male-origin infertility had a higher risk of breast cancer (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-3.49), but not men who reported female-origin infertility (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.51-1.45). There was also a heightened risk among men who had not fathered children versus those who had (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86).

The association was statistically significant for invasive tumors (OR, 1.96; P = .02), but only a trend was observed for in situ breast cancer (OR, 1.72; P = .39). A possible explanation is that diagnosis of in situ breast cancer is less common than invasive cancer in men, which could have led to the study being underpowered. “Unfortunately, there were too few in-situ breast cancers to allow us to say anything definitive,” said Dr. Jones.

Dr. Jones has no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by Breast Cancer Now.

Male breast cancer is linked to infertility, according to a new case-control study from the Institute of Cancer Research in London. The report follows other studies that generally failed to identify a statistically significant association, but the resources of Great Britain’s National Health Service made it possible to achieve greater power than previous efforts.

“It’s a very difficult disease to study because it’s about 100 times rarer than female breast cancer. To do the equivalent study, you either have to make your study 100 times bigger, or think laterally and approach it a different way. (That’s) why we did a case control study where you identify the cases and find controls, rather than wait for men to develop breast cancer,” said Michael Edwin Jones, PhD, the lead author of the study, which was published online in Breast Cancer Research.

The new study found that men who self-reported infertility had a doubled risk of breast cancer, while there was no difference if the fertility was linked to their female partner. Sex hormones are known to play a key role in female breast cancer, and they have a suspected role in male breast cancer as well, though it’s hard to pin down because there is no concentrated source of exposure like hormone therapy or activity from the ovary to cause spiked levels. “It’s more subtle in men, but there’s a reason to think it’s important,” Dr. Jones said.

Although the results hint at a possible role of sex hormones, the research can’t confirm that. Blood draws were taken from participants, but many were conducted after treatment had begun, leading to inconsistent results. Dr. Jones called for more research into biological mechanisms that might explain the increased risk, and suggested that such efforts could lead to a better understanding of breast cancer overall, since the disease in men is not effected by factors like pregnancy and menopause.

Historically, few clinical trials for breast cancer drugs included men, and this has resulted in few approved treatments. However, the impact of breast cancer on men is increasingly being recognized, and most such trials now accept male patients. The Food and Drug Administration has even produced a guidance document for inclusion of men in development of breast cancer drugs, which states that men should be excluded only if there is a clear scientific rationale. When there are too few male participants to draw direct conclusions, it may be possible to extrapolate findings in women to men for FDA approval, provided the mechanism of action suggests that there should be no difference in efficacy.

The Breast Cancer Now study included 1,998 cases and 1,597 controls, who were asked about infertility and whether they had children. Men with male-origin infertility had a higher risk of breast cancer (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-3.49), but not men who reported female-origin infertility (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.51-1.45). There was also a heightened risk among men who had not fathered children versus those who had (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86).

The association was statistically significant for invasive tumors (OR, 1.96; P = .02), but only a trend was observed for in situ breast cancer (OR, 1.72; P = .39). A possible explanation is that diagnosis of in situ breast cancer is less common than invasive cancer in men, which could have led to the study being underpowered. “Unfortunately, there were too few in-situ breast cancers to allow us to say anything definitive,” said Dr. Jones.

Dr. Jones has no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by Breast Cancer Now.

Patients with nonmetastatic triple-negative breast cancer lacking progressive death–ligand 1 expression are less responsive to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and face a poorer prognosis than patients with PD-L1–positive tumors, according to a study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, a meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“The newly distinct quadruple negative breast cancer subtype could be considered the breast cancer subtype with the poorest outcome,” wrote the authors, who were led by Loay Kassem, MD, a clinical oncology consultant at Cairo (Egypt) University.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for 15%-20% of all breast cancers. It tends to be more aggressive and difficult to treat than other subtypes.

Prior research has shown the expression of PD-L1 in tumors is predictive of immunotherapy response in patients with metastatic TNBC. The checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for high-risk, early-stage, triple-negative breast cancer in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and then continued as a single treatment after surgery.

To determine whether PD-L1 expression could also predict response to chemotherapy in with nonmetastatic TNBC, the researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies that included a total of 2,319 patients with nonmetastatic TBNC. The team examined whether PD-L1 expression could predict pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. PD-L1–positive TNBC were found to be significantly associated with a higher probability of achieving a pathological complete response with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Long-term studies have shown that PD-L1 positivity was associated with better disease-free survival and overall survival than PD-L1–negative patients.

The researchers also examined RNA sequence data, which showed that PD-L1 expression was indicative of higher levels of expression of key immune-related genes that mediate response to chemotherapy in TNBC.

Dr. Kassem and colleagues suggest that quadruple-negative breast cancer defined by a lack of PD-L1 expression is a distinct subtype of breast cancer associated with the poorest outcomes. Another quadruple-negative breast cancer – a subtype of TNBC where patients lack expression of the androgen receptor, has also been associated with more aggressive disease and poorer response to treatment.

The authors report no funding or conflicts of interest.

Patients with nonmetastatic triple-negative breast cancer lacking progressive death–ligand 1 expression are less responsive to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and face a poorer prognosis than patients with PD-L1–positive tumors, according to a study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, a meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“The newly distinct quadruple negative breast cancer subtype could be considered the breast cancer subtype with the poorest outcome,” wrote the authors, who were led by Loay Kassem, MD, a clinical oncology consultant at Cairo (Egypt) University.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for 15%-20% of all breast cancers. It tends to be more aggressive and difficult to treat than other subtypes.

Prior research has shown the expression of PD-L1 in tumors is predictive of immunotherapy response in patients with metastatic TNBC. The checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for high-risk, early-stage, triple-negative breast cancer in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and then continued as a single treatment after surgery.

To determine whether PD-L1 expression could also predict response to chemotherapy in with nonmetastatic TNBC, the researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies that included a total of 2,319 patients with nonmetastatic TBNC. The team examined whether PD-L1 expression could predict pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. PD-L1–positive TNBC were found to be significantly associated with a higher probability of achieving a pathological complete response with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Long-term studies have shown that PD-L1 positivity was associated with better disease-free survival and overall survival than PD-L1–negative patients.

The researchers also examined RNA sequence data, which showed that PD-L1 expression was indicative of higher levels of expression of key immune-related genes that mediate response to chemotherapy in TNBC.

Dr. Kassem and colleagues suggest that quadruple-negative breast cancer defined by a lack of PD-L1 expression is a distinct subtype of breast cancer associated with the poorest outcomes. Another quadruple-negative breast cancer – a subtype of TNBC where patients lack expression of the androgen receptor, has also been associated with more aggressive disease and poorer response to treatment.

The authors report no funding or conflicts of interest.

Patients with nonmetastatic triple-negative breast cancer lacking progressive death–ligand 1 expression are less responsive to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and face a poorer prognosis than patients with PD-L1–positive tumors, according to a study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, a meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“The newly distinct quadruple negative breast cancer subtype could be considered the breast cancer subtype with the poorest outcome,” wrote the authors, who were led by Loay Kassem, MD, a clinical oncology consultant at Cairo (Egypt) University.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for 15%-20% of all breast cancers. It tends to be more aggressive and difficult to treat than other subtypes.

Prior research has shown the expression of PD-L1 in tumors is predictive of immunotherapy response in patients with metastatic TNBC. The checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for high-risk, early-stage, triple-negative breast cancer in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and then continued as a single treatment after surgery.

To determine whether PD-L1 expression could also predict response to chemotherapy in with nonmetastatic TNBC, the researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies that included a total of 2,319 patients with nonmetastatic TBNC. The team examined whether PD-L1 expression could predict pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. PD-L1–positive TNBC were found to be significantly associated with a higher probability of achieving a pathological complete response with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Long-term studies have shown that PD-L1 positivity was associated with better disease-free survival and overall survival than PD-L1–negative patients.

The researchers also examined RNA sequence data, which showed that PD-L1 expression was indicative of higher levels of expression of key immune-related genes that mediate response to chemotherapy in TNBC.

Dr. Kassem and colleagues suggest that quadruple-negative breast cancer defined by a lack of PD-L1 expression is a distinct subtype of breast cancer associated with the poorest outcomes. Another quadruple-negative breast cancer – a subtype of TNBC where patients lack expression of the androgen receptor, has also been associated with more aggressive disease and poorer response to treatment.

The authors report no funding or conflicts of interest.

Mastectomies among younger women with nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer may not always be necessary, according to a new study that shows survival outcomes are similar to those of women who had a lumpectomy.

The results come as an increasing number of women under 40 choose mastectomy. “A lot of times, there’s this assumption that removal of the entire breast is going to prevent cancer from returning in that breast. That makes complete sense, it’s intuitive, so I think a lot of patients are surprised to find that less extensive surgery provides the same overall survival as a really extensive surgery,” said Christine Pestana, MD, a fellow in breast surgical oncology with the Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C. Dr. Pestana presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons earlier this year.

In fact, it has been well-demonstrated among women over age 50 with breast cancer that lumpectomy and mastectomy result in similar outcomes, but efforts to show similar efficacy by analyzing data from randomized trials have been limited by small numbers of women under 40, said the study’s lead author Lejla Hadzikadic-Gusic, MD, who is codirector of the Sandra Levine Young Women’s Breast Cancer Program at Atrium Health. “We’ve done a lot of research since the 1970s to be able to keep a woman’s breasts and just treat her for breast cancer. It’s nice to be able to say the same thing for younger women,” said Dr. Hadzikadic-Gusic, in an interview.

The researchers drew from the Young Women’s Database from the Levine Cancer Institute. The analysis included data from nearly 600 women treated between 2010 and 2018.

The increasing frequency of mastectomies in younger women may be traceable, in part, to high-profile cases of celebrities who have had mastectomies after an early breast cancer diagnosis, with Angelina Jolie being among the most known of examples. But Ms. Jolie had the procedure proactively without a cancer diagnosis because she carried the BRCA1 mutation, which increases breast cancer risk. That information was often lost in press coverage, which can lead to confusion among young women with breast cancer, according to Dr. Hadzikadic-Gusic. “What we’re trying to do is have this data help us educate our patients,” she said.

It’s also important for physicians to help guide patients through these decisions, and family history is a key factor. Dr. Pestana encourages primary care providers to explore family history to help understand cancer risks. “It’s not just breast cancer. It’s also ovarian cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer. Those all have associations with different genetic mutations. If we start asking those questions, we may be able to identify patients who potentially could have that mutation, refer them to a geneticist, have them tested,” she said.

All of the 591 patients in the study were under age 40, with a median age of 37, and the median follow-up was 67 months. Twelve percent of patients died; 53.3% of patients were HR+/HER2–, 20.8% were HR+/HER2+, 19.3% were triple negative, and 6.6% were HR–/HER2+. There was no association between type of surgery and mortality.

The study was funded by the Levine Family Cancer Institute. Dr. Pestana and Dr. Hadzikadic-Gusic have no relevant financial disclosures.

Mastectomies among younger women with nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer may not always be necessary, according to a new study that shows survival outcomes are similar to those of women who had a lumpectomy.

The results come as an increasing number of women under 40 choose mastectomy. “A lot of times, there’s this assumption that removal of the entire breast is going to prevent cancer from returning in that breast. That makes complete sense, it’s intuitive, so I think a lot of patients are surprised to find that less extensive surgery provides the same overall survival as a really extensive surgery,” said Christine Pestana, MD, a fellow in breast surgical oncology with the Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C. Dr. Pestana presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons earlier this year.

In fact, it has been well-demonstrated among women over age 50 with breast cancer that lumpectomy and mastectomy result in similar outcomes, but efforts to show similar efficacy by analyzing data from randomized trials have been limited by small numbers of women under 40, said the study’s lead author Lejla Hadzikadic-Gusic, MD, who is codirector of the Sandra Levine Young Women’s Breast Cancer Program at Atrium Health. “We’ve done a lot of research since the 1970s to be able to keep a woman’s breasts and just treat her for breast cancer. It’s nice to be able to say the same thing for younger women,” said Dr. Hadzikadic-Gusic, in an interview.

The researchers drew from the Young Women’s Database from the Levine Cancer Institute. The analysis included data from nearly 600 women treated between 2010 and 2018.

The increasing frequency of mastectomies in younger women may be traceable, in part, to high-profile cases of celebrities who have had mastectomies after an early breast cancer diagnosis, with Angelina Jolie being among the most known of examples. But Ms. Jolie had the procedure proactively without a cancer diagnosis because she carried the BRCA1 mutation, which increases breast cancer risk. That information was often lost in press coverage, which can lead to confusion among young women with breast cancer, according to Dr. Hadzikadic-Gusic. “What we’re trying to do is have this data help us educate our patients,” she said.

It’s also important for physicians to help guide patients through these decisions, and family history is a key factor. Dr. Pestana encourages primary care providers to explore family history to help understand cancer risks. “It’s not just breast cancer. It’s also ovarian cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer. Those all have associations with different genetic mutations. If we start asking those questions, we may be able to identify patients who potentially could have that mutation, refer them to a geneticist, have them tested,” she said.

All of the 591 patients in the study were under age 40, with a median age of 37, and the median follow-up was 67 months. Twelve percent of patients died; 53.3% of patients were HR+/HER2–, 20.8% were HR+/HER2+, 19.3% were triple negative, and 6.6% were HR–/HER2+. There was no association between type of surgery and mortality.

The study was funded by the Levine Family Cancer Institute. Dr. Pestana and Dr. Hadzikadic-Gusic have no relevant financial disclosures.

Mastectomies among younger women with nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer may not always be necessary, according to a new study that shows survival outcomes are similar to those of women who had a lumpectomy.

The results come as an increasing number of women under 40 choose mastectomy. “A lot of times, there’s this assumption that removal of the entire breast is going to prevent cancer from returning in that breast. That makes complete sense, it’s intuitive, so I think a lot of patients are surprised to find that less extensive surgery provides the same overall survival as a really extensive surgery,” said Christine Pestana, MD, a fellow in breast surgical oncology with the Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C. Dr. Pestana presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons earlier this year.

In fact, it has been well-demonstrated among women over age 50 with breast cancer that lumpectomy and mastectomy result in similar outcomes, but efforts to show similar efficacy by analyzing data from randomized trials have been limited by small numbers of women under 40, said the study’s lead author Lejla Hadzikadic-Gusic, MD, who is codirector of the Sandra Levine Young Women’s Breast Cancer Program at Atrium Health. “We’ve done a lot of research since the 1970s to be able to keep a woman’s breasts and just treat her for breast cancer. It’s nice to be able to say the same thing for younger women,” said Dr. Hadzikadic-Gusic, in an interview.

The researchers drew from the Young Women’s Database from the Levine Cancer Institute. The analysis included data from nearly 600 women treated between 2010 and 2018.

The increasing frequency of mastectomies in younger women may be traceable, in part, to high-profile cases of celebrities who have had mastectomies after an early breast cancer diagnosis, with Angelina Jolie being among the most known of examples. But Ms. Jolie had the procedure proactively without a cancer diagnosis because she carried the BRCA1 mutation, which increases breast cancer risk. That information was often lost in press coverage, which can lead to confusion among young women with breast cancer, according to Dr. Hadzikadic-Gusic. “What we’re trying to do is have this data help us educate our patients,” she said.

It’s also important for physicians to help guide patients through these decisions, and family history is a key factor. Dr. Pestana encourages primary care providers to explore family history to help understand cancer risks. “It’s not just breast cancer. It’s also ovarian cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer. Those all have associations with different genetic mutations. If we start asking those questions, we may be able to identify patients who potentially could have that mutation, refer them to a geneticist, have them tested,” she said.

All of the 591 patients in the study were under age 40, with a median age of 37, and the median follow-up was 67 months. Twelve percent of patients died; 53.3% of patients were HR+/HER2–, 20.8% were HR+/HER2+, 19.3% were triple negative, and 6.6% were HR–/HER2+. There was no association between type of surgery and mortality.

The study was funded by the Levine Family Cancer Institute. Dr. Pestana and Dr. Hadzikadic-Gusic have no relevant financial disclosures.

A study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022 documents a “significant long-term benefit” among women with breast cancer who were treated with tamoxifen.

The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.

“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.

The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.

It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.

To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes. 

In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said. 

“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.

A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022 documents a “significant long-term benefit” among women with breast cancer who were treated with tamoxifen.

The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.

“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.

The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.

It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.

To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes. 

In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said. 

“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.

A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022 documents a “significant long-term benefit” among women with breast cancer who were treated with tamoxifen.

The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.

“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.

The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.

It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.

To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes. 

In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said. 

“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.

A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.