Explore the vast range of titles available.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive subtype with poor prognosis, is of higher frequency in African American women and women of Sub-Saharan African origin. In France, legal constraints on obtaining health data on race, ethnicity, or nationality in cancer registries and medical records make it difficult to estimate the frequency of TNBC according to women’s origins. These constraints result from a historical “universalist” approach to French citizenship which prohibits the routine collection of ethnoracial data. An anonymous, statistical survey we conducted from a single-hospital case series of 780 women with breast cancer followed in a university hospital in Paris showed that TNBCs were at least 3 times more common in patients born in Sub-Saharan Africa than in patients born in France. The former consulted at a more advanced stage of the disease than the latter. The results of an ethnographic study of African women in the Paris region with breast cancer, conducted for several years, highlighted some explanatory factors: low breast cancer awareness, perceived causes distinct from biomedical etiology, the weight of shame and secrecy, prior recourse to local healing, difficulties in communicating with health professionals and navigating the healthcare system. Although considered a public health priority, TNBCs are an emblematic example of the limits produced by French race and ethnicity blindness in public health, epidemiology, prevention and health care.

Breast cancer is a major health problem worldwide. In ~15% of breast cancers, the epidermal growth factor receptor HER2, a transmembrane protein, is overexpressed. This HER2 overexpression is associated with an aggressive form of the disease and a poor clinical prognosis. The extracellular domain (ECD) of HER2 is released into the blood by a proteolytic mechanism known as “ECD shedding”. This proteolytic shedding leaves a constitutively active truncated receptor in the membrane that is 10–100-fold more oncogenic than the full-length receptor and promotes the growth and survival of cancer cells. Shedding of the HER2 ECD is increased during metastasis: whereas 15% of primary breast cancer patients have elevated levels of serum HER2 ECD (sHER2 ECD), the levels reach 45% in patients with metastatic disease. Thus, sHER2 ECD has been proposed as a promising biomarker for cancer recurrence and for monitoring the disease status of patients overexpressing HER2. Nevertheless, in 2016, the American Society of Clinical Oncology advises clinicians not to use soluble HER2 levels to guide their choice of adjuvant therapy for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer, because the evidence was considered not strong enough. Currently, biomarkers such as carcinoembryonic antigen and cancer antigen 15-3 are widely used to monitor metastatic breast cancer disease even if the level of evidence of clinical impact of this monitoring is poor. In this article, we review the evidence that sHER2 ECD might be used in some situations as a biomarker for breast cancer. Although this serum biomarker will not replace the direct measurement of tumor HER2 status for diagnosis of early-stage tumors; it might be especially useful in metastatic disease for prognosis, as an indicator of cancer progression and of therapy response, particularly to anti-HER2 therapies. Owing to these data, sHER2 ECD should be considered as a promising biomarker to detect cancer recurrence and metastasis.

Subcutaneous trastuzumab has shown non-inferior efficacy and a similar pharmacokinetic and safety profile when compared with intravenous trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. We assessed patient preference for either subcutaneous or intravenous trastuzumab in the international, randomised PrefHer study. Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older with HER2-positive, histologically confirmed primary invasive breast adenocarcinoma, no evidence of residual, locally recurrent, or metastatic disease after completion of surgery and chemotherapy (neoadjuvant or adjuvant), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and a baseline left-ventricular ejection fraction of 55% or more before the first dose of trastuzumab. Radiotherapy or hormone therapy was allowed. Patients were randomised (randomly permuted blocks of four) to receive four cycles of 600 mg fixed-dose subcutaneous adjuvant trastuzumab via a single-use injection device or hand-held syringe followed by four cycles of standard intravenous trastuzumab, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was stratified by de-novo versus non-de-novo use of intravenous trastuzumab. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients indicating an overall preference for subcutaneous or intravenous trastuzumab, assessed by patient interview in the evaluable intention-to-treat (ITT) population (patients who completed both interviews and had at least one administration of both subcutaneous and intravenous trastuzumab). Data collection for PrefHer is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01401166. 124 patients were randomly allocated to receive subcutaneous followed by intravenous trastuzumab, and 124 to receive the reverse sequence. 117 patients in the subcutaneous first group and 119 in the intravenous first group were included in the evaluable ITT population. Subcutaneous trastuzumab via the single-use injection device was preferred by 216 patients (91·5%, 95% CI 87·2–94·7; p<0·0001). Only 16 patients preferred intravenous trastuzumab (6·8%, 3·9–10·8), and four had no preference (1·7%, 0·5–4·3). Clinician-reported adverse events occurred in 141 of 242 (58%) patients during the pooled subcutaneous periods and 105 of 241 (44%) patients during the pooled intravenous periods; seven (3%) and five (2%) were grade 3, no patients had a grade 4 or 5 event. The most common grade 3 adverse event was influenza (two [0·8%] patients). Patient preference and safety results from PrefHer, combined with the known non-inferior efficacy and pharmacokinetic and safety profile data, suggest that a fixed dose of 600 mg trastuzumab administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks is a validated, well tolerated treatment option for HER2-positive breast cancer, and is the preferred treatment of patients. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Longer duration of first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer is associated with prolonged overall survival and improved progression-free survival. We investigated capecitabine added to maintenance bevacizumab after initial treatment with bevacizumab and docetaxel in this setting. We did this open-label randomised phase 3 trial at 54 hospitals in Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Turkey. We enrolled patients with HER2-negative measurable metastatic breast cancer; each received three to six cycles of first-line bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) and docetaxel (75–100 mg/m2) every 3 weeks. Progression-free patients were randomly assigned with an interactive voice-response system by block (size four) randomisation (1:1) to receive either bevacizumab and capecitabine or bevacizumab only (bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1; capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice per day on days 1–14, every 3 weeks) until progression, stratified by oestrogen receptor status (positive vs negative), visceral metastases (present vs absent), response status (stable disease vs response vs non-measurable), and lactate dehydrogenase concentration (≤1·5 vs >1·5 × upper limit of normal). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (from randomisation) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00929240. Between July 16, 2009, and March 7, 2011 (when enrolment was prematurely terminated), 284 patients received initial bevacizumab and docetaxel; 185 (65%) were randomly assigned (91 to bevacizumab and capecitabine versus 94 to bevacizumab only). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group than in the bevacizumab only group (median 11·9 months [95% CI 9·8–15·4] vs 4·3 months [3·9–6·8]; stratified hazard ratio 0·38 [95% CI 0·27–0·55]; two-sided log-rank p<0·0001), as was overall survival (median 39·0 months [95% CI 32·3–not reached] vs 23·7 months [18·5–31·7]; stratified HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·26–0·69]; two-sided log-rank p=0·0003). Results for time to progression were consistent with those for progression-free survival. 78 (86%) patients in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group and 72 (77%) in the bevacizumab only group had an objective response. Clinical benefit was recorded in 92 (98%) patients in the bevacizumab alone group and 90 (99%) in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group. Mean change from baseline in global health score did not differ significantly between groups. Grade 3 or worse adverse events during the maintenance phase were more common with bevacizumab and capecitabine than with bevacizumab only (45 [49%] of 91 patients vs 25 [27%] of 92 patients). The most common grade 3 or worse events were hand–foot syndrome (28 [31%] in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group vs none in the bevacizumab alone group), hypertension (eight [9%] vs three [3%]), and proteinuria (three [3%] vs four [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported by ten (11%) patients in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group and seven (8%) patients in the bevacizumab only group. Despite prematurely terminated accrual and the lack of information about post-progression treatment, both progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly improved with bevacizumab and capecitabine compared with bevacizumab alone as maintenance treatment. These results might inform future maintenance trials and current first-line treatment strategies for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Background IMP321 is a recombinant soluble LAG-3Ig fusion protein that binds to MHC class II with high avidity and mediates APC and then antigen-experienced memory CD8 + T cell activation. We report clinical and biological results of a phase I/II in patients with metastatic breast carcinoma (MBC) receiving first-line paclitaxel weekly, 3 weeks out of 4. Methods MBC patients were administered one dose of IMP321 s.c. every two weeks for a total of 24 weeks (12 injections). The repeated single doses were administered the day after chemotherapy at D2 and D16 of the 28-day cycles of paclitaxel (80 mg/m 2 at D1, D8 and D15, for 6 cycles). Blood samples were taken 13 days after the sixth and the twelfth IMP321 injections to determine sustained APC, NK and memory CD8 T cell responses. Results Thirty MBC patients received IMP321 in three cohorts (doses: 0.25, 1.25 and 6.25 mg). IMP321 induced both a sustained increase in the number and activation of APC (monocytes and dendritic cells) and an increase in the percentage of NK and long-lived cytotoxic effector-memory CD8 T cells. Clinical benefit was observed for 90% of patients with only 3 progressors at 6 months. Also, the objective tumor response rate of 50% compared favorably to the 25% rate reported in the historical control group. Conclusions The absence of toxicity and the demonstration of activity strongly support the future development of this agent for clinical use in combined first-line regimens. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00349934

Combining bevacizumab with first-line or second-line chemotherapy improves progression-free survival in HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. We assessed the efficacy and safety of further bevacizumab therapy in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer whose disease had progressed after treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients who had HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer that had progressed after receiving 12 weeks or more of first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy from 118 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of a central interactive voice response system using a block randomisation schedule (block size four) stratified by hormone receptor status, first-line progression-free survival, selected chemotherapy, and lactate dehydrogenase concentration, to receive second-line single-agent chemotherapy either alone or with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks). Second-line therapy was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. At progression, patients randomly assigned to chemotherapy alone received third-line chemotherapy without bevacizumab; those randomly assigned to bevacizumab continued bevacizumab with third-line chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival from randomisation to second-line progression or death in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is ongoing, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01250379. Between Feb 17, 2011, and April 3, 2013, 494 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (247 in each group). The median duration of follow-up at the time of this prespecified primary progression-free survival analysis was 15·9 months (IQR 9·1–21·7) in the chemotherapy-alone group and 16·1 months (10·6–22·7) in the combination group. Progression-free survival was significantly longer for those patients treated with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy than for those with chemotherapy alone (median: 6·3 months [95% CI 5·4–7·2] vs 4·2 months [3·9–4·7], respectively, stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·61–0·93], two-sided stratified log-rank p=0·0068). The most common grade 3 or more adverse events were hypertension (33 [13%] of 245 patients receiving bevacizumab plus chemotherapy vs 17 [7%] of 238 patients receiving chemotherapy alone), neutropenia (29 [12%] vs 20 [8%]), and hand-foot syndrome (27 [11%] vs 25 [11%]). Grade 3 proteinuria occurred in 17 (7%) of 245 patients receiving combination therapy and one (<1%) of 238 patients receiving chemotherapy alone. Serious adverse events were reported in 61 (25%) of 245 patients receiving bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus 44 (18%) of 238 patients receiving chemotherapy alone. These results suggest that continued VEGF inhibition with further bevacizumab is a valid treatment option for patients with locally recurrent or metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer whose disease was stabilised or responded to first-line bevacizumab with chemotherapy. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Purpose This study aimed to compare changes in postural control in different testing conditions involving sensory disturbances, quality of life and neurotoxicity concerns in women with cancer before and after chemotherapy with taxanes. The second aim was to compare postural control between chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) severity subgroups. Method The 33 participants with breast cancer (age 48.15 ± 9.88 years) were tested during the month preceding (baseline) and the month after the end of chemotherapy. Postural control was assessed on a force platform (100 Hz) in different conditions: eyes open/closed, rigid/foam surface, with/without tendon vibration, dual task, and limits of stability. CIPN severity and neurotoxicity concerns were also evaluated. Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon sign rank tests were used, and a Benjamini-Hochberg correction was applied. Results After chemotherapy, greater postural adjustments were required to maintain balance in the reference condition ( p ≤ 0.02), and in conditions with visual ( p ≤ 0.02), foam ( p ≤ 0.04), and dual task disturbances ( p ≤ 0.01), but not in the vibration and limits of stability conditions. No difference was found between the CIPN subgroups. The neurotoxicity score worsened after chemotherapy (-8.61 ± 7.53, p ≤ 0.01). Conclusions Postural control was impaired after chemotherapy, particularly in conditions with visual disturbances and dual task. Anteroposterior center of pressure displacements with mediolateral ground reaction forces were particularly increased. Clinical implications Systematic assessment of postural control with eyes closed in women with breast cancer would help to identify chemotherapy-induced postural control disorders and determine treatment needs. Trial registration Clinical Trial Registration number NCT04692168. Registration date: 28.12.2020

The transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinase HER2 is overexpressed in approximately 15% of breast tumors and correlates with poor clinical prognosis. Several treatments that target HER2 are approved for treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. The serum biomarkers most widely used to monitor anti-HER2 therapies in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer currently are CA15.3 and CEA. Nevertheless, their clinical utility in patients with breast cancer remains a subject of discussion and controversy; thus, additional markers may prove useful in monitoring the therapeutic responses of these patients. The extracellular domain of HER2 can be shed by proteolytic cleavage into the circulation and this shed form, sHER2, is reported to be augmented during metastasis of HER2-positive breast tumors. Here, we studied the clinical usefulness of sHER2, CA15.3, and CEA for monitoring treatment for breast cancer. We measured prospectively pretreatment and post-treatment serum levels (day 1, 30, 60 and 90) of these three biomarkers in 47 HER2-positive, metastatic breast cancer patients treated with trastuzumab in combination with paclitaxel. Evaluation of the disease was performed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) at day 90. Patients with progressive disease at day 90 had smaller relative changes between day 1 and day 30 than those with complete, partial or stable responses at day 90: -9% versus -38% for sHER2 (P = 0.02), +23% versus -17% for CA15.3 (P = 0.005) and +29% versus -26% for CEA (P = 0.02). Patients with progressive disease at day 90 were less likely than the other patients to have a relative decrease of > 20% in their biomarker levels at day 30: 6% vs 33% for sHER2 (P = 0.03), 0% vs 27% for CA15.3 (P = 0.03), 4% vs 29% for CEA (P = 0.04). No patient with progressive disease at day 90 had > 20% reduction of the average combined biomarker levels at day 30 whereas 63% of the other patients had (P = 0.003). Moreover, when we analyzed a > 10% reduction of the average biomarker levels no patient with progressive disease at day 90 had a decrease > 10% at day 30 whereas 78% of other patients had (P<0.001, Se = 100%, Sp = 78%). We show that regular measurement of sHER2, CA15.3, and CEA levels is useful for predicting the therapeutic response and for monitoring HER2-targeted therapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. The average decrease of the three biomarkers with a threshold of > 10% appears to be the best parameter to distinguish patients who go on to have progressive disease from those who will have a complete, partial or stable response.

Purpose: Over the past twenty years, anti-HER2 targeted therapies have proven to be a revolution in the management of human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancers. Anti-HER2 therapies administered alone or in combination with chemotherapy have been specifically studied. Unfortunately, the safety of anti-HER2 therapies in combination with radiation remains largely unknown. Thus, we propose a literature review of the risks and safety of combining radiotherapy with anti-HER2 therapies. We will focus on the benefit/risk rationale and try to understand the risk of toxicity in early-stage and advanced breast cancer. Methods: Research was carried out on the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrial.gov, Medline, and Web of Science for the terms “radiotherapy”, “radiation therapy”, “radiosurgery”, “local ablative therapy”, and “stereotactic”, combined with “trastuzumab”, “pertuzumab”, “trastuzumab emtansine”, “TDM-1”, “T-Dxd”, “trastuzumab deruxtecan”, “tucatinib”, “lapatinib”, “immune checkpoint inhibitors”, “atezolizumab”, “pembrolizumab”, “nivolumab”, “E75 vaccine”, “interferon”, “anti-IL-2”, “anti-IL 12”, and “ADC”. Results: Association of radiation and monoclonal antibodies such as trastuzumab and pertuzumab (with limited data) seems to be safe, with no excess risk of toxicity. Preliminary data with radiation and of antibody–drug conjugate of trastuzumab combined cytotoxic (trastuzumab emtansine, trastuzumab deruxtecan), given the underlying mechanism of action, suggest that one must be particularly cautious with the association. The safety of the combination of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (lapatinib, tucatinib) and radiation remains under-studied. The available evidence suggests that checkpoint inhibitors can be safely administrated with radiation. Conclusions: HER2-targeting monoclonal antibodies and checkpoint inhibitors can be combined with radiation, apparently with no excess toxicities. Caution is required when associating radiation with TKI and antibody drugs, considering the limited evidence.

The treatment of breast cancer has improved dramatically over the past century, from a strictly surgical approach to a coordinated one, including local and systemic therapies. Systemic therapies for early-stage disease were initially tested against observation or placebo only in adjuvant trials. Subsequent clinical trials focusing on treatment ‘fine-tuning’ had a marked increase in cohort size, duration and costs, leading to a growing interest in the neoadjuvant setting in the past decade. Neoadjuvant trial designs have the advantages of enabling the direct evaluation of treatment effects on tumour diameter and offer unique translational research opportunities through the comparative analysis of tumour biology before, during and after treatment. Current technologies enabling the identification of better predictive biomarkers are shaping the new era of (neo)adjuvant trials. An urgent need exists to reinforce collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and academia to share data and thus establish large databases of biomarker data coupled with patient outcomes that are easily accessible to the scientific community. In this Review, we summarize the evolution of (neo)adjuvant trials from the pre-genomic to the post-genomic era and provide critical insights into how neoadjuvant studies are currently designed, discussing the need for better end points and treatment strategies that are more personalized, including in the post-neoadjuvant setting.Systemic therapies for early-stage disease have been tested in clinical trials for decades. The authors of this Review provide an overview of the evolution of (neo)adjuvant trials from the pre-genomic to the post-genomic era, focusing on design, end points and biomarkers that, together, could enable the delivery of more personalized treatment.