Explore the vast range of titles available.

Among persons with breast cancer previously treated with hormonal therapy, the AKT pathway inhibitor capivasertib when added to fulvestrant significantly prolonged progression-free survival as compared with fulvestrant alone.

With 8 years of median follow-up from treatment divergence, a relatively short time for assessment of mortality improvements in ER-positive breast cancer, the reduction in breast cancer mortality with 5 additional years of treatment was not significant, although the confidence interval for this result was wide (0·90, 0·70–1·15). Aside from classical clinico-pathological risk factors, genomic approaches could aid in decision making. Since these studies were conducted, primary tumour transcriptional assays have been developed to aid prediction of breast cancer recurrence. Results from ongoing trials will help to determine whether such minimal residual disease can be eradicated, potentially favouring an active monitoring approach after adjuvant endocrine therapy for those with at least intermediate prognosis. 8 Treatment decisions, using the data reported by the EBCTCG, are further complicated by recent therapeutic advances and evidence that breast cancer prognosis is improving over time. 9 The trials in the current meta-analysis recruited between 1990 and 2009 and, subsequently, dose-dense chemotherapy, bisphosphonates and CDK4/6 inhibitors have all been introduced for the treatment of ER-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer.

Capivasertib (AZD5363) is a potent selective oral inhibitor of all three isoforms of the serine/threonine kinase AKT. The FAKTION trial investigated whether the addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in patients with aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer. In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, postmenopausal women aged at least 18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 and oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic or locally advanced inoperable breast cancer who had relapsed or progressed on an aromatase inhibitor were recruited from 19 hospitals in the UK. Enrolled participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (day 1) every 28 days (plus a loading dose on day 15 of cycle 1) with either capivasertib 400 mg or matching placebo, orally twice daily on an intermittent weekly schedule of 4 days on and 3 days off (starting on cycle 1 day 15) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment allocation was done using an interactive web-response system using a minimisation method (with a 20% random element) and the following minimisation factors: measurable or non-measurable disease, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, PIK3CA status, and PTEN status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival with a one-sided alpha of 0·20. Analyses were done by intention to treat. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992952. Between March 16, 2015, and March 6, 2018, 183 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 140 (76%) were eligible and were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus capivasertib (n=69) or fulvestrant plus placebo (n=71). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 4·9 months (IQR 1·6–11·6). At the time of primary analysis for progression-free survival (Jan 30, 2019), 112 progression-free survival events had occurred, 49 (71%) in 69 patients in the capivasertib group compared with 63 (89%) of 71 in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival was 10·3 months (95% CI 5·0–13·2) in the capivasertib group versus 4·8 months (3·1–7·7) in the placebo group, giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·58 (95% CI 0·39–0·84) in favour of the capivasertib group (two-sided p=0·0044; one-sided log rank test p=0·0018). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (22 [32%] of 69 patients in the capivasertib group vs 17 [24%] of 71 in the placebo group), diarrhoea (ten [14%] vs three [4%]), rash (14 [20%] vs 0), infection (four [6%] vs two [3%]), and fatigue (one [1%] vs three [4%]). Serious adverse reactions occurred only in the capivasertib group, and were acute kidney injury (two), diarrhoea (three), rash (two), hyperglycaemia (one), loss of consciousness (one), sepsis (one), and vomiting (one). One death, due to atypical pulmonary infection, was assessed as possibly related to capivasertib treatment. One further death in the capivasertib group had an unknown cause; all remaining deaths in both groups (19 in the capivasertib group and 31 in the placebo group) were disease related. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in participants who received capivasertib than in those who received placebo. The combination of capivasertib and fulvestrant warrants further investigation in phase 3 trials. AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.

Capivasertib, an AKT inhibitor, added to fulvestrant, was previously reported to improve progression-free survival in women with aromatase inhibitor-resistant oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The benefit appeared to be independent of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT/phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN) pathway alteration status of tumours, as ascertained using assays available at the time. Here, we report updated progression-free survival and overall survival results, and a prespecified examination of the effect of PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway alterations identified by an expanded genetic testing panel on treatment outcomes. This randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial recruited postmenopausal adult women aged at least 18 years with ER-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic or locally advanced inoperable breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, who had relapsed or progressed on an aromatase inhibitor, from across 19 hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (day 1) every 28 days (plus a 500 mg loading dose on day 15 of cycle 1) with either capivasertib 400 mg or matching placebo, orally twice daily on an intermittent weekly schedule of 4 days on and 3 days off, starting on cycle 1 day 15. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment was allocated by an interactive web-response system using a minimisation method (with a 20% random element) and the following minimisation factors: measurable or non-measurable disease, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, PIK3CA status, and PTEN status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints shown in this Article were overall survival and safety in the intention-to-treat population, and the effect of tumour PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway status identified by an expanded testing panel that included next-generation sequencing assays. Recruitment is complete. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992952. Between March 16, 2015, and March 6, 2018, 183 participants were screened for eligibility and 140 (77%) were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus capivasertib (n=69) or fulvestrant plus placebo (n=71). Median follow-up at the data cut-off of Nov 25, 2021, was 58·5 months (IQR 45·9–64·1) for participants treated with fulvestrant plus capivasertib and 62·3 months (IQR 62·1–70·3) for fulvestrant plus placebo. Updated median progression-free survival was 10·3 months (95% CI 5·0–13·4) in the group receiving fulvestrant plus capivasertib compared with 4·8 months (3·1–7·9) for fulvestrant plus placebo (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·56 [95% CI 0·38–0·81]; two-sided p=0·0023). Median overall survival in the capivasertib versus placebo groups was 29·3 months (95% CI 23·7–39·0) versus 23·4 months (18·7–32·7; adjusted HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·45–0·97]; two-sided p=0·035). The expanded biomarker panel identified an expanded pathway-altered subgroup that contained 76 participants (54% of the intention-to-treat population). Median progression-free survival in the expanded pathway-altered subgroup for participants receiving capivasertib (n=39) was 12·8 months (95% CI 6·6–18·8) compared with 4·6 months (2·8–7·9) in the placebo group (n=37; adjusted HR 0·44 [95% CI 0·26–0·72]; two-sided p=0·0014). Median overall survival for the expanded pathway-altered subgroup receiving capivasertib was 38·9 months (95% CI 23·3–50·7) compared with 20·0 months (14·8–31·4) for those receiving placebo (adjusted HR 0·46 [95% CI 0·27–0·79]; two-sided p=0·0047). By contrast, there were no statistically significant differences in progression-free or overall survival in the expanded pathway non-altered subgroup treated with capivasertib (n=30) versus placebo (n=34). One additional serious adverse event (pneumonia) in the capivasertib group had occurred subsequent to the primary analysis. One death, due to atypical pulmonary infection, was assessed as possibly related to capivasertib treatment. Updated FAKTION data showed that capivasertib addition to fulvestrant extends the survival of participants with aromatase inhibitor-resistant ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The expanded biomarker testing suggested that capivasertib predominantly benefits patients with PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway-altered tumours. Phase 3 data are needed to substantiate the results, including in patients with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor exposure who were not included in the FAKTION trial. AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.

Identifying women aged 30-39 years at increased risk of developing breast cancer would allow them to receive screening and prevention offers. For this to be feasible, the practicalities of organising risk assessment and primary prevention must be acceptable to the healthcare professionals who would be responsible for delivery. It has been proposed that primary care providers are best placed to deliver a breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention pathway. The present study aimed to investigate a range of primary care provider's views on the development and implementation of a breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention pathway within primary care for women aged 30-39 years. Twenty-five primary care providers working at general practices in either Greater Manchester or Cambridgeshire and Peterborough participated in five focus groups (n = 18) and seven individual interviews. Data were analysed thematically and organised using a framework approach. Three themes were developed. Challenges with delivering a breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention pathway within primary care highlights that primary care are willing to facilitate but not lead delivery of such a pathway given the challenges with existing workload pressures and concerns about ensuring effective clinical governance. Primary care's preferred level of involvement describes the aspects of the pathway participants thought primary care could be involved in, namely co-ordinating data collection for risk assessment and calculating and communicating risk. Requirements for primary care involvement captures the need to provide a training and education package to address deficits in knowledge prior to involvement. Additionally, the reservations primary care have about being involved in the management of women identified as being at increased risk are discussed and suggestions are provided for facilitating primary care to take on this role. Despite optimism that primary care might lead a breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention pathway, participants had a range of concerns that should be considered when developing such a pathway.

PurposeER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) with visceral crisis (VC) or impending VC (IVC) is commonly treated with chemotherapy instead of CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i). However, there is little evidence to confirm which treatment is superior. This study compared outcomes of patients with ER+/HER2- ABC and IVC/VC treated with CDK4/6i or weekly paclitaxel.MethodsPatients with ER+/HER2- ABC receiving first line treatment at a large tertiary UK cancer centre from 1-Mar-2017 to 30-Jun-2021 were retrospectively identified. Hospital records were screened for IVC/VC affecting the liver, lungs/mediastinum, gastrointestinal tract and/or bone marrow. Baseline demographics, clinical data and survival outcomes were recorded up to 30-Jul-2022.Results27/396 (6.8%) patients with ABC who received CDK4/6i and 32/86 (37.2%) who received paclitaxel had IVC/VC. Median time to treatment failure (TTF), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in the CDK4/6i compared to paclitaxel cohort: TTF 17.3 vs. 3.5 months (HR 0.33, 95%CI 0.17–0.61, p = 0.0002), PFS 17.8 vs. 4.5 months (HR 0.38, 95%CI 0.21–0.67, p = 0.002), OS 24.6 vs. 6.7 months (HR 0.37, 95%CI 0.20–0.68, p = 0.002). The median time to first improvement in IVC/VC was similar in patients receiving CDK4/6i compared to paclitaxel (3.9 vs. 3.6 weeks, p = 0.773). Disease control at 4 months was not significantly different in the CDK4/6i and paclitaxel cohorts (77.8% vs. 59.4%, p = 0.168). In multivariate analysis, treatment with CDK4/6i was independently associated with a longer PFS compared to paclitaxel (HR 0.31, 95%CI 0.12–0.78, p = 0.015).ConclusionIn this retrospective study, patients with ER+/HER2- ABC and IVC/VC treated with CDK4/6i had a significantly better survival compared to those treated with weekly paclitaxel. Further prospective studies that minimise possible selection bias are recommended.

Dissemination of tumour cells to the bone marrow is an early event in breast cancer, however cells may lie dormant for many years before bone metastases develop. Treatment for bone metastases is not curative, therefore new adjuvant therapies which prevent the colonisation of disseminated cells into metastatic lesions are required. There is evidence that cancer stem cells (CSCs) within breast tumours are capable of metastasis, but the mechanism by which these colonise bone is unknown. Here, we establish that bone marrow-derived IL1β stimulates breast cancer cell colonisation in the bone by inducing intracellular NFkB and CREB signalling in breast cancer cells, leading to autocrine Wnt signalling and CSC colony formation. Importantly, we show that inhibition of this pathway prevents both CSC colony formation in the bone environment, and bone metastasis. These findings establish that targeting IL1β-NFKB/CREB-Wnt signalling should be considered for adjuvant therapy to prevent breast cancer bone metastasis. In breast cancer, dormant cancer cells may develop into bone metastases. Here, the authors demonstrate that microenvironmental IL1β stimulates metastatic breast cancer cell colonisation in the bone via IL1β-NFKB/CREB-Wnt pathway activation and cancer stem cell colony formation

Improved screening and treatment have decreased breast cancer mortality, although incidence continues to rise. Women at increased risk of breast cancer can be offered risk reducing treatments, such as tamoxifen, but this has not been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality. New, more efficacious, risk-reducing agents are needed. The identification of novel candidates for prevention is hampered by a lack of good preclinical models. Current patient derived in vitro and in vivo models cannot fully recapitulate the complexities of the human tissue, lacking human extracellular matrix, stroma, and immune cells, all of which are known to influence therapy response. Here we describe a normal breast explant model utilising a tuneable hydrogel which maintains epithelial proliferation, hormone receptor expression, and residency of T cells and macrophages over 7 days. Unlike other organotypic tissue cultures which are often limited by hyper-proliferation, loss of hormone signalling, and short treatment windows (< 48h), our model shows that tissue remains viable over 7 days with none of these early changes. This offers a powerful and unique opportunity to model the normal breast and study changes in response to various risk factors, such as breast density and hormone exposure. Further validation of the model, using samples from patients undergoing preventive therapies, will hopefully confirm this to be a valuable tool, allowing us to test novel agents for breast cancer risk reduction preclinically.

CAPItello-291 is an ongoing phase 3 trial in which capivasertib–fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo–fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after aromatase inhibitor treatment, in both the overall population and in patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. This study further explored patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functioning, symptoms, and symptom tolerability in CAPItello-291. This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which was conducted across 193 hospitals and cancer centres in 19 countries, enrolled women with any menopausal status or men, aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Japan), with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or 6 inhibitor therapy. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 and could have received up to two previous lines of endocrine therapy and up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (stratified according to the presence or absence of liver metastases, previous use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor [yes vs no], and geographical region) to receive oral capivasertib 400 mg (twice daily for 4 days, followed by 3 days off) plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (every 14 days for the first three injections, then every 28 days) or placebo with matching fulvestrant dosing. The dual primary endpoint of the trial was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module (QLQ-C30) and breast module (QLQ-BR23), Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Tolerability (PGI-TT) questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 were secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints, and these endpoints are the subject of analysis in this Article. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified timepoints. Patient-reported outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients with an evaluable baseline assessment and at least one evaluable post-baseline assessment. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed model with repeated measures for EORTC QLQ-C30 and summarised for QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration was described using the Kaplan–Meier method. PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle. Patient-reported outcomes were not prospectively powered for statistical comparison. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04305496. Between June 2, 2020, and Oct 13, 2021, 901 patients were enrolled, of whom 708 patients were randomly assigned to receive capivasertib–fulvestrant (n=355) or placebo–fulvestrant (n=353). The median age of the patients was 59 years (IQR 51–67) in the capivasertib–fulvestrant group and 58 years (IQR 49–66) in the placebo–fulvestrant group. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2022), the median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival in censored patients was 13·0 months (IQR 9·1–16·7) for capivasertib–fulvestrant and 12·7 months (IQR 2·0–16·4) for placebo–fulvestrant in the overall population. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) scores were maintained from baseline and were similar between treatment groups throughout the study period (difference in mean change from baseline of −2·5 [95% CI −4·5 to −0·6] with capivasertib–fulvestrant vs −5·6 [−7·9 to −3·4] with placebo–fulvestrant; treatment difference 3·1 [95% CI 0·2 to 6·0]). Median time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL was 24·9 months (95% CI 13·8 to not reached) in the capivasertib–fulvestrant group and 12·0 months (10·2 to 15·7) in the placebo–fulvestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·53 to 0·92). Time to deterioration HRs for all EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 subscale scores showed little difference between the treatment groups, except for diarrhoea, which was worse in the capivasertib–fulvestrant group than in the placebo–fulvestrant group (HR 2·75, 95% CI 2·01–3·81). In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting loose and watery stools “frequently” or “almost constantly” was 29% higher at cycle 1, day 15 in the capivasertib–fulvestrant group than in the placebo–fulvestrant group, decreasing at subsequent cycles. Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, itchy skin, and numbness or tingling in hands or feet) were absent or mild in most patients in both groups throughout treatment. According to the PGI-TT, most patients in both groups reported “not at all” or “a little bit” of bother from treatment side-effects. Patient-reported outcomes from CAPItello-291 demonstrated that capivasertib–fulvestrant delayed time to deterioration of GHS/QOL and maintained other dimensions of HRQOL (except symptoms of diarrhoea) similarly to fulvestrant. With the clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these exploratory results further support the positive benefit–risk profile of capivasertib–fulvestrant in this population. AstraZeneca.