Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background About 50% of all primary breast cancers show a low-level expression of HER2 (HER2-low), defined as immunohistochemically 1+ or 2+ and lack of HER2 gene amplification measured by in situ hybridization. This low HER2 expression is a promising new target for antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) currently under investigation. Until now, little is known about the frequency and the prognostic value of low HER2-expression in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and methods The MBC-Registry of the Austrian Study Group of Medical Tumor Therapy (AGMT) is a multicenter nationwide ongoing registry for MBC patients in Austria. Unadjusted, univariate survival probabilities of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression models. In this analysis, only patients with known HER2 status and available survival data were included. Results As of 11/15/2020, 1,973 patients were included in the AGMT-MBC-Registry. Out of 1,729 evaluable patients, 351 (20.3%) were HER2-positive, 608 (35.2%) were HER2-low and 770 (44.5%) were completely HER2-negative (HER2-0). Low HER2-expression was markedly more frequent in the hormone-receptor(HR)+ subgroup compared to the triple-negative subgroup (40% vs. 23%). In multivariable analysis, low HER2 expression did not significantly influence OS neither in the HR+ (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.74–1.05; P  = 0.171) nor in the triple-negative subgroup (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68–1.25; P  = 0.585), when compared to completely HER2-negative disease. Similar results were observed when HER2 IHC 2+ patients were compared to IHC 1+ or 0 patients. Conclusion Low-HER2 expression did not have any impact on prognosis of metastatic breast cancer in this real-world population.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy compromises bone health in patients with breast cancer, causing osteopenia, osteoporosis, and fractures. Antiresorptive treatments such as bisphosphonates prevent and counteract these side-effects. In this trial, we aimed to investigate the effects of the anti-RANK ligand antibody denosumab in postmenopausal, aromatase inhibitor-treated patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. In this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, postmenopausal patients with early hormone receptor-positive breast cancer receiving treatment with aromatase inhibitors were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either denosumab 60 mg or placebo administered subcutaneously every 6 months in 58 trial centres in Austria and Sweden. Patients were assigned by an interactive voice response system. The randomisation schedule used a randomly permuted block design with block sizes 2 and 4, stratified by type of hospital regarding Hologic device for DXA scans, previous aromatase inhibitor use, and baseline bone mineral density. Patients, treating physicians, investigators, data managers, and all study personnel were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was time from randomisation to first clinical fracture, analysed by intention to treat. As an additional sensitivity analysis, we also analysed the primary endpoint on the per-protocol population. Patients were treated until the prespecified number of 247 first clinical fractures was reached. This trial is ongoing (patients are in follow-up) and is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, number 2005-005275-15, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00556374. Between Dec 18, 2006, and July 22, 2013, 3425 eligible patients were enrolled into the trial, of whom 3420 were randomly assigned to receive denosumab 60 mg (n=1711) or placebo (n=1709) subcutaneously every 6 months. Compared with the placebo group, patients in the denosumab group had a significantly delayed time to first clinical fracture (hazard ratio [HR] 0·50 [95% CI 0·39–0·65], p<0·0001). The overall lower number of fractures in the denosumab group (92) than in the placebo group (176) was similar in all patient subgroups, including in patients with a bone mineral density T-score of −1 or higher at baseline (n=1872, HR 0·44 [95% CI 0·31–0·64], p<0·0001) and in those with a bone mineral density T-score of less than −1 already at baseline (n=1548, HR 0·57 [95% CI 0·40–0·82], p=0·002). The patient incidence of adverse events in the safety analysis set (all patients who received at least one dose of study drug) did not differ between the denosumab group (1366 events, 80%) and the placebo group (1334 events, 79%), nor did the numbers of serious adverse events (521 vs 511 [30% in each group]). The main adverse events were arthralgia and other aromatase-inhibitor related symptoms; no additional toxicity from the study drug was reported. Despite proactive adjudication of every potential osteonecrosis of the jaw by an international expert panel, no cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were reported. 93 patients (3% of the full analysis set) died during the study, of which one death (in the denosumab group) was thought to be related to the study drug. Adjuvant denosumab 60 mg twice per year reduces the risk of clinical fractures in postmenopausal women with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors, and can be administered without added toxicity. Since a main side-effect of adjuvant breast cancer treatment can be substantially reduced by the addition of denosumab, this treatment should be considered for clinical practice. Amgen.

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer, treatment with adjuvant aromatase inhibitors is the standard of care, but it increases risk for osteoporosis and fractures. Results from the ABCSG-18 trial showed that use of denosumab as an adjuvant to aromatase inhibitor therapy significantly reduced clinical fractures. Disease-free survival outcomes from ABCSG-18 have not yet been reported. Postmenopausal patients with early, hormone receptor-positive, non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the breast, who had completed their initial adjuvant treatment pathway (surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy, or a combination) and were receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, were enrolled at 58 trial centres in Austria and Sweden into this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. With permuted block randomisation (block sizes 2 and 4, stratified by previous aromatase inhibitor use, total lumbar spine bone mineral density score at baseline, and type of centre), patients were assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous denosumab (60 mg) or matching placebo every 6 months during aromatase inhibitor therapy. The primary endpoint (previously reported) was the time to first clinical fracture after randomisation. The secondary endpoint reported here is disease-free survival (defined as time from randomisation to first evidence of local or distant metastasis, contralateral breast cancer, secondary carcinoma, or death from any cause) in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with EudraCT (number 2005–005275–15) and ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00556374), and is ongoing for long-term follow-up. Between Dec 18, 2006, and July 22, 2013, 3425 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned; 1711 to the denosumab group and 1709 to the placebo group (with five others withdrawing consent). After a median follow-up of 73 months (IQR 58–95), 240 (14·0%) patients in the denosumab and 287 (16·8%) in the placebo group had disease-free survival events. Disease-free survival was significantly improved in the denosumab group versus the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·69–0·98, Cox p=0·0260; descriptive analysis, without controlling for multiplicity). In the denosumab group, disease-free survival was 89·2% (95% CI 87·6–90·8) at 5 years and 80·6% (78·1–83·1) at 8 years of follow-up, compared with 87·3% (85·7–89·0) at 5 years and 77·5% (74·8–80·2) and 8 years in the placebo group. No independently adjudicated cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw or confirmed atypical femoral fractures were recorded. The total number of adverse events was similar in the denosumab group (1367 [including 521 serious] adverse events) and the placebo group (1339 [515 serious]). The most common serious adverse events were osteoarthritis (62 [3·6%] of 1709 in the denosumab group vs 58 [3·4%] of 1690 in the placebo group), meniscus injury (23 [1·3%] vs 24 [1·4%]), and cataract (16 [0·9%] vs 28 [1·7%]). One (<0·1%) treatment-related death (due to pneumonia, septic kidney failure, and cardiac decompensation) occurred in the denosumab group. Denosumab constitutes an effective and safe adjuvant treatment for patients with postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitor therapy. Amgen.

Postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor–positive breast cancer who had received 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy were randomly assigned to an additional 2 years or 5 years of therapy with the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole. No between-group differences were noted in disease-free survival, but patients in the 5-year group had more bone fractures.

Background The differential gene expression profile of metastatic versus primary breast tumors represents an avenue for discovering new or underappreciated pathways underscoring processes of metastasis. However, as tumor biopsy samples are a mixture of cancer and non-cancer cells, most differentially expressed genes in metastases would represent confounders involving sample biopsy site rather than cancer cell biology. Methods By paired analysis, we defined a top set of differentially expressed genes in breast cancer metastasis versus primary tumors using an RNA-sequencing dataset of 152 patients from The Breast International Group Aiming to Understand the Molecular Aberrations dataset (BIG-AURORA). To filter the genes higher in metastasis for genes essential for breast cancer proliferation, we incorporated CRISPR-based data from breast cancer cell lines. Results A significant fraction of genes with higher expression in metastasis versus paired primary were essential by CRISPR. These 264 genes represented an essential signature of breast cancer metastasis. In contrast, nonessential metastasis genes largely involved tumor biopsy site. The essential signature predicted breast cancer patient outcome based on primary tumor expression patterns. Pathways underlying the essential signature included proteasome degradation, the electron transport chain, oxidative phosphorylation, and cancer metabolic reprogramming. Transcription factors MYC, MAX, HDAC3, and HCFC1 each bound significant fractions of essential genes. Conclusions Associations involving the essential gene signature of breast cancer metastasis indicate true biological changes intrinsic to cancer cells, with important implications for applying existing therapies or developing alternate therapeutic approaches.

BackgroundThe benefit of alpelisib in hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer patients provided clinical evidence for the increasing importance of PIK3CA testing. We performed a comparison of liquid biopsy and tissue-based detection of PIK3CA mutations.Materials and methodsPIK3CA hotspot mutation analysis using a high-resolution SiMSen-Seq assay was performed in plasma from 93/99 eligible patients with HR+/HER2− breast cancer. Additionally, mFAST-SeqS was used to estimate the tumour fractions in plasma samples. In 72/93 patients, matched tissue was available and analysed using a customised Ion Torrent panel.ResultsPIK3CA mutations were detected in 48.6% of tissue samples and 47.3% of plasma samples, with identical PIK3CA mutation detected in 24/72 (33.3%) patients both in tissue and plasma. In 10 (13.9%) patients, mutations were only found in plasma, and in 6 (8.3%) patients, PIK3CA mutations found in tissue were not detectable in ctDNA. In 49/93 plasma samples without detectable PIK3CA mutations, 22 (44.9%) samples had elevated tumour fractions, implying true negative results.ConclusionSiMSen-Seq-based detection of PIK3CA mutations in plasma shows advantageous concordance with the tissue analyses. A combination with an untargeted approach for detecting ctDNA fractions may confirm a negative PIK3CA result and enhance the performance of the SiMSen-Seq test.

Inter-test concordance between the MammaPrint and the EndoPredict tests used to predict the risk of recurrence in breast cancer was evaluated in 94 oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancers. We correlated histopathological data with clinical risk estimation as defined in the MINDACT trial. 42.6% (40/94) of cases were high-risk by MammaPrint, 44.7% (42/94) by EndoPredict (EPclin), and 45.7% (43/94) by clinical risk definition. Thirty-six percent of genomic risk predictions were discordant with a low inter-test correlation between EndoPredict and MammaPrint ( p  = 0.012; κ = 0.27, 95% CI [0.069, 0.46]). Clinical risk stratification did not correlate with MammaPrint ( p  = 0.476) but highly correlated with EndoPredict ( p  < 0.001). Consequently, clinically high-risk tumours ( n  = 43) were more frequently high-risk by EndoPredict than by MammaPrint (76.6% vs. 46.5%, p  = 0.004), with 44% of cases discordantly classified and no significant association between genomic risk predictions ( p  = 0.294). Clinicians need to be aware that clinical pre-stratification can profoundly influence multigenomic test performance.

Background: Biomarkers for predicting response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are scarce and often lack external validation. This study provides a comprehensive investigation of pretreatment C-reactive protein (CRP) levels as well as its longitudinal trajectories as a marker of treatment response and disease outcome in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing immunotherapy with anti PD-1 or anti PD-L1 agents. Methods: We performed a retrospective bi-center study to assess the association between baseline CRP levels and anti PD-(L)1 treatment outcomes in the discovery cohort (n = 90), confirm these findings in an external validation cohort (n = 101) and explore the longitudinal evolution of CRP during anti PD-(L)1 treatment and the potential impact of dynamic CRP changes on treatment response and disease outcome in the discovery cohort. Joint models were implemented to evaluate the association of longitudinal CRP trajectories and progression risk. Primary treatment outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), while the objective response rate (ORR) was a secondary outcome, respectively. Results: In the discovery cohort, elevated pretreatment CRP levels emerged as independent predictors of worse PFS (HR per doubling of baseline CRP = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.16–1.63, p < 0.0001), worse OS (HR per doubling of baseline CRP = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.18–1.71, p < 0.0001) and a lower ORR ((odds ratio (OR) of ORR per doubling of baseline CRP = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.51–0.92, p = 0.013)). In the validation cohort, pretreatment CRP could be fully confirmed as a predictor of PFS and OS, but not ORR. Elevated trajectories of CRP during anti PD-(L)1 treatment (adjusted HR per 10 mg/L increase in CRP = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.15–1.30, p < 0.0001), as well as a faster increases of CRP over time (HR per 10 mg/L/month faster increase in CRP levels = 13.26, 95% CI: 1.14–154.54, p = 0.039) were strong predictors of an elevated progression risk, whereas an early decline of CRP was significantly associated with a reduction in PFS risk (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.83–0.99, p = 0.036), respectively. Conclusion: These findings support the concept that CRP should be further explored by future prospective studies as a simple non-invasive biomarker for assessing treatment benefit during anti PD-(L)1 treatment in advanced NSCLC.

The advancements in the detection and characterization of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) have revolutionized precision medicine and are likely to transform standard clinical practice. The non‐invasive nature of this approach allows for molecular profiling of the entire tumor entity, while also enabling real‐time monitoring of the effectiveness of cancer therapies as well as the identification of resistance mechanisms to guide targeted therapy. Although the field of ctDNA studies offers a wide range of applications, including in early disease, in this review we mainly focus on the role of ctDNA in the dynamic molecular characterization of unresectable locally advanced and metastatic BC (mBC). Here, we provide clinical practice guidance for the rapidly evolving field of molecular profiling of mBC, outlining the current landscape of liquid biopsy applications and how to choose the right ctDNA assay. Additionally, we underline the importance of exploring the clinical relevance of novel molecular alterations that potentially represent therapeutic targets in mBC, along with mutations where targeted therapy is already approved. Finally, we present a potential roadmap for integrating ctDNA analysis into clinical practice. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) offers a possibility for different applications in early and late stage breast cancer management. In early breast cancer tumor informed approaches are increasingly used for detecting molecular residual disease (MRD) and early recurrence. In advanced stage, ctDNA provides a possibility for monitoring disease progression and identifying resistance mechanisms. Figure created with BioRender.com.

Male breast cancer (MBC) is rare and usually presents as a locally advanced disease. Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) are associated with a better response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and improved prognosis in all molecular subtypes of female breast cancer, but their role in MBC is less clear. We studied sTILs and the expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and pan-TRK in MBC. We retrospectively studied 113 cases of MBC surgically treated between 1988 and 2015. The tumors were evaluated for histological type and grade, stage, intrinsic subtype and sTILs. We performed immunohistochemistry for PD-L1 (clone SP142) and pan-TRK (clone EPR17341) on tissue microarrays. Pan-TRK positive cases were further analyzed by next-generation sequencing. The median age was 69 years (range 60–77). Invasive carcinoma of no special type was found in 94.7% of cases, of which 53.1% were grade 2. Estrogen receptor was positive in 92% of the tumors, progesterone receptor in 85.8%, androgen receptor in 70.8%; 4.4% were human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, and 55.8% HER2-low. 40.7% of tumors were luminal A and 51.3% luminal B, 4.4% HER2-enriched and 3.5% triple negative carcinoma. sTILs density was <50% in 96.4% of the tumors, >50% in 3.6% of the tumors. PD-L1 immune cell score >1% was found in 7.1% of the tumors (all of luminal subtype). A weak focal cytoplasmic pan-TRK staining was present in 8.8% but without NTRK fusion. Neither sTILs nor PD-L1 had statistically significant outcomes. Our findings suggest that a subset of MBC patients harbors an immunological environment characterized by increased sTILs with PD-L1 expression. These patients may potentially benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Frequent HER2-low may offer novel anti-HER2 treatment options.