Explore the vast range of titles available.

The combination of atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel is recommended in the EU as first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC), based on the results of phase III IMpassion130 trial. However, ‘real-world’ data on this combination are limited. The ANASTASE study (NCT05609903) collected data on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in PD-L1-positive mTNBC patients enrolled in the Italian Compassionate Use Program. A retrospective analysis was conducted in 29 Italian oncology centers among patients who completed at least one cycle of treatment. Data from 52 patients were gathered. Among them, 21.1% presented de novo stage IV; 78.8% previously received (neo)adjuvant treatment; 55.8% patients had only one site of metastasis; median number of treatment cycles was five (IQR: 3–8); objective response rate was 42.3% (95% CI: 28.9–55.7%). The median time-to-treatment discontinuation was 5 months (95% CI: 2.8–7.1); clinical benefit at 12 months was 45.8%. The median duration of response was 12.7 months (95% CI: 4.1–21.4). At a median follow-up of 20 months, the median progression-free survival was 6.3 months (95% CI: 3.9–8.7) and the median time to next treatment or death was 8.1 months (95% CI: 5.5–10.7). At 12 months and 24 months, the overall survival rates were 66.3% and 49.1%, respectively. The most common immune-related adverse events included rash (23.1%), hepatitis (11.5%), thyroiditis (11.5%) and pneumonia (9.6%). Within the ANASTASE study, patients with PD-L1-positive mTNBC treated with first-line atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel achieved PFS and ORR similar to those reported in the IMpassion130 study, with no unexpected adverse events.

Triple negative disease, defined by a lack of tumor cell expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and HER2, remains to date the worst prognosis subtype and especially in metastatic disease triple negative breast cancer is still un unmet clinical need. However, even in this setting, now we can use new drugs such as immunotherapy and antibodies drug conjugated to improve outcome. Particularly, sacituzumab govitecan is the first Ab drug conjugated demonstrating a significant improvement in terms of overall and progression free survival in patients affected by metastatic TNBC pretreated with 2-3 previous lines of therapy.

La malattia triplo negativa, ovvero l’assenza di espressione dei recettori ormonali e di HER2, resta a oggi il sottotipo a peggiore prognosi nell’ambito dei tumori mammari, e soprattutto in fase metastatica rimane un bisogno clinico irrisolto. Tuttavia anche in questo setting possiamo avvalerci di nuovi farmaci quali l’immunoterapia e gli anticorpi coniugati per poter ottenere un miglioramento della prognosi. In particolare, sacituzumab govitecan è il primo Ab coniugato che ha dimostrato un vantaggio in termini di sopravvivenza globale e libera da progressione in pazienti affette da carcinoma mammario triplo negativo metastatico pretrattate con 2-3 linee di terapia precedenti.

Background Combinations of trastuzumab with either docetaxel or vinorelbine are considered valuable treatment options for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients. We performed a retrospective comparison of the clinical outcomes associated with either one of these combinations. Methods From a multi-institutional database we retrieved 179 patients treated with either docetaxel or vinorelbine plus trastuzumab as first-line therapy for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. Results Docetaxel-trastuzumab was superior to vinorelbine-trastuzumab in terms of response rate (RR: 77 vs 57%, p = 0.01) and median overall survival (OS: 35 vs 23 months, p = 0.04), but not in median time to progression (TTP: 12 vs 10 months, p = 0.53). At multivariate analysis, type of treatment was not associated with TTP but was an independent predictor of OS, with a significant reduction in the risk of death in favor of docetaxel-trastuzumab (HR 0.474, 95% IC 0,303-0.742, p < 0.01). Conclusion Docetaxel or vinorelbine, when combined with trastuzumab, provide excellent rates of tumor control in patients with previously untreated HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. Docetaxel may offer some advantage in terms of response rate and resulted in a significantly prolonged overall survival, which, because of the retrospective design of our study, deserves further investigation in prospective trials.

Background and aims: It is well established that caloric restriction (CR) may influence metabolic and hormonal factors involved in cancer development and progression. Recently, several studies have demonstrated that CR may have a favorable impact on the response to systemic therapy in breast cancer (BC) patients. However, there is a lack of data regarding the influence of CR during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Our study’s primary aim was to evaluate CR’s impact on BC patients undergoing NACT. Secondly, we investigated the nutritional efficacy and safety of this intervention. Methods: We performed a prospective, case–control study in two breast units. A diet group consisting of 39 patients undergoing NACT and CR was enrolled in our study at the same time. CR consisted of a 30% reduction in caloric intake, which increased to 50% on the days before, during, and after the administration of chemotherapy. A control group of 60 patients that underwent the same treatment approach only followed the general dietary recommendations for BC according to WCRF guidelines. The diet group was monitored during the study for both dietary adequacy and weight trends. Results: CR combined with NACT showed a statistically significant therapeutic response in tumor size (OR 2.94, IC 1.07–8.01, p = 0.009) and lymph node status (OR 3.22, IC 1.22–8.56, p = 0.001) compared to NACT alone, even after the adjustment for all biological parameters. Our data also showed the efficacy and safety of this intervention in both anthropometric and biochemical analyses. Conclusions: Patients who adhered to CR showed a better response to NACT, both in the breast and in the axillary lymph nodes, compared to the patients in the control group. Furthermore, the CR diet combined with NACT showed good tolerance and safety.

Introduction: The treatment of MBC patients is guided by receptor status, with re-biopsy at relapse recommended to reassess hormone receptor (HR) status. Various treatment options are available for HER2-veMBC, including CDK4/6 inhibitors, PARP inhibitors, and checkpoint inhibitors. The study highlights the importance of determining receptor subtype for guiding treatment choices. Patients and Methods: The GIM 13 AMBRA study is a longitudinal cohort study involving 42 centers in Italy. It includes data from 939 HER2- MBC patients enrolled between May 2015 and September 2020. The study analyzes the impact of HR expression changes on clinical outcomes using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and other statistical methods. Results: Among the 939 patients, 588 were rebiopsied at first relapse. The study found no significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS), progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS) between patients whose tumors changed molecular subtype and those who did not. However, post-progression survival from first-line treatment (PPS1) was different between the two groups. Discussion: The study confirms the phenomenon of receptor discordance between primary tumors and metastases. It emphasizes the need for re-biopsy in recurrent MBC to guide treatment strategies. The findings align with previous studies and highlight the importance of understanding receptor changes for improving patient outcomes. Conclusions: The GIM 13 AMBRA study provides valuable insights into the impact of molecular subtype changes on survival outcomes in Luminal MBC patients. It underscores the importance of re-biopsy and personalized treatment strategies in managing metastatic breast cancer.

GIM 13-AMBRA is a longitudinal cohort study aimed at describing therapeutic strategies and the relative outcome parameters in 939 HER2-ve MBC patients. Taxanes–based regimens, or taxanes + targeted agents, mainly Bevacizumab, were the preferred first choice in both Luminal (30.2%) and TNBC (33.3%) patients. The median PFS1 was 12.5 months (95% CI 16.79–19.64), without any significant difference according to subtypes, while the median Time to first Treatment Change (TTC1) was significantly lower in TNBC patients (7.7 months—95% CI 5.7–9.2) in comparison to Luminal A (13.2 months, 95% CI 11.7–15.1) and Luminal B patients (11.8 months, 95% CI 10.3–12.8). PFS2 was significantly shorter in TNBC patients (5.5 months, 95% CI 4.3–6.5 vs. Luminal A—9.4, 95% CI 8.1–10.7, and Luminal B—7.7 95% CI 6.8–8.2, F-Ratio 4.30, p = 0.014). TTC2 was significantly lower in patients with TNBC than in those with the other two subtypes. The median OS1 was 35.2 months (95% CI 30.8–37.4) for Luminal A patients, which was significantly higher than that for both Luminal B (28.9 months, 95% CI 26.2–31.2) and TNBC (18.5 months, 95% CI 16–20.1, F-ratio 7.44, p = 0.0006). The GIM 13—AMBRA study is one of the largest collections ever published in Italy and provides useful results in terms of time outcomes for first, second, and further lines of treatment in HER2- MBC patients.

Background The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging has introduced prognostic stage based on anatomic stage combined with biologic factors. We aimed to validate the prognostic stage in HER2-positive breast cancer patients enrolled in the ShortHER trial. Methods The ShortHER trial randomized 1253 HER2-positive patients to 9 weeks or 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab combined with chemotherapy. Patients were classified according to the anatomic and the prognostic stage. Distant disease-free survival (DDFS) was calculated from randomization to distant relapse or death. Results A total of 1244 patients were included. Compared to anatomic stage, the prognostic stage downstaged 41.6% ( n  = 517) of patients to a more favorable stage category. Five-year DDFS based on anatomic stage was as follows: IA 96.6%, IB 94.1%, IIA 92.4%, IIB 87.3%, IIIA 81.3%, IIIC 70.5% ( P  < 0.001). Five-year DDFS according to prognostic stage was as follows: IA 95.7%, IB 91.4%, IIA 86.9%, IIB 85.0%, IIIA 77.6%, IIIC 67.7% ( P  < 0.001). The C index was similar (0.69209 and 0.69249, P  = 0.975). Within anatomic stage I, the outcome was similar for patients treated with 9 weeks or 1 year trastuzumab (5-year DDFS 96.2% and 96.6%, P  = 0.856). Within prognostic stage I, the outcome was numerically worse for patients treated with 9 weeks trastuzumab (5-year DDFS 93.7% and 96.3%, P  = 0.080). Conclusions The prognostic stage downstaged 41.6% of patients, while maintaining a similar prognostic performance as the anatomic stage. The prognostic stage is valuable in counseling patients and may serve as reference for a clinical trial design. Our data do not support prognostic stage as guidance to de-escalate treatment. Trial registration EUDRACT number: 2007-004326-25; NCI ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00629278 .