Explore the vast range of titles available.

Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) testing might provide a current assessment of the genomic profile of advanced cancer, without the need to repeat tumour biopsy. We aimed to assess the accuracy of ctDNA testing in advanced breast cancer and the ability of ctDNA testing to select patients for mutation-directed therapy. We did an open-label, multicohort, phase 2a, platform trial of ctDNA testing in 18 UK hospitals. Participants were women (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed advanced breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2. Patients had completed at least one previous line of treatment for advanced breast cancer or relapsed within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were recruited into four parallel treatment cohorts matched to mutations identified in ctDNA: cohort A comprised patients with ESR1 mutations (treated with intramuscular extended-dose fulvestrant 500 mg); cohort B comprised patients with HER2 mutations (treated with oral neratinib 240 mg, and if oestrogen receptor-positive with intramuscular standard-dose fulvestrant); cohort C comprised patients with AKT1 mutations and oestrogen receptor-positive cancer (treated with oral capivasertib 400 mg plus intramuscular standard-dose fulvestrant); and cohort D comprised patients with AKT1 mutations and oestrogen receptor-negative cancer or PTEN mutation (treated with oral capivasertib 480 mg). Each cohort had a primary endpoint of confirmed objective response rate. For cohort A, 13 or more responses among 78 evaluable patients were required to infer activity and three or more among 16 were required for cohorts B, C, and D. Recruitment to all cohorts is complete and long-term follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03182634; the European Clinical Trials database, EudraCT2015-003735-36; and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN16945804. Between Dec 21, 2016, and April 26, 2019, 1051 patients registered for the study, with ctDNA results available for 1034 patients. Agreement between ctDNA digital PCR and targeted sequencing was 96–99% (n=800, kappa 0·89–0·93). Sensitivity of digital PCR ctDNA testing for mutations identified in tissue sequencing was 93% (95% CI 83–98) overall and 98% (87–100) with contemporaneous biopsies. In all cohorts, combined median follow-up was 14·4 months (IQR 7·0–23·7). Cohorts B and C met or exceeded the target number of responses, with five (25% [95% CI 9–49]) of 20 patients in cohort B and four (22% [6–48]) of 18 patients in cohort C having a response. Cohorts A and D did not reach the target number of responses, with six (8% [95% CI 3–17]) of 74 in cohort A and two (11% [1–33]) of 19 patients in cohort D having a response. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were raised gamma-glutamyltransferase (13 [16%] of 80 patients; cohort A); diarrhoea (four [25%] of 20; cohort B); fatigue (four [22%] of 18; cohort C); and rash (five [26%] of 19; cohort D). 17 serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients, and there was one treatment-related death caused by grade 4 dyspnoea (in cohort C). ctDNA testing offers accurate, rapid genotyping that enables the selection of mutation-directed therapies for patients with breast cancer, with sufficient clinical validity for adoption into routine clinical practice. Our results demonstrate clinically relevant activity of targeted therapies against rare HER2 and AKT1 mutations, confirming these mutations could be targetable for breast cancer treatment. Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, and Puma Biotechnology.

The optimum endocrine treatment for postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer that has progressed on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) is unclear. The aim of the SoFEA trial was to assess a maximum double endocrine targeting approach with the steroidal anti-oestrogen fulvestrant in combination with continued oestrogen deprivation. In a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial done in the UK and South Korea, postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer (oestrogen receptor [ER] positive, progesterone receptor [PR] positive, or both) were eligible if they had relapsed or progressed with locally advanced or metastatic disease on an NSAI (given as adjuvant for at least 12 months or as first-line treatment for at least 6 months). Additionally, patients had to have adequate organ function and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection on day 1, followed by 250 mg doses on days 15 and 29, and then every 28 days) plus daily oral anastrozole (1 mg); fulvestrant plus anastrozole-matched placebo; or daily oral exemestane (25 mg). Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted blocks, and stratification was by centre and previous use of an NSAI as adjuvant treatment or for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Participants and investigators were aware of assignment to fulvestrant or exemestane, but not of assignment to anastrozole or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00253422 (UK) and NCT00944918 (South Korea). Between March 26, 2004, and Aug 6, 2010, 723 patients underwent randomisation: 243 were assigned to receive fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 231 to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 249 to exemestane. Median PFS was 4·4 months (95% CI 3·4–5·4) in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 4·8 months (3·6–5·5) in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 3·4 months (3·0–4·6) in those assigned to exemestane. No difference was recorded between the patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole and fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·83–1·21; log-rank p=0·98), or between those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo and exemestane (0·95, 0·79–1·14; log-rank p=0·56). 87 serious adverse events were reported: 36 in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 22 in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 29 in those assigned to exemestane. Grade 3–4 adverse events were rare; the most frequent were arthralgia (three in the group assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole; seven in that assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo; eight in that assigned to exemestane), lethargy (three; 11; 11), and nausea or vomiting (five; two; eight). After loss of response to NSAIs in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, maximum double endocrine treatment with 250 mg fulvestrant combined with oestrogen deprivation is no better than either fulvestrant alone or exemestane. Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) exploit DNA repair deficiency in germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant (gBRCAm) cancers. Haematological toxicity limits chemotherapy-PARPi treatment combinations. In preclinical models we identified a schedule combining olaparib and carboplatin that avoids enhanced toxicity but maintains anti-tumour activity. We investigated this schedule in a neoadjuvant, phase II-III, randomised controlled trial for gBRCAm breast cancers (ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT03150576; PARTNER). The research arm included carboplatin (Area Under the Curve 5, 3-weekly); paclitaxel (80 mg/m 2 , weekly) day 1, plus olaparib (150 mg twice daily) day 3-14 (4 cycles), followed by anthracycline-containing chemotherapy (3 cycles); control arm gave chemotherapy alone. The primary endpoint, pathological complete response rate, showed no statistical difference between research 64.1% (25/39); control 69.8% (30/43) ( p  = 0.59). However, estimated survival outcomes at 36-months demonstrated improved event-free survival: research 96.4%, control 80.1% ( p  = 0.04); overall survival: research 100%, control 88.2% ( p  = 0.04) and breast cancer specific survival: research 100%, control 88.2% ( p  = 0.04). There were no statistical differences in relapse-free survival and distant disease-free survival, both were: research 96.4%, control 87.9% ( p  = 0.20). Similarly, local recurrence-free survival and time to second cancer were both: research 96.4%, control 87.8% ( p  = 0.20). The PARTNER trial identified a safe, tolerable schedule combining neoadjuvant chemotherapy with olaparib. This combination demonstrated schedule-dependent overall survival benefit in early-stage gBRCAm breast cancer. This result needs confirmation in larger trials. Toxicities limit combination of PARP inhibitors (PARPi) and chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant (gBRCAm) breast cancer. Here, the authors report a preclinical study followed by a randomised phase II/III clinical trial investigating the addition of a gap between chemotherapy (carboplatin and paclitaxel) and PARPi (olaparib), in patients with early gBRCAm breast cancer.

Animal studies have shown Zoledronic Acid (ZA) may diminish pleural fluid accumulation and tumour bulk in malignant pleural disease (MPD). We performed a pilot study to evaluate its effects in humans. We undertook a single centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults with MPD. Patients were randomised (1:1) to receive 2 doses of intravenous ZA or placebo, 3 weeks apart and were followed-up for 6 weeks. The co-primary outcomes were change in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score measured breathlessness during trial follow-up and change in the initial area under the curve (iAUC) on thoracic Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) from randomisation to week 5. Multiple secondary endpoints were also evaluated. Between January 2010 and May 2013, 30 patients were enrolled, 24 randomised and 4 withdrew after randomisation (1 withdrew consent; 3 had a clinical decline). At baseline, the ZA group were more breathless, had more advanced disease on radiology and worse quality of life than the placebo group. There was no significant difference between the groups with regards change in breathlessness (Adjusted mean difference (AMD) 4.16 (95%CI -4.7 to 13.0)) or change in DCE-MRI iAUC (AMD -15.4 (95%CI -58.1 to 27.3). Two of nine (22%) in the ZA arm had a >10% improvement by modified RECIST (vs 0/11 who received placebo). There was no significant difference in quality of life measured by the QLQ-C30 score (global QOL: AMD -4.1 (-13.0 to 4.9)), side effects or serious adverse event rates. This is the first human study to evaluate ZA in MPD. The study is limited by small numbers and imbalanced baseline characteristics. Although no convincing treatment effect was identified, potential benefits for specific subgroups of patients cannot be excluded. This study provides important information regarding the feasibility of future trials to evaluate the effects of ZA further. UK Clinical Research Network ID 8877 ISRCTN17030426 www.isrctn.com.

PARTNER is a prospective, phase II–III, randomized controlled clinical trial that recruited patients with triple-negative breast cancer 1 , 2 , who were germline  BRCA 1 and BRCA2 wild type 3 . Here we report the results of the trial. Patients ( n  = 559) were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive neoadjuvant carboplatin–paclitaxel with or without 150 mg olaparib twice daily, on days 3 to 14, of each of four cycles (gap schedule olaparib, research arm) followed by three cycles of anthracycline-based chemotherapy before surgery. The primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) 4 , and secondary end points included event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) 5 . pCR was achieved in 51% of patients in the research arm and 52% in the control arm ( P  = 0.753). Estimated EFS at 36 months in the research and control arms was 80% and 79% (log-rank P  > 0.9), respectively; OS was 90% and 87.2% (log-rank P  = 0.8), respectively. In patients with pCR, estimated EFS at 36 months was 90%, and in those with non-pCR it was 70% (log-rank P  < 0.001), and OS was 96% and 83% (log-rank P  < 0.001), respectively. Neoadjuvant olaparib did not improve pCR rates, EFS or OS when added to carboplatin–paclitaxel and anthracycline-based chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer who were germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 wild type. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03150576 . A study details the results of the PARTNER trial, a prospective, randomized controlled trial of the use of neoadjuvant olaparib with carboplatin–paclitaxel chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer who were germline BRCA1 and BRCA2  wild type.

Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) are important prognostic and predictive biomarkers in triple-negative (TNBC) and HER2-positive breast cancer. Incorporating sTILs into clinical practice necessitates reproducible assessment. Previously developed standardized scoring guidelines have been widely embraced by the clinical and research communities. We evaluated sources of variability in sTIL assessment by pathologists in three previous sTIL ring studies. We identify common challenges and evaluate impact of discrepancies on outcome estimates in early TNBC using a newly-developed prognostic tool. Discordant sTIL assessment is driven by heterogeneity in lymphocyte distribution. Additional factors include: technical slide-related issues; scoring outside the tumor boundary; tumors with minimal assessable stroma; including lymphocytes associated with other structures; and including other inflammatory cells. Small variations in sTIL assessment modestly alter risk estimation in early TNBC but have the potential to affect treatment selection if cutpoints are employed. Scoring and averaging multiple areas, as well as use of reference images, improve consistency of sTIL evaluation. Moreover, to assist in avoiding the pitfalls identified in this analysis, we developed an educational resource available at www.tilsinbreastcancer.org/pitfalls.

Assessment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is increasingly recognized as an integral part of the prognostic workflow in triple-negative (TNBC) and HER2-positive breast cancer, as well as many other solid tumors. This recognition has come about thanks to standardized visual reporting guidelines, which helped to reduce inter-reader variability. Now, there are ripe opportunities to employ computational methods that extract spatio-morphologic predictive features, enabling computer-aided diagnostics. We detail the benefits of computational TILs assessment, the readiness of TILs scoring for computational assessment, and outline considerations for overcoming key barriers to clinical translation in this arena. Specifically, we discuss: 1. ensuring computational workflows closely capture visual guidelines and standards; 2. challenges and thoughts standards for assessment of algorithms including training, preanalytical, analytical, and clinical validation; 3. perspectives on how to realize the potential of machine learning models and to overcome the perceptual and practical limits of visual scoring.

Background/Objective: To test the feasibility of a mixed-phase, pilot, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of mistletoe therapy (MT) with an embedded qualitative study in the UK National Health Service (NHS) setting. Methods: The aim was to recruit 45 patients via an NHS oncology centre with a diagnosis of early or locally advanced breast cancer. Participants were allocated to Iscador® Malus, Iscador® Pinus, or physiological saline (placebo). Diaries and quality-of-life questionnaires were administered. Qualitative interviews were conducted with participants, oncologists, and nurses. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment, retention, adherence, blinding, and safety. Results: Sixty-seven patients were approached between August 2019 and March 2020, 15 gave consent, 14 participants were randomised, and 2 withdrew during the trial. Ten participants and five staff were interviewed. Barriers to recruitment were the additional treatments/time, extra injections, and the possibility of placebo allocation. Adherence was very good whilst the participants were on the study therapy. Diaries and interviews indicated that 11/14 participants struggled with injections and skin reactions. There were 22 adverse events due to the MT, related to the injections or skin reactions. Conclusion: This pilot study examined the feasibility of conducting a randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of mistletoe therapy for breast cancer patients within the UK NHS. The results describe the challenges and achievements of recruitment, retention, adherence, blinding, and safety in this context.

Background: International guidelines, including NICE, recommend using the 21-gene Recurrence Score assay for guiding adjuvant treatment decisions in ER+, HER2-negative early breast cancer (BC). We investigated the impact of adding this assay to standard pathological tests on clinicians’/patients’ treatment decisions and on patients’ decisional conflict in the United Kingdom. Methods: In this prospective multicentre study, eligibility criteria included: ER+ HER2-negative BC (N0/Nmic for patients ⩽50 years; ⩽3 positive lymph nodes for patients >50 years) and being fit for chemotherapy. Physicians’/patients’ treatment choices and patients’ decisional conflict were recorded pre- and post testing. Results: The analysis included 137 patients. Overall, adjuvant treatment recommendations changed in 40.7% of patients, with the direction of the change consistent with the Recurrence Score results (net decrease in chemotherapy recommendation rate in low Recurrence Score patients and net increase in high Recurrence Score patients). Patients’ choices were generally consistent with physicians’ recommendations. Post-testing, patients’ decisional conflict decreased significantly ( P <0.0001). In the 67 patients meeting the NICE criteria for testing, the recommendation change rate was 49.3%. Conclusions: Recurrence Score testing significantly influenced treatment recommendations overall and in the subgroup of patients meeting the NICE criteria, suggesting that this test could substantially alter treatment patterns in the United Kingdom.

Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) are a potential predictive biomarker for immunotherapy response in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). To incorporate sTILs into clinical trials and diagnostics, reliable assessment is essential. In this review, we propose a new concept, namely the implementation of a risk-management framework that enables the use of sTILs as a stratification factor in clinical trials. We present the design of a biomarker risk-mitigation workflow that can be applied to any biomarker incorporation in clinical trials. We demonstrate the implementation of this concept using sTILs as an integral biomarker in a single-center phase II immunotherapy trial for metastatic TNBC (TONIC trial, NCT02499367), using this workflow to mitigate risks of suboptimal inclusion of sTILs in this specific trial. In this review, we demonstrate that a web-based scoring platform can mitigate potential risk factors when including sTILs in clinical trials, and we argue that this framework can be applied for any future biomarker-driven clinical trial setting.