Explore the vast range of titles available.

Although 1% is the recommended cut-off to define estrogen receptor (ER) positivity, a 10% cut-off is often used in clinical practice for therapeutic purposes. We here evaluate clinical outcomes according to ER levels in a monoinstitutional cohort of non-metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (BC) patients undergoing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Clinicopathological data of 406 patients with ER < 10% HER2-negative BC treated with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy between 01/2000 and 04/2019 were collected. Patients were categorized in ER-negative (ER < 1%; N  = 364) and ER-low positive (1–9%, N  = 42). At a median follow-up of 54 months, 88 patients had relapsed and 64 died. No significant difference was observed in invasive relapse-free survival (iRFS) and overall survival (OS) according to ER expression levels, both at univariate and multivariate analysis (5-years iRFS 74.0% versus 73.1% for ER-negative and ER-low positive BC, respectively, p  = 0.6; 5-years OS 82.3% versus 76.7% for ER-negative and ER-low positive BC, respectively, p  = 0.8). Among the 165 patients that received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pathological complete response rate was similar in the two cohorts (38% in ER-negative, 44% in ER-low positive, p  = 0.498). In conclusion, primary BC with ER1–9% shows similar clinical behavior to ER 1% BC. Our results suggest the use of a 10% cut-off, rather than <1%, to define triple-negative BC.

BackgroundThe generation of data capturing the risk-benefit ratio of incorporating carboplatin (Cb) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in a clinical practice setting is urgently needed. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have an established role in TNBC receiving NACT, however, the role of TIL dynamics under NACT exposure in patients receiving the current standard of care is largely uncharted.MethodsConsecutive TNBC patients receiving anthracycline-taxane [A-T] +/− Cb NACT at three Institutions were enrolled. Stromal-TILs were evaluated on pre-NACT and residual disease (RD) specimens. In the clinical cohort, propensity-score-matching was used to control selection bias.ResultsIn total, 247 patients were included (A-T = 40.5%, A-TCb = 59.5%). After propensity-score-matching, pCR was significantly higher for A-TCb vs A-T (51.9% vs 34.2%, multivariate: OR = 2.40, P = 0.01). No differences in grade ≥3 haematological toxicities were observed. TILs increased from baseline to RD in the overall population and across A-T/A-TCb subgroups. TIL increase from baseline to RD was positively and independently associated with distant disease-free survival (multivariate: HR = 0.43, P = 0.05).ConclusionsWe confirmed in a clinical practice setting of TNBC patients receiving A-T NACT that the incorporation of weekly Cb significantly improved pCR. In addition, A-T +/− Cb enhanced immune infiltration from baseline to RD. Finally, we reported a positive independent prognostic role of TIL increase after NACT exposure.

Abstract Introduction The observational multicenter prospective FLOWER study (NCT04965701) confirmed effectiveness and safety of osimertinib in the real-world (RW) management of untreated EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients. Methods Herein, we report updated survival data, post-progression management, cost/effectiveness and budget impact (BI) of osimertinib compared with a RW population receiving gefitinib or erlotinib. Results Overall, 189 Caucasian patients receiving first-line osimertinib were included. After a follow-up of 20.7 months, 74(39.2%) patients discontinued osimertinib, median time-to-treatment discontinuation (mTTD) was 27.9 months, overall survival 36.8 months. At progression, tissue biopsy was performed in 29 (56.9%), liquid biopsy in 15 (29.4%) and both in 7 (13.7%) cases. The most frequent resistant mechanism was MET amplification (N = 14, 29.8%). At data cutoff, 13 (6.9%) patients were continuing osimertinib beyond progression; 52 (67.5%) received second-line treatment; no further treatments were administered in 25 (32.5%) cases. Thirty-three (63.4%) patients received chemotherapy, 12(23.1%) TKIs combination. Cost–effectiveness analysis showed a total cost per patient based on RW mTTD of 98,957.34€, 21,726.28€ and 19,637.83€ for osimertinib, erlotinib and gefitinib, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)/month for osimertinib was 359,806.0€/life-year-gained (LYG) and 197,789.77€/LYG compared to erlotinib and gefitinib. For osimertinib, the BI-gap between RW-TTD and theoretical-TTD was 16,501.0€ per patient. Conclusions This updated analysis confirms the effectiveness of osimertinib in RW. Although the ICER of osimertinib seems not cost-effective, additional costs for the management of disease progression to old generation TKIs were not considered in this study. The BI-gap suggests RW mTTD as a more reliable measure for expense estimation. This article reports updated survival data, post-progression diagnostic-therapeutic pathway, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of osimertinib in patients treated with first-line osimertinib and included in the FLOWER study.