Explore the vast range of titles available.

The 2019 Lasker–DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award goes to scientists whose work on the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 in breast cancer launched a new era in clinical research and the practice of oncology.

A tumor biomarker is a molecular or process-based change that reflects the status of an underlying malignancy. A tumor biomarker may be identified and measured by one or more assays, or tests, for the biomarker. Increasingly, tumor biomarker tests are being used to drive patient management, either by identifying patients who do not require any, or any further, treatment, or by identifying patients whose tumors are so unlikely to respond to a given type of treatment that it will cause more harm than good. A tumor biomarker assay should only be used to guide management if it has analytical validity, meaning that it is accurate, reproducible, and reliable, and if it has been shown to have clinical utility. The latter implies that high levels of evidence are available that demonstrate that application of the tumor biomarker test for a given use context results in better outcomes, or similar outcomes with less cost, than if the assay were not applied. Use contexts include risk categorization, screening, differential diagnosis, prognosis, prediction of therapeutic activity or monitoring disease course. Very few tumor biomarker tests have passed these high bars for routine clinical application. However, if tumor biomarker tests are going to be used to drive patient care, than an understanding, and careful assessment, of these concepts are essential, since “A Bad Tumor Biomarker Test Is as Bad as a Bad Drug.”

In a meta-analysis of 88 trials involving nearly 63,000 women with breast cancer who were disease-free after 5 years of endocrine therapy, the risk of recurrence ranged from 10 to 41% between years 5 and 20, depending on nodal status and tumor grade.

Biomarkers have many potential applications in oncology, including risk assessment, screening, differential diagnosis, determination of prognosis, prediction of response to treatment, and monitoring of progression of disease. Because of the critical role that biomarkers play at all stages of disease, it is important that they undergo rigorous evaluation, including analytical validation, clinical validation, and assessment of clinical utility, prior to incorporation into routine clinical care. In this review we address key steps in the development of biomarkers, including ways to avoid introducing bias and guidelines to follow when reporting results of biomarker studies. ► Cancer biomarkers must undergo rigorous analytic and clinical validation. ► Clinical validity must be established before a biomarker is used in the clinic. ► Guidelines have been established for reporting results of tumor marker studies.

To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline. A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature. The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have become an established biomarker for prognosis in patients with various carcinomas. However, current ex vivo CTC isolation technologies rely on small blood volumes from a single venipuncture limiting the number of captured CTCs. This produces statistical variability and inaccurate reflection of tumor cell heterogeneity. Here, we describe an in vivo indwelling intravascular aphaeretic CTC isolation system to continuously collect CTCs directly from a peripheral vein. The system returns the remaining blood products after CTC enrichment, permitting interrogation of larger blood volumes than classic phlebotomy specimens over a prolonged period of time. The system is validated in canine models showing capability to screen 1–2% of the entire blood over 2 h. Our result shows substantial increase in CTC capture, compared with serial blood draws. This technology could potentially be used to analyze large number of CTCs to facilitate translation of analytical information into future clinical decisions. Ex vivo methods of circulating tumor cell (CTC) isolation use small blood volumes, limiting sensitivity and introducing analytical inaccuracies. The authors describe a proof-of-concept study of an in vivo aphaeresis system that continuously collects CTCs from a peripheral vein over several hours.

The understanding that HER2 plays a critical role in tumorigenesis has fundamentally changed the treatment of breast cancer over the last 30 years, with HER2-targeted therapies substantially improving the likelihood of survival and cure for a subset of patients. Introduction of ADCs, and particularly TDx-D, represents yet another major step forward in this field, but important questions remain concerning the selection of patients, management of toxicity, and mechanisms of resistance. Each of these is being addressed in ongoing preclinical studies, clinical trials, and reviews of current and potential policies and technologies in order to ensure that all patients who may benefit from this therapy are able to gain access to the treatment.

Arul Chinnaiyan and colleagues report the results of prospective clinical sequencing of 11 estrogen receptor–positive metastatic breast cancers. They identify ESR1 mutations affecting the ligand-binding domain in six hormone-resistant metastatic breast cancers and show that the mutant estrogen receptors are constitutively active and continue to be responsive to anti-estrogen therapies in vitro . Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women, and over two-thirds of cases express estrogen receptor-α (ER-α, encoded by ESR1 ). Through a prospective clinical sequencing program for advanced cancers, we enrolled 11 patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer. Whole-exome and transcriptome analysis showed that six cases harbored mutations of ESR1 affecting its ligand-binding domain (LBD), all of whom had been treated with anti-estrogens and estrogen deprivation therapies. A survey of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) identified four endometrial cancers with similar mutations of ESR1 . The five new LBD-localized ESR1 mutations identified here (encoding p.Leu536Gln, p.Tyr537Ser, p.Tyr537Cys, p.Tyr537Asn and p.Asp538Gly) were shown to result in constitutive activity and continued responsiveness to anti-estrogen therapies in vitro. Taken together, these studies suggest that activating mutations in ESR1 are a key mechanism in acquired endocrine resistance in breast cancer therapy.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are effective in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation-associated metastatic breast cancer. However, studies evaluating PARP inhibitors plus platinum-based chemotherapy in germline BRCA1/2-wildtype triple-negative breast cancer are scarce. A large proportion of germline BRCA1/2-wildtype triple-negative breast cancer shows homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), resulting in a BRCA-like phenotype that might render sensitivity to PARP inhibitors. The S1416 trial assessed the efficacy of cisplatin combined with the PARP inhibitor veliparib in three predefined groups of metastatic breast cancer: germline BRCA1/2-mutated, BRCA-like, and non-BRCA-like. S1416 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial conducted at 154 community and academic clinical sites across the USA. Eligible patients aged 18 years or older had metastatic or recurrent triple-negative breast cancer or germline BRCA1/2-associated metastatic or recurrent breast cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and had received up to one line of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via the National Clinical Trials Network open interactive system with dynamic balancing on number of previous cytotoxic regimens for metastatic disease to receive intravenous cisplatin (75 mg/m2, day 1) combined with either veliparib or matching placebo (300 mg orally twice a day, days 1–14) on a 21-day cycle. Investigators, patients, and the sponsors were masked to treatment assignment; the study statisticians were unmasked. Central testing after ran domisation classified patients as having mutated or wildtype germline BRCA1/2. A biomarker panel established a priori was used to classify patients with wildtype germline BRCA1/2 into BRCA-like and non-BRCA-like phenotype groups, with BRCA-like status based on at least one of the biomarkers: genomic instability score (≥42), somatic BRCA1/2 mutations, BRCA1 promoter methylation, or non-BRCA1/2 homologous recombination repair germline mutations. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed separately for the three predefined biomarker groups with a prespecified α value for each analysis. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat and included all eligible patients. Safety analyses of toxicities attributed to treatment included all patients who received at least one dose of veliparib or placebo. The study is ongoing and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595905. Between July 7, 2016, and June 15, 2019, 335 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. 320 patients (n=162 to cisplatin plus veliparib, all women; and n=158 to cisplatin plus placebo, 157 women and one man) were eligible for efficacy evaluation. 247 patients were classified into the three biomarker groups: germline BRCA1/2-mutated (n=37), BRCA-like (n=101), and non-BRCA-like (n=109). 73 patients could not be classified due to missing biomarker information. Median follow-up was 11·1 months (IQR 5·6–20·8). In the germline BRCA1/2-mutated group, median progression-free survival was 6·2 months (95% CI 2·3–9·2) in the cisplatin plus veliparib group and 6·4 months (4·3–8·2) in the cisplatin plus placebo group (HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·38–1·67]; log-rank p=0·54). In the BRCA-like group, median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 4·3–7·8) in the cisplatin plus veliparib group versus 4·2 months (2·3–5·0) in the cisplatin plus placebo group (HR 0·57 [95% CI 0·37–0·88]; p=0·010). In the non-BRCA-like group, median progression-free survival was 4·0 months (95% CI 2·5–4·7) in the cisplatin plus veliparib group versus 3·0 months (2·2–4·4) in the cisplatin plus placebo group (HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·60–1·33]; p=0·57). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events attributed to treatment were neutropenia (71 [46%] of 155 patients in the cisplatin plus veliparib group vs 29 [20%] of 147 in the cisplatin plus placebo group), leukopenia (42 [27%] vs 11 [7%]), anaemia (35 [23%] vs 12 [8%]), and thrombocytopenia (29 [19%] vs four [3%]). Serious adverse events attributed to treatment occurred in 48 (31%) patients in the cisplatin plus veliparib group and 53 (36%) patients in the cisplatin plus placebo group. Treatment-related adverse events led to death in one patient in the cisplatin plus veliparib group (sepsis) and one patient in the cisplatin plus placebo group (acute kidney injury due to cisplatin plus heart failure from previous doxorubicin exposure). The addition of veliparib to cisplatin significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with BRCA-like metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, but not in patients with non-BRCA-like metastatic breast cancer. PARP inhibitors combined with platinum-based chemotherapy should be explored further in BRCA-like triple-negative breast cancer. National Cancer Institute and National Institute of General Medical Sciences (US National Institutes of Health); AbbVie; Myriad Genetics; the Biomarker, Imaging, and Quality of Life Studies Funding Program (awarded by the National Cancer Institute); and The University of Kansas Cancer Center.

Purpose. —To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer. Methods. —ASCO/CAP convened an Update Committee that included coauthors of the 2007 guideline to conduct a systematic literature review and update recommendations for optimal HER2 testing. Results. —The Update Committee identified criteria and areas requiring clarification to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH). The guideline was reviewed and approved by both organizations. Recommendations. —The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to >10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification ( HER2 copy number or HER2 /CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing.