User login
Genomic assay changes minds on HER2+ BC treatment
The prospective pilot study is small, and the researchers didn’t report on how the patients fared, according to a poster presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. Plus, the test itself hasn’t been analyzed prospectively. But the study’s lead author, Olga Martínez-Sáez, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the 56% number is significant.
“We consider this percentage to be clinically very relevant,” said Dr. Martínez-Sáez, an oncologist at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona. “HER2DX can change practice.”
Also in an interview, Kent Hoskins, MD, associate chief of hematology/oncology at University of Illinois at Chicago, described HER2DX as a next-generation genomic test that builds on assays developed 2 decades ago to help identify patients who would benefit – or not – from adjuvant chemotherapy.
Dr. Hoskins, who isn’t connected to the new study but has studied genomic tests for breast cancer, said the HER2DX test seeks to provide guidance to oncologists about which of several treatments are most effective in treating patients with HER2+ breast cancer.
“The overall trend in the HER2+ space is escalating therapy, and the cure rates have improved quite substantially,” he said. “But do they all need that much therapy? That’s the clinical question that this assay is addressing.”
The assay examines clinical features and the expression of 4 gene signatures, Dr. Martínez-Sáez said. It provides a risk score estimating the likelihood of recurrence plus a score that estimates the likelihood of achieving pathological complete response (pCR) with trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant therapy and an ERBB2 mRNA score.
In a retrospective 2022 study published in eBioMedicine, researchers reported that the assay “predicts response following neoadjuvant letrozole in combination with dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in early-stage HER2-positive/hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.”
In the 2022 study, researchers wrote that assay results and other scores “might help better tailor systemic therapy in this context and identify candidates for avoiding chemotherapy, a therapy associated with short- and long-term toxicities and impact in quality of life.”
For the new study, a decision-impact analysis, researchers tracked 89 patients with HER2+ breast cancer (median age = 53 years, range 30-79, and 52% postmenopausal), the poster says. Most had T1-2 tumors (87%), negative nodes (64%), grade 2 (56%) or 3 (41%) tumors, and ductal histology (87%). And most were hormone receptor positive (65%). Seventy-eight percent of patients received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), and 22% underwent upfront surgery.
In 56% of cases, oncologists changed their treatment decisions after getting the results of the HER2DX assays. In 59% of these cases, oncologists de-escalated therapy; in 41%, they escalated therapy, opting for more intense chemotherapy 65% of the time, according to the poster.
Clinician confidence in their decisions improved in 67% of cases, the researchers reported in their poster. Among 56 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy who could be evaluated, “HER2DX pCR score was significantly associated with pCR (81% in pCR-medium/high and 32% in pCR-low; odds ratio=9.3, P = 0.001) independently of the rest of variables.”
Dr. Hoskins said the new report suggests that the assay can change treatment decisions, although he cautioned that “this study does not in itself establish its place in standard of care.” Large, prospective, randomized research is still needed, he said.
Dr. Martínez-Sáez said, in an interview, that the HER2DX assay should cost about as much as genomic assays for other breast cancer subtypes. These kinds of tests have cost several thousand dollars each in recent years.
What’s next? The decision impact study is ongoing. As for research into the assay itself, “prospective clinical trials are planned to demonstrate its clinical utility to de-escalate and guide therapy,” Dr. Martínez-Sáez said.
No funding is reported. Reveal Genomics is the developer of the HER2DX assay. Dr. Martinez- Saez reports financial relationships with Novartis, Eisai, Roche, and Reveal Genomics. Other study authors report multiple disclosures. Dr. Hoskins discloses non-financial research support from Agendia, which makes the MammaPrint early-breast-cancer assay.
The prospective pilot study is small, and the researchers didn’t report on how the patients fared, according to a poster presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. Plus, the test itself hasn’t been analyzed prospectively. But the study’s lead author, Olga Martínez-Sáez, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the 56% number is significant.
“We consider this percentage to be clinically very relevant,” said Dr. Martínez-Sáez, an oncologist at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona. “HER2DX can change practice.”
Also in an interview, Kent Hoskins, MD, associate chief of hematology/oncology at University of Illinois at Chicago, described HER2DX as a next-generation genomic test that builds on assays developed 2 decades ago to help identify patients who would benefit – or not – from adjuvant chemotherapy.
Dr. Hoskins, who isn’t connected to the new study but has studied genomic tests for breast cancer, said the HER2DX test seeks to provide guidance to oncologists about which of several treatments are most effective in treating patients with HER2+ breast cancer.
“The overall trend in the HER2+ space is escalating therapy, and the cure rates have improved quite substantially,” he said. “But do they all need that much therapy? That’s the clinical question that this assay is addressing.”
The assay examines clinical features and the expression of 4 gene signatures, Dr. Martínez-Sáez said. It provides a risk score estimating the likelihood of recurrence plus a score that estimates the likelihood of achieving pathological complete response (pCR) with trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant therapy and an ERBB2 mRNA score.
In a retrospective 2022 study published in eBioMedicine, researchers reported that the assay “predicts response following neoadjuvant letrozole in combination with dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in early-stage HER2-positive/hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.”
In the 2022 study, researchers wrote that assay results and other scores “might help better tailor systemic therapy in this context and identify candidates for avoiding chemotherapy, a therapy associated with short- and long-term toxicities and impact in quality of life.”
For the new study, a decision-impact analysis, researchers tracked 89 patients with HER2+ breast cancer (median age = 53 years, range 30-79, and 52% postmenopausal), the poster says. Most had T1-2 tumors (87%), negative nodes (64%), grade 2 (56%) or 3 (41%) tumors, and ductal histology (87%). And most were hormone receptor positive (65%). Seventy-eight percent of patients received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), and 22% underwent upfront surgery.
In 56% of cases, oncologists changed their treatment decisions after getting the results of the HER2DX assays. In 59% of these cases, oncologists de-escalated therapy; in 41%, they escalated therapy, opting for more intense chemotherapy 65% of the time, according to the poster.
Clinician confidence in their decisions improved in 67% of cases, the researchers reported in their poster. Among 56 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy who could be evaluated, “HER2DX pCR score was significantly associated with pCR (81% in pCR-medium/high and 32% in pCR-low; odds ratio=9.3, P = 0.001) independently of the rest of variables.”
Dr. Hoskins said the new report suggests that the assay can change treatment decisions, although he cautioned that “this study does not in itself establish its place in standard of care.” Large, prospective, randomized research is still needed, he said.
Dr. Martínez-Sáez said, in an interview, that the HER2DX assay should cost about as much as genomic assays for other breast cancer subtypes. These kinds of tests have cost several thousand dollars each in recent years.
What’s next? The decision impact study is ongoing. As for research into the assay itself, “prospective clinical trials are planned to demonstrate its clinical utility to de-escalate and guide therapy,” Dr. Martínez-Sáez said.
No funding is reported. Reveal Genomics is the developer of the HER2DX assay. Dr. Martinez- Saez reports financial relationships with Novartis, Eisai, Roche, and Reveal Genomics. Other study authors report multiple disclosures. Dr. Hoskins discloses non-financial research support from Agendia, which makes the MammaPrint early-breast-cancer assay.
The prospective pilot study is small, and the researchers didn’t report on how the patients fared, according to a poster presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. Plus, the test itself hasn’t been analyzed prospectively. But the study’s lead author, Olga Martínez-Sáez, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the 56% number is significant.
“We consider this percentage to be clinically very relevant,” said Dr. Martínez-Sáez, an oncologist at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona. “HER2DX can change practice.”
Also in an interview, Kent Hoskins, MD, associate chief of hematology/oncology at University of Illinois at Chicago, described HER2DX as a next-generation genomic test that builds on assays developed 2 decades ago to help identify patients who would benefit – or not – from adjuvant chemotherapy.
Dr. Hoskins, who isn’t connected to the new study but has studied genomic tests for breast cancer, said the HER2DX test seeks to provide guidance to oncologists about which of several treatments are most effective in treating patients with HER2+ breast cancer.
“The overall trend in the HER2+ space is escalating therapy, and the cure rates have improved quite substantially,” he said. “But do they all need that much therapy? That’s the clinical question that this assay is addressing.”
The assay examines clinical features and the expression of 4 gene signatures, Dr. Martínez-Sáez said. It provides a risk score estimating the likelihood of recurrence plus a score that estimates the likelihood of achieving pathological complete response (pCR) with trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant therapy and an ERBB2 mRNA score.
In a retrospective 2022 study published in eBioMedicine, researchers reported that the assay “predicts response following neoadjuvant letrozole in combination with dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in early-stage HER2-positive/hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.”
In the 2022 study, researchers wrote that assay results and other scores “might help better tailor systemic therapy in this context and identify candidates for avoiding chemotherapy, a therapy associated with short- and long-term toxicities and impact in quality of life.”
For the new study, a decision-impact analysis, researchers tracked 89 patients with HER2+ breast cancer (median age = 53 years, range 30-79, and 52% postmenopausal), the poster says. Most had T1-2 tumors (87%), negative nodes (64%), grade 2 (56%) or 3 (41%) tumors, and ductal histology (87%). And most were hormone receptor positive (65%). Seventy-eight percent of patients received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), and 22% underwent upfront surgery.
In 56% of cases, oncologists changed their treatment decisions after getting the results of the HER2DX assays. In 59% of these cases, oncologists de-escalated therapy; in 41%, they escalated therapy, opting for more intense chemotherapy 65% of the time, according to the poster.
Clinician confidence in their decisions improved in 67% of cases, the researchers reported in their poster. Among 56 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy who could be evaluated, “HER2DX pCR score was significantly associated with pCR (81% in pCR-medium/high and 32% in pCR-low; odds ratio=9.3, P = 0.001) independently of the rest of variables.”
Dr. Hoskins said the new report suggests that the assay can change treatment decisions, although he cautioned that “this study does not in itself establish its place in standard of care.” Large, prospective, randomized research is still needed, he said.
Dr. Martínez-Sáez said, in an interview, that the HER2DX assay should cost about as much as genomic assays for other breast cancer subtypes. These kinds of tests have cost several thousand dollars each in recent years.
What’s next? The decision impact study is ongoing. As for research into the assay itself, “prospective clinical trials are planned to demonstrate its clinical utility to de-escalate and guide therapy,” Dr. Martínez-Sáez said.
No funding is reported. Reveal Genomics is the developer of the HER2DX assay. Dr. Martinez- Saez reports financial relationships with Novartis, Eisai, Roche, and Reveal Genomics. Other study authors report multiple disclosures. Dr. Hoskins discloses non-financial research support from Agendia, which makes the MammaPrint early-breast-cancer assay.
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2023
Atezolizumab is associated with enhanced response in triple-negative breast cancer
based on final data from a randomized trial.
The IMpassion031 trial showed significant improvement in pathological complete response (pCR) with the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy, as well as an acceptable safety profile, said Carlos H. Barrios, MD, of the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group, Oncoclinicas, in Porto Allegre, Brazil, at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. Those findings were published in the Lancet in 2020.
Dr. Barrios reported data from a final analysis of the IMpassion031 trial, with data on event-free survival (EFS), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1–positive populations.
In the study, patients with early triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC) and a primary tumor greater than 2 cm were randomized to 840 mg of atezolizumab once every 2 weeks plus a neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen of nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 once weekly for 12 weeks, followed by doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks for 8 weeks. A total of 333 patients were randomized (165 atezolizumab and 168 placebo). Patients were stratified by stage II versus stage III, and by status of PD-L1, a protein that can predict treatment response (PD-L1 less than 1% vs. 1% or higher).
The primary endpoints (previously reported) were pathological complete response (pCR) in the ITT and PD-L1 populations. After a median follow-up of 39 months, the pCR was 58% in patients treated with atezolizumab versus 41% in those treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (P = .0044) in the ITT population, Dr. Barrios said. The added benefit from atezolizumab occurred regardless of the status of PD-L1.
Dr. Barrios reported the secondary outcomes of EFS, DFS, and OS in the intent-to-treat and PD-L1–positive populations. “This is a descriptive analysis, with no statistical comparison,” he emphasized.
The 2-year data on EFS, DFS, and OS consistently favored atezolizumab across key clinical subgroups, Dr. Barrios said. In the ITT population, 2-year EFS, DFS, and OS was 85%, 87%, and 95%, respectively, in the atezolizumab group and 80%, 83%, and 90%, respectively, in the placebo group. The results were similar, irrespective of PD-L1 status.
In the PD-L1–positive population, 2-year EFS, DFS, and OS was 89%, 91%, and 95%, respectively, in atezolizumab patients and 80%, 87%, and 91% in placebo patients.
Among patients without pCR at the time of surgery, 14 of 70 patients (20%) in the atezolizumab group and 33 of 99 patients (33%) in the placebo group received additional adjuvant systemic therapy. The most common adjunctive therapy was capecitabine.
As for safety, no new safety signals or treatment-related deaths were observed in the study. Overall, 70% of atezolizumab patients and 62% of placebo patients experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs); 59% and 54% of which were treatment related. A total of 1% of patients in each group experienced grade 5 AEs. A total of 25% of atezolizumab patients and 20% of placebo patients experienced AEs leading to treatment discontinuation.
In a further exploratory analysis, pCR was highly predictive of long-term outcomes. Exploratory analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) showed clearance in 89% of atezolizumab patients and 86% of placebo patients by the time of surgery.
Looking at the relationship between ctDNA, DFS, and OS, positive ctDNA was associated with a worse prognosis following surgery. As demonstrated in previous studies, pCR patients with negative ctDNA had the best DFS and OS. “In non-pCR patients with positive ctDNA, a numerical trend suggests improved overall survival with atezolizumab,” although the caveat is the very small numbers, Dr. Barrios said.
More research is needed, but in the final analysis, the significant pCR benefit seen with the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy for eTNBC translated into numerically improved EFS, DFS and OS, said Dr. Barrios. Additionally, “we should further analyze ctDNA to help select patients for further therapy.”
In a question-and-answer session, Dr. Barrios was asked how the results compared with other studies.
“We should not overinterpret the results,” he said. However, “what the IMpassion031 study shows is consistency; the results are aligned with previous studies addressing the same question of introducing immunotherapy,” in the patient population. Although the numbers in the IMpassion031 study did not reach statistical significance, it is important to recognize that they reflect previous research.
“In my opinion, looking at the whole field, immunotherapy is something we need to consider as part of the treatment of these patients,” said Dr. Barrios. However, more research is needed to better identify which patients do and do not need chemotherapy.
Phase 2 data show increased response with added atezolizumab for PD-L1–negative patients
In a second study known as ABSCG-52/ATHENE, researchers evaluated neoadjuvant atezolizumab in combination with dual HER2 blockade plus epirubicin for the treatment of patients with early HER2-positive breast cancer.
For most of these patients, the current standard of care is neoadjuvant dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab (T) and pertuzumab (P) plus poly-chemotherapy, said Gabriel Rinnerthaler, MD, of the Salzburg (Austria) Cancer Research Institute, said in his presentation at the meeting. However, de-escalation of chemotherapy has been a major focus of research in recent years, and more research is needed on a combination of anthracyclines, such as epirubicin and idarubicin, and immune-checkpoint modulators.
In the phase 2 study, the researchers randomized patients with previously untreated, histologically confirmed HER2-positive early breast cancer (defined as a clinical prognostic stage cT1c–4a-d, N0-3, M0) in a 1:1 ratio to two 3-weekly cycles of a chemotherapy-free induction phase (part 1) with TP plus 1,200 mg atezolizumab (TP-A) or TP alone.
“We hypothesized that the additive effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus anti-HER2 therapy and chemotherapy would not be linear,” he said.
At the end of this period, all patients underwent four cycles of TP-A in combination with epirubicin (part 2). The primary endpoint was pCR (defined as absence of invasive cancer in the breast and axillary nodes, or ypT0/Tis ypN0) in the overall study population, and a pCR of 40% was considered a positive result.
A total of 29 patients were randomized to TP-A and 29 to TP alone in nine treatment centers in Austria. The study population ranged from 33 to 82 years, with a median age of 57 years. Most patients (72.4%) had hormone receptor (HR)–positive tumors; a total of 45 patients had stage IIA cancer, and 13 had stage IIB.
The primary endpoint of pCR occurred in 35 patients overall (60.3%). In a univariate analysis, the response rates were lower in HR-positive patients, in premenopausal patients, and in histologies other than NST (invasive carcinoma of no special type), Dr. Rinnerthaler said, but none of the differences were statistically significant, likely because of the small numbers in each group.
In an exploratory analysis of the ITT population with available PD-L1 data, the pCR was 69.2% for PD-L1–negative patients and 55.2% for PD-L1–positive patients.
“We observed the highest pCR rates in PD-L1–negative patients treated in the TP-A group and the lowest in PD-L1–positive patients treated with TP alone,” Dr. Rinnerthaler said.
No new safety concerns were observed during the study, Dr. Rinnerthaler noted. AEs of grade 3 or higher occurred in 17 patients (29.3%), including 9 in the TP-A group and 8 in the TP group. The most common AEs in both groups were nausea, diarrhea, and fatigue. No AEs of special interest of grade 3 or higher (defined as immune-related AEs, cardiac disorders, or infusion-related reactions) were observed.
The study findings were limited by the small sample size, but the resulting pCR rate of 60.3% was higher than the predefined threshold of 40% and supports additional research, said Dr. Rinnerthaler.
“For HER2-positive early breast cancer, a neoadjuvant chemotherapy de-escalation immunotherapy regimen with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, atezolizumab, and epirubicin is highly effective and safe and merits further investigation,” he concluded.
During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Rinnerthaler was asked why pCR increased in PD-L1 negative patients.
Previous data have shown that PD-L1 is up-regulated in certain tumors, and may serve as a surrogate for sensitivity, he said. In previous studies the additional effect of atezolizumab was seen in a PD-L1–negative group.
Dr. Rinnerthaler said he hopes to clarify this question when his research team reviews biopsy data from baseline and after the induction phase.
Defining response is key to de-escalation
In the IMpassion031 trial, “what we saw is a tendency to better outcomes for those patients who received atezolizumab,” said Matteo Lambertini, MD, of the University of Genova (Italy), who served as discussant for the two studies. The IMpassion031 study raises the question of where we are in the use of immuno-oncology for eTNBC. The study is now one of five neoadjuvant trials in this population.
Dr. Lambertini cited the KEYNOTE-522 study, which showed significant results in EFS. However, sample sizes and statistical design were different between these studies. “I think we need large studies of data in the adjuvant and postneoadjuvant setting for patients with triple-negative breast cancer.”
Postneoadjuvant considerations from the IMpassion031 trial showed good outcomes with no additional benefit of an immune checkpoint inhibitors.
For those patients with a pCR, it is definitely time to de-escalate treatment,” he said. In patients without pCR, escalation is needed, but an improved definition of pCR is also needed.
With regard to the ATHENE study, “it may be considered a positive study because the threshold of 40% was reached,” he said. The question is what is the optimum chemotherapy backbone. There appears to be no added benefit to adding an immune checkpoint inhibitor.
There are needs for defining the role of immunotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer and more biomarker research to inform patient selection and study design, he said.
Finally, “I am not sure that the addition of an immune checkpoint inhibitor can be considered a de-escalation,” he noted.
IMpassion031 was supported by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Barrio disclosed financial relationships with numerous companies. ABSCG-52/ATHENE was supported by the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group and Roche Austria. Dr. Rinnerthaler disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Lambertini disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Takeda, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight, and Daiichi Sankyo.
based on final data from a randomized trial.
The IMpassion031 trial showed significant improvement in pathological complete response (pCR) with the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy, as well as an acceptable safety profile, said Carlos H. Barrios, MD, of the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group, Oncoclinicas, in Porto Allegre, Brazil, at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. Those findings were published in the Lancet in 2020.
Dr. Barrios reported data from a final analysis of the IMpassion031 trial, with data on event-free survival (EFS), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1–positive populations.
In the study, patients with early triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC) and a primary tumor greater than 2 cm were randomized to 840 mg of atezolizumab once every 2 weeks plus a neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen of nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 once weekly for 12 weeks, followed by doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks for 8 weeks. A total of 333 patients were randomized (165 atezolizumab and 168 placebo). Patients were stratified by stage II versus stage III, and by status of PD-L1, a protein that can predict treatment response (PD-L1 less than 1% vs. 1% or higher).
The primary endpoints (previously reported) were pathological complete response (pCR) in the ITT and PD-L1 populations. After a median follow-up of 39 months, the pCR was 58% in patients treated with atezolizumab versus 41% in those treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (P = .0044) in the ITT population, Dr. Barrios said. The added benefit from atezolizumab occurred regardless of the status of PD-L1.
Dr. Barrios reported the secondary outcomes of EFS, DFS, and OS in the intent-to-treat and PD-L1–positive populations. “This is a descriptive analysis, with no statistical comparison,” he emphasized.
The 2-year data on EFS, DFS, and OS consistently favored atezolizumab across key clinical subgroups, Dr. Barrios said. In the ITT population, 2-year EFS, DFS, and OS was 85%, 87%, and 95%, respectively, in the atezolizumab group and 80%, 83%, and 90%, respectively, in the placebo group. The results were similar, irrespective of PD-L1 status.
In the PD-L1–positive population, 2-year EFS, DFS, and OS was 89%, 91%, and 95%, respectively, in atezolizumab patients and 80%, 87%, and 91% in placebo patients.
Among patients without pCR at the time of surgery, 14 of 70 patients (20%) in the atezolizumab group and 33 of 99 patients (33%) in the placebo group received additional adjuvant systemic therapy. The most common adjunctive therapy was capecitabine.
As for safety, no new safety signals or treatment-related deaths were observed in the study. Overall, 70% of atezolizumab patients and 62% of placebo patients experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs); 59% and 54% of which were treatment related. A total of 1% of patients in each group experienced grade 5 AEs. A total of 25% of atezolizumab patients and 20% of placebo patients experienced AEs leading to treatment discontinuation.
In a further exploratory analysis, pCR was highly predictive of long-term outcomes. Exploratory analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) showed clearance in 89% of atezolizumab patients and 86% of placebo patients by the time of surgery.
Looking at the relationship between ctDNA, DFS, and OS, positive ctDNA was associated with a worse prognosis following surgery. As demonstrated in previous studies, pCR patients with negative ctDNA had the best DFS and OS. “In non-pCR patients with positive ctDNA, a numerical trend suggests improved overall survival with atezolizumab,” although the caveat is the very small numbers, Dr. Barrios said.
More research is needed, but in the final analysis, the significant pCR benefit seen with the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy for eTNBC translated into numerically improved EFS, DFS and OS, said Dr. Barrios. Additionally, “we should further analyze ctDNA to help select patients for further therapy.”
In a question-and-answer session, Dr. Barrios was asked how the results compared with other studies.
“We should not overinterpret the results,” he said. However, “what the IMpassion031 study shows is consistency; the results are aligned with previous studies addressing the same question of introducing immunotherapy,” in the patient population. Although the numbers in the IMpassion031 study did not reach statistical significance, it is important to recognize that they reflect previous research.
“In my opinion, looking at the whole field, immunotherapy is something we need to consider as part of the treatment of these patients,” said Dr. Barrios. However, more research is needed to better identify which patients do and do not need chemotherapy.
Phase 2 data show increased response with added atezolizumab for PD-L1–negative patients
In a second study known as ABSCG-52/ATHENE, researchers evaluated neoadjuvant atezolizumab in combination with dual HER2 blockade plus epirubicin for the treatment of patients with early HER2-positive breast cancer.
For most of these patients, the current standard of care is neoadjuvant dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab (T) and pertuzumab (P) plus poly-chemotherapy, said Gabriel Rinnerthaler, MD, of the Salzburg (Austria) Cancer Research Institute, said in his presentation at the meeting. However, de-escalation of chemotherapy has been a major focus of research in recent years, and more research is needed on a combination of anthracyclines, such as epirubicin and idarubicin, and immune-checkpoint modulators.
In the phase 2 study, the researchers randomized patients with previously untreated, histologically confirmed HER2-positive early breast cancer (defined as a clinical prognostic stage cT1c–4a-d, N0-3, M0) in a 1:1 ratio to two 3-weekly cycles of a chemotherapy-free induction phase (part 1) with TP plus 1,200 mg atezolizumab (TP-A) or TP alone.
“We hypothesized that the additive effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus anti-HER2 therapy and chemotherapy would not be linear,” he said.
At the end of this period, all patients underwent four cycles of TP-A in combination with epirubicin (part 2). The primary endpoint was pCR (defined as absence of invasive cancer in the breast and axillary nodes, or ypT0/Tis ypN0) in the overall study population, and a pCR of 40% was considered a positive result.
A total of 29 patients were randomized to TP-A and 29 to TP alone in nine treatment centers in Austria. The study population ranged from 33 to 82 years, with a median age of 57 years. Most patients (72.4%) had hormone receptor (HR)–positive tumors; a total of 45 patients had stage IIA cancer, and 13 had stage IIB.
The primary endpoint of pCR occurred in 35 patients overall (60.3%). In a univariate analysis, the response rates were lower in HR-positive patients, in premenopausal patients, and in histologies other than NST (invasive carcinoma of no special type), Dr. Rinnerthaler said, but none of the differences were statistically significant, likely because of the small numbers in each group.
In an exploratory analysis of the ITT population with available PD-L1 data, the pCR was 69.2% for PD-L1–negative patients and 55.2% for PD-L1–positive patients.
“We observed the highest pCR rates in PD-L1–negative patients treated in the TP-A group and the lowest in PD-L1–positive patients treated with TP alone,” Dr. Rinnerthaler said.
No new safety concerns were observed during the study, Dr. Rinnerthaler noted. AEs of grade 3 or higher occurred in 17 patients (29.3%), including 9 in the TP-A group and 8 in the TP group. The most common AEs in both groups were nausea, diarrhea, and fatigue. No AEs of special interest of grade 3 or higher (defined as immune-related AEs, cardiac disorders, or infusion-related reactions) were observed.
The study findings were limited by the small sample size, but the resulting pCR rate of 60.3% was higher than the predefined threshold of 40% and supports additional research, said Dr. Rinnerthaler.
“For HER2-positive early breast cancer, a neoadjuvant chemotherapy de-escalation immunotherapy regimen with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, atezolizumab, and epirubicin is highly effective and safe and merits further investigation,” he concluded.
During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Rinnerthaler was asked why pCR increased in PD-L1 negative patients.
Previous data have shown that PD-L1 is up-regulated in certain tumors, and may serve as a surrogate for sensitivity, he said. In previous studies the additional effect of atezolizumab was seen in a PD-L1–negative group.
Dr. Rinnerthaler said he hopes to clarify this question when his research team reviews biopsy data from baseline and after the induction phase.
Defining response is key to de-escalation
In the IMpassion031 trial, “what we saw is a tendency to better outcomes for those patients who received atezolizumab,” said Matteo Lambertini, MD, of the University of Genova (Italy), who served as discussant for the two studies. The IMpassion031 study raises the question of where we are in the use of immuno-oncology for eTNBC. The study is now one of five neoadjuvant trials in this population.
Dr. Lambertini cited the KEYNOTE-522 study, which showed significant results in EFS. However, sample sizes and statistical design were different between these studies. “I think we need large studies of data in the adjuvant and postneoadjuvant setting for patients with triple-negative breast cancer.”
Postneoadjuvant considerations from the IMpassion031 trial showed good outcomes with no additional benefit of an immune checkpoint inhibitors.
For those patients with a pCR, it is definitely time to de-escalate treatment,” he said. In patients without pCR, escalation is needed, but an improved definition of pCR is also needed.
With regard to the ATHENE study, “it may be considered a positive study because the threshold of 40% was reached,” he said. The question is what is the optimum chemotherapy backbone. There appears to be no added benefit to adding an immune checkpoint inhibitor.
There are needs for defining the role of immunotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer and more biomarker research to inform patient selection and study design, he said.
Finally, “I am not sure that the addition of an immune checkpoint inhibitor can be considered a de-escalation,” he noted.
IMpassion031 was supported by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Barrio disclosed financial relationships with numerous companies. ABSCG-52/ATHENE was supported by the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group and Roche Austria. Dr. Rinnerthaler disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Lambertini disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Takeda, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight, and Daiichi Sankyo.
based on final data from a randomized trial.
The IMpassion031 trial showed significant improvement in pathological complete response (pCR) with the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy, as well as an acceptable safety profile, said Carlos H. Barrios, MD, of the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group, Oncoclinicas, in Porto Allegre, Brazil, at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. Those findings were published in the Lancet in 2020.
Dr. Barrios reported data from a final analysis of the IMpassion031 trial, with data on event-free survival (EFS), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1–positive populations.
In the study, patients with early triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC) and a primary tumor greater than 2 cm were randomized to 840 mg of atezolizumab once every 2 weeks plus a neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen of nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 once weekly for 12 weeks, followed by doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks for 8 weeks. A total of 333 patients were randomized (165 atezolizumab and 168 placebo). Patients were stratified by stage II versus stage III, and by status of PD-L1, a protein that can predict treatment response (PD-L1 less than 1% vs. 1% or higher).
The primary endpoints (previously reported) were pathological complete response (pCR) in the ITT and PD-L1 populations. After a median follow-up of 39 months, the pCR was 58% in patients treated with atezolizumab versus 41% in those treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (P = .0044) in the ITT population, Dr. Barrios said. The added benefit from atezolizumab occurred regardless of the status of PD-L1.
Dr. Barrios reported the secondary outcomes of EFS, DFS, and OS in the intent-to-treat and PD-L1–positive populations. “This is a descriptive analysis, with no statistical comparison,” he emphasized.
The 2-year data on EFS, DFS, and OS consistently favored atezolizumab across key clinical subgroups, Dr. Barrios said. In the ITT population, 2-year EFS, DFS, and OS was 85%, 87%, and 95%, respectively, in the atezolizumab group and 80%, 83%, and 90%, respectively, in the placebo group. The results were similar, irrespective of PD-L1 status.
In the PD-L1–positive population, 2-year EFS, DFS, and OS was 89%, 91%, and 95%, respectively, in atezolizumab patients and 80%, 87%, and 91% in placebo patients.
Among patients without pCR at the time of surgery, 14 of 70 patients (20%) in the atezolizumab group and 33 of 99 patients (33%) in the placebo group received additional adjuvant systemic therapy. The most common adjunctive therapy was capecitabine.
As for safety, no new safety signals or treatment-related deaths were observed in the study. Overall, 70% of atezolizumab patients and 62% of placebo patients experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs); 59% and 54% of which were treatment related. A total of 1% of patients in each group experienced grade 5 AEs. A total of 25% of atezolizumab patients and 20% of placebo patients experienced AEs leading to treatment discontinuation.
In a further exploratory analysis, pCR was highly predictive of long-term outcomes. Exploratory analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) showed clearance in 89% of atezolizumab patients and 86% of placebo patients by the time of surgery.
Looking at the relationship between ctDNA, DFS, and OS, positive ctDNA was associated with a worse prognosis following surgery. As demonstrated in previous studies, pCR patients with negative ctDNA had the best DFS and OS. “In non-pCR patients with positive ctDNA, a numerical trend suggests improved overall survival with atezolizumab,” although the caveat is the very small numbers, Dr. Barrios said.
More research is needed, but in the final analysis, the significant pCR benefit seen with the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy for eTNBC translated into numerically improved EFS, DFS and OS, said Dr. Barrios. Additionally, “we should further analyze ctDNA to help select patients for further therapy.”
In a question-and-answer session, Dr. Barrios was asked how the results compared with other studies.
“We should not overinterpret the results,” he said. However, “what the IMpassion031 study shows is consistency; the results are aligned with previous studies addressing the same question of introducing immunotherapy,” in the patient population. Although the numbers in the IMpassion031 study did not reach statistical significance, it is important to recognize that they reflect previous research.
“In my opinion, looking at the whole field, immunotherapy is something we need to consider as part of the treatment of these patients,” said Dr. Barrios. However, more research is needed to better identify which patients do and do not need chemotherapy.
Phase 2 data show increased response with added atezolizumab for PD-L1–negative patients
In a second study known as ABSCG-52/ATHENE, researchers evaluated neoadjuvant atezolizumab in combination with dual HER2 blockade plus epirubicin for the treatment of patients with early HER2-positive breast cancer.
For most of these patients, the current standard of care is neoadjuvant dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab (T) and pertuzumab (P) plus poly-chemotherapy, said Gabriel Rinnerthaler, MD, of the Salzburg (Austria) Cancer Research Institute, said in his presentation at the meeting. However, de-escalation of chemotherapy has been a major focus of research in recent years, and more research is needed on a combination of anthracyclines, such as epirubicin and idarubicin, and immune-checkpoint modulators.
In the phase 2 study, the researchers randomized patients with previously untreated, histologically confirmed HER2-positive early breast cancer (defined as a clinical prognostic stage cT1c–4a-d, N0-3, M0) in a 1:1 ratio to two 3-weekly cycles of a chemotherapy-free induction phase (part 1) with TP plus 1,200 mg atezolizumab (TP-A) or TP alone.
“We hypothesized that the additive effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus anti-HER2 therapy and chemotherapy would not be linear,” he said.
At the end of this period, all patients underwent four cycles of TP-A in combination with epirubicin (part 2). The primary endpoint was pCR (defined as absence of invasive cancer in the breast and axillary nodes, or ypT0/Tis ypN0) in the overall study population, and a pCR of 40% was considered a positive result.
A total of 29 patients were randomized to TP-A and 29 to TP alone in nine treatment centers in Austria. The study population ranged from 33 to 82 years, with a median age of 57 years. Most patients (72.4%) had hormone receptor (HR)–positive tumors; a total of 45 patients had stage IIA cancer, and 13 had stage IIB.
The primary endpoint of pCR occurred in 35 patients overall (60.3%). In a univariate analysis, the response rates were lower in HR-positive patients, in premenopausal patients, and in histologies other than NST (invasive carcinoma of no special type), Dr. Rinnerthaler said, but none of the differences were statistically significant, likely because of the small numbers in each group.
In an exploratory analysis of the ITT population with available PD-L1 data, the pCR was 69.2% for PD-L1–negative patients and 55.2% for PD-L1–positive patients.
“We observed the highest pCR rates in PD-L1–negative patients treated in the TP-A group and the lowest in PD-L1–positive patients treated with TP alone,” Dr. Rinnerthaler said.
No new safety concerns were observed during the study, Dr. Rinnerthaler noted. AEs of grade 3 or higher occurred in 17 patients (29.3%), including 9 in the TP-A group and 8 in the TP group. The most common AEs in both groups were nausea, diarrhea, and fatigue. No AEs of special interest of grade 3 or higher (defined as immune-related AEs, cardiac disorders, or infusion-related reactions) were observed.
The study findings were limited by the small sample size, but the resulting pCR rate of 60.3% was higher than the predefined threshold of 40% and supports additional research, said Dr. Rinnerthaler.
“For HER2-positive early breast cancer, a neoadjuvant chemotherapy de-escalation immunotherapy regimen with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, atezolizumab, and epirubicin is highly effective and safe and merits further investigation,” he concluded.
During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Rinnerthaler was asked why pCR increased in PD-L1 negative patients.
Previous data have shown that PD-L1 is up-regulated in certain tumors, and may serve as a surrogate for sensitivity, he said. In previous studies the additional effect of atezolizumab was seen in a PD-L1–negative group.
Dr. Rinnerthaler said he hopes to clarify this question when his research team reviews biopsy data from baseline and after the induction phase.
Defining response is key to de-escalation
In the IMpassion031 trial, “what we saw is a tendency to better outcomes for those patients who received atezolizumab,” said Matteo Lambertini, MD, of the University of Genova (Italy), who served as discussant for the two studies. The IMpassion031 study raises the question of where we are in the use of immuno-oncology for eTNBC. The study is now one of five neoadjuvant trials in this population.
Dr. Lambertini cited the KEYNOTE-522 study, which showed significant results in EFS. However, sample sizes and statistical design were different between these studies. “I think we need large studies of data in the adjuvant and postneoadjuvant setting for patients with triple-negative breast cancer.”
Postneoadjuvant considerations from the IMpassion031 trial showed good outcomes with no additional benefit of an immune checkpoint inhibitors.
For those patients with a pCR, it is definitely time to de-escalate treatment,” he said. In patients without pCR, escalation is needed, but an improved definition of pCR is also needed.
With regard to the ATHENE study, “it may be considered a positive study because the threshold of 40% was reached,” he said. The question is what is the optimum chemotherapy backbone. There appears to be no added benefit to adding an immune checkpoint inhibitor.
There are needs for defining the role of immunotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer and more biomarker research to inform patient selection and study design, he said.
Finally, “I am not sure that the addition of an immune checkpoint inhibitor can be considered a de-escalation,” he noted.
IMpassion031 was supported by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Barrio disclosed financial relationships with numerous companies. ABSCG-52/ATHENE was supported by the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group and Roche Austria. Dr. Rinnerthaler disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Lambertini disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Takeda, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight, and Daiichi Sankyo.
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2023
Patritumab deruxtecan shows promise for breast cancer patients
according to data presented from Abstract 1240 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
Patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) has previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and antitumor activity in phase I studies involving heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer and various levels of HER3 protein expression, said Mafalda Oliveira, MD, of the Vall d’Hebron University Hospital and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.
Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are a combination of a monoclonal antibody chemically linked to a drug, as defined by the National Cancer Institute. ADCs work by binding to receptors or proteins and selectively delivering cytotoxic drugs to the site of a tumor.
Dr. Oliveira presented results from part B the of SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, a window-of-opportunity trial that evaluated the effect of a single dose of HER3-Dxd in patients with treatment-naive HR+/HER2– early breast cancer.
In such trials, patients receive one or more new compounds between the time of cancer diagnosis and standard treatment. Biological and clinical activity from part A of the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial were presented at last year’s ESMO Breast Cancer Congress, Dr. Oliveira said.
In the current study, Dr. Oliveira and colleagues recruited 37 women with HR+/HER2– early breast cancer, including 20 who were hormone receptor–positive and 17 who had triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). The age of the participants ranged from 30 to 81 years, with a median age of 51 years; 54% were premenopausal. The mean tumor size was 21 mm, with a range of 10-81 mm.
Distinct from part A of the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, part B included a subset of patients with TNBC to assess preliminary efficacy in this subtype, Dr. Oliveira noted.
All patients in part B received a single dose of 5.6 mg/kg of HER3-DXd. The primary outcome was the variation in the tumor cellularity and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (CelTIL) score at baseline and after 21 days via breast ultrasound.
At day 21, the total CelTIL score increased by a significant mean difference of 9.4 points after a single dose; the mean differences for TNBC and HR+/HER2– patients, were 17.9 points and 2.2 points, respectively, Dr. Oliveira said. The overall response rate was 32% (35% in TNBC patients and 30% in HR+/HER2– patients) and was significantly associated with the absolute change in CelTIL (area under the curve = 0.693; P = .049).
In a subtype analysis, a statistically significant change in CelTIL was observed between paired samples overall (P = .046) and in TNBC (P = .016), but not in HR+ (P = .793).
Baseline levels of ERBB3 (also known as human epidermal growth factor receptor type 3, or HER3) were not associated with changes in CelTIL or in overall response rate.
HER3-DXd induced high expression of immune-related genes (such as PD1, CD8, and CD19), and suppressed proliferation-related genes, she said.
A total of 31 patients (84%) reported any adverse events. Of these, the most common were nausea, fatigue, alopecia, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting, and one patient experienced grade 3 treatment-related nausea. No interstitial lung disease events were reported during the study, and the incidence of hematological and hepatic toxicity was lower with the lower dose in part B, compared with the 6.5 mg/kg dose used in part A, Dr. Oliveira noted.
To further validate the findings of the current study and assess the activity of HER3-DXd in early breast cancer, Dr. Oliveira and colleagues are conducting a neoadjuvant phase II trial known as SOLTI-2103 VALENTINE. In this study, they are testing six cycles of HER3-DXd at a 5.6 mg/kg dose in HR+/HER2– breast cancer patients, she said.
During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Oliveira was asked whether CelTIL is the best endpoint for assessing HER3-DXd. Finding the best endpoint is always a challenge when conducting window-of-opportunity trials, she said. The CelTIL score has been correlated with pathologic complete response (pCR), as well as with disease-free survival and overall survival, she added.
ICARUS-BREAST01
In a presentation of Abstract 1890 during the same session, Barbari Pistilli, MD, of Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, shared data from a phase II study known as ICARUS-BREAST.
The study population included women with unresectable locally advanced breast cancer (ABC) who had undergone a median of two previous systemic therapies. In the current study, the patients underwent a median of eight cycles of HER3-DXd. The dosage was 5.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The primary outcome was overall response and disease progression after 3 months. Dr. Pistilli, who is also a coauthor of the research, provided data from 56 evaluable patients.
After 3 months, 16 patients (28.6%) showed a partial response, 30 patients showed stable disease (54%), and 10 (18%) showed disease progression. “No patients had a complete response,” Dr. Pistilli noted.
As for the safety profile, all patients reported at least one treatment-emergent event of any grade, but less than half (48.2%) were grade 3 or higher, and 12.5% led to treatment discontinuation. Fatigue and nausea were the most frequently reported adverse events overall, and occurred in 89.3% and 76.8% of patients, respectively. All grade and grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurred in four patients and six patients, respectively; all grade and grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia occurred in four patients and two patients, respectively, Dr. Pistilli said.
Data on circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were available for 31 patients, and the researchers reviewed CTC counts after the first HER3-DXd cycle.
“We found that the median number of CTCs decreased by one to two cell cycles of HER3-DXd,” said Dr. Pistilli. She and her coauthors found no substantial impact of the treatment on HER3 negative CTC counts, and “more importantly, no increase of HER3 negative CTC counts at disease progression,” Dr. Pistilli continued.
In addition, patients with higher HER+ CTC counts at baseline or a greater decrease in HER3+ CTC counts after one cycle of HER3-DXd were more likely to have an early treatment response, but this association was not statistically significant.
Looking ahead, further analysis will be performed to evaluate the association between HER3+ CTC counts and dynamics and the main outcomes of overall response rate and progression-free survival to determine the potential of HER3+ CTC counts to identify patients who can benefit from HER3-DXd, said Dr. Pistilli. The ICARUS-BREAST01 study is ongoing, and further efficacy and biomarker analysis will be presented, she added.
In the question-and-answer session, Dr. Pistilli was asked why she chose CTC as a measure.
Dr. Pistilli responded that she and her coauthors wanted to understand whether CTC could serve as a biomarker to help in patient selection.
Also, when asked about which genes might be upregulated and downregulated in responders vs. nonresponders, she noted that some genes related to DNA repair were involved in patients who were responders, but more research is needed.
Early results merit further exploration
Although patritumab deruxtecan is early in development, “there is a clear signal to expand,” based on preliminary research, said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, who served as discussant for the two studies.
“There is no clear role for a specific subtype in both protein and gene expression,” noted Dr. Dent, who is a professor at Duke NUS Medical School, a collaboration between Duke University, Durham, N.C., and the National University of Singapore.
In the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, the small numbers make teasing out correlations a challenge, said Dr. Dent. However, changes were observed after just one cycle of the drug, and the upregulation of immune signature genes was reassuring, she said.
“A single dose of HER3-DXd induced an overall response of approximately 30% independently of hormone receptor status,” she emphasized, and the lower incidence of hematological and hepatic toxicity with the lower dose is good news as well. The findings were limited by the small sample size, but the results support moving forward with clinical development of HER3-DXd, she said.
The ICARUS-BREAST01 study researchers tried to show whether they could identify potential markers of early treatment response, and they examined CTCs and gene alterations, said Dr. Dent. “I think it is reassuring that despite these patients being heavily pretreated, HER-DXd seems to be active regardless of most frequent breast cancer genomic alterations,” she noted. Remaining questions include the need for more data on primary resistance.
“We are able to get these patients to respond, but what makes patients resistant to ADCs is just as important,” she said. “We see exciting data across all these subtypes,”
In Dr. Dent’s opinion, future research should focus on triple negative breast cancer, an opinion supported by the stronger response in this subset of patients in the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial. “I think you need to bring triple negative to the table,” she said.
The SOLTI TOT-HER3 study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Oliveira disclosed relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Zenith Epigenetics, Daiichi Sankyo, iTEOS, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Relay Therapeutics, and Eisai. ICARUS-BREAST01 was sponsored by the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center and supported by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Pistilli disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Seagen, MSD, Novartis, Lilly, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Dent disclosed financial relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer.
according to data presented from Abstract 1240 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
Patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) has previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and antitumor activity in phase I studies involving heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer and various levels of HER3 protein expression, said Mafalda Oliveira, MD, of the Vall d’Hebron University Hospital and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.
Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are a combination of a monoclonal antibody chemically linked to a drug, as defined by the National Cancer Institute. ADCs work by binding to receptors or proteins and selectively delivering cytotoxic drugs to the site of a tumor.
Dr. Oliveira presented results from part B the of SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, a window-of-opportunity trial that evaluated the effect of a single dose of HER3-Dxd in patients with treatment-naive HR+/HER2– early breast cancer.
In such trials, patients receive one or more new compounds between the time of cancer diagnosis and standard treatment. Biological and clinical activity from part A of the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial were presented at last year’s ESMO Breast Cancer Congress, Dr. Oliveira said.
In the current study, Dr. Oliveira and colleagues recruited 37 women with HR+/HER2– early breast cancer, including 20 who were hormone receptor–positive and 17 who had triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). The age of the participants ranged from 30 to 81 years, with a median age of 51 years; 54% were premenopausal. The mean tumor size was 21 mm, with a range of 10-81 mm.
Distinct from part A of the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, part B included a subset of patients with TNBC to assess preliminary efficacy in this subtype, Dr. Oliveira noted.
All patients in part B received a single dose of 5.6 mg/kg of HER3-DXd. The primary outcome was the variation in the tumor cellularity and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (CelTIL) score at baseline and after 21 days via breast ultrasound.
At day 21, the total CelTIL score increased by a significant mean difference of 9.4 points after a single dose; the mean differences for TNBC and HR+/HER2– patients, were 17.9 points and 2.2 points, respectively, Dr. Oliveira said. The overall response rate was 32% (35% in TNBC patients and 30% in HR+/HER2– patients) and was significantly associated with the absolute change in CelTIL (area under the curve = 0.693; P = .049).
In a subtype analysis, a statistically significant change in CelTIL was observed between paired samples overall (P = .046) and in TNBC (P = .016), but not in HR+ (P = .793).
Baseline levels of ERBB3 (also known as human epidermal growth factor receptor type 3, or HER3) were not associated with changes in CelTIL or in overall response rate.
HER3-DXd induced high expression of immune-related genes (such as PD1, CD8, and CD19), and suppressed proliferation-related genes, she said.
A total of 31 patients (84%) reported any adverse events. Of these, the most common were nausea, fatigue, alopecia, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting, and one patient experienced grade 3 treatment-related nausea. No interstitial lung disease events were reported during the study, and the incidence of hematological and hepatic toxicity was lower with the lower dose in part B, compared with the 6.5 mg/kg dose used in part A, Dr. Oliveira noted.
To further validate the findings of the current study and assess the activity of HER3-DXd in early breast cancer, Dr. Oliveira and colleagues are conducting a neoadjuvant phase II trial known as SOLTI-2103 VALENTINE. In this study, they are testing six cycles of HER3-DXd at a 5.6 mg/kg dose in HR+/HER2– breast cancer patients, she said.
During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Oliveira was asked whether CelTIL is the best endpoint for assessing HER3-DXd. Finding the best endpoint is always a challenge when conducting window-of-opportunity trials, she said. The CelTIL score has been correlated with pathologic complete response (pCR), as well as with disease-free survival and overall survival, she added.
ICARUS-BREAST01
In a presentation of Abstract 1890 during the same session, Barbari Pistilli, MD, of Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, shared data from a phase II study known as ICARUS-BREAST.
The study population included women with unresectable locally advanced breast cancer (ABC) who had undergone a median of two previous systemic therapies. In the current study, the patients underwent a median of eight cycles of HER3-DXd. The dosage was 5.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The primary outcome was overall response and disease progression after 3 months. Dr. Pistilli, who is also a coauthor of the research, provided data from 56 evaluable patients.
After 3 months, 16 patients (28.6%) showed a partial response, 30 patients showed stable disease (54%), and 10 (18%) showed disease progression. “No patients had a complete response,” Dr. Pistilli noted.
As for the safety profile, all patients reported at least one treatment-emergent event of any grade, but less than half (48.2%) were grade 3 or higher, and 12.5% led to treatment discontinuation. Fatigue and nausea were the most frequently reported adverse events overall, and occurred in 89.3% and 76.8% of patients, respectively. All grade and grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurred in four patients and six patients, respectively; all grade and grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia occurred in four patients and two patients, respectively, Dr. Pistilli said.
Data on circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were available for 31 patients, and the researchers reviewed CTC counts after the first HER3-DXd cycle.
“We found that the median number of CTCs decreased by one to two cell cycles of HER3-DXd,” said Dr. Pistilli. She and her coauthors found no substantial impact of the treatment on HER3 negative CTC counts, and “more importantly, no increase of HER3 negative CTC counts at disease progression,” Dr. Pistilli continued.
In addition, patients with higher HER+ CTC counts at baseline or a greater decrease in HER3+ CTC counts after one cycle of HER3-DXd were more likely to have an early treatment response, but this association was not statistically significant.
Looking ahead, further analysis will be performed to evaluate the association between HER3+ CTC counts and dynamics and the main outcomes of overall response rate and progression-free survival to determine the potential of HER3+ CTC counts to identify patients who can benefit from HER3-DXd, said Dr. Pistilli. The ICARUS-BREAST01 study is ongoing, and further efficacy and biomarker analysis will be presented, she added.
In the question-and-answer session, Dr. Pistilli was asked why she chose CTC as a measure.
Dr. Pistilli responded that she and her coauthors wanted to understand whether CTC could serve as a biomarker to help in patient selection.
Also, when asked about which genes might be upregulated and downregulated in responders vs. nonresponders, she noted that some genes related to DNA repair were involved in patients who were responders, but more research is needed.
Early results merit further exploration
Although patritumab deruxtecan is early in development, “there is a clear signal to expand,” based on preliminary research, said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, who served as discussant for the two studies.
“There is no clear role for a specific subtype in both protein and gene expression,” noted Dr. Dent, who is a professor at Duke NUS Medical School, a collaboration between Duke University, Durham, N.C., and the National University of Singapore.
In the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, the small numbers make teasing out correlations a challenge, said Dr. Dent. However, changes were observed after just one cycle of the drug, and the upregulation of immune signature genes was reassuring, she said.
“A single dose of HER3-DXd induced an overall response of approximately 30% independently of hormone receptor status,” she emphasized, and the lower incidence of hematological and hepatic toxicity with the lower dose is good news as well. The findings were limited by the small sample size, but the results support moving forward with clinical development of HER3-DXd, she said.
The ICARUS-BREAST01 study researchers tried to show whether they could identify potential markers of early treatment response, and they examined CTCs and gene alterations, said Dr. Dent. “I think it is reassuring that despite these patients being heavily pretreated, HER-DXd seems to be active regardless of most frequent breast cancer genomic alterations,” she noted. Remaining questions include the need for more data on primary resistance.
“We are able to get these patients to respond, but what makes patients resistant to ADCs is just as important,” she said. “We see exciting data across all these subtypes,”
In Dr. Dent’s opinion, future research should focus on triple negative breast cancer, an opinion supported by the stronger response in this subset of patients in the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial. “I think you need to bring triple negative to the table,” she said.
The SOLTI TOT-HER3 study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Oliveira disclosed relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Zenith Epigenetics, Daiichi Sankyo, iTEOS, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Relay Therapeutics, and Eisai. ICARUS-BREAST01 was sponsored by the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center and supported by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Pistilli disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Seagen, MSD, Novartis, Lilly, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Dent disclosed financial relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer.
according to data presented from Abstract 1240 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
Patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) has previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and antitumor activity in phase I studies involving heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer and various levels of HER3 protein expression, said Mafalda Oliveira, MD, of the Vall d’Hebron University Hospital and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.
Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are a combination of a monoclonal antibody chemically linked to a drug, as defined by the National Cancer Institute. ADCs work by binding to receptors or proteins and selectively delivering cytotoxic drugs to the site of a tumor.
Dr. Oliveira presented results from part B the of SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, a window-of-opportunity trial that evaluated the effect of a single dose of HER3-Dxd in patients with treatment-naive HR+/HER2– early breast cancer.
In such trials, patients receive one or more new compounds between the time of cancer diagnosis and standard treatment. Biological and clinical activity from part A of the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial were presented at last year’s ESMO Breast Cancer Congress, Dr. Oliveira said.
In the current study, Dr. Oliveira and colleagues recruited 37 women with HR+/HER2– early breast cancer, including 20 who were hormone receptor–positive and 17 who had triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). The age of the participants ranged from 30 to 81 years, with a median age of 51 years; 54% were premenopausal. The mean tumor size was 21 mm, with a range of 10-81 mm.
Distinct from part A of the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, part B included a subset of patients with TNBC to assess preliminary efficacy in this subtype, Dr. Oliveira noted.
All patients in part B received a single dose of 5.6 mg/kg of HER3-DXd. The primary outcome was the variation in the tumor cellularity and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (CelTIL) score at baseline and after 21 days via breast ultrasound.
At day 21, the total CelTIL score increased by a significant mean difference of 9.4 points after a single dose; the mean differences for TNBC and HR+/HER2– patients, were 17.9 points and 2.2 points, respectively, Dr. Oliveira said. The overall response rate was 32% (35% in TNBC patients and 30% in HR+/HER2– patients) and was significantly associated with the absolute change in CelTIL (area under the curve = 0.693; P = .049).
In a subtype analysis, a statistically significant change in CelTIL was observed between paired samples overall (P = .046) and in TNBC (P = .016), but not in HR+ (P = .793).
Baseline levels of ERBB3 (also known as human epidermal growth factor receptor type 3, or HER3) were not associated with changes in CelTIL or in overall response rate.
HER3-DXd induced high expression of immune-related genes (such as PD1, CD8, and CD19), and suppressed proliferation-related genes, she said.
A total of 31 patients (84%) reported any adverse events. Of these, the most common were nausea, fatigue, alopecia, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting, and one patient experienced grade 3 treatment-related nausea. No interstitial lung disease events were reported during the study, and the incidence of hematological and hepatic toxicity was lower with the lower dose in part B, compared with the 6.5 mg/kg dose used in part A, Dr. Oliveira noted.
To further validate the findings of the current study and assess the activity of HER3-DXd in early breast cancer, Dr. Oliveira and colleagues are conducting a neoadjuvant phase II trial known as SOLTI-2103 VALENTINE. In this study, they are testing six cycles of HER3-DXd at a 5.6 mg/kg dose in HR+/HER2– breast cancer patients, she said.
During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Oliveira was asked whether CelTIL is the best endpoint for assessing HER3-DXd. Finding the best endpoint is always a challenge when conducting window-of-opportunity trials, she said. The CelTIL score has been correlated with pathologic complete response (pCR), as well as with disease-free survival and overall survival, she added.
ICARUS-BREAST01
In a presentation of Abstract 1890 during the same session, Barbari Pistilli, MD, of Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, shared data from a phase II study known as ICARUS-BREAST.
The study population included women with unresectable locally advanced breast cancer (ABC) who had undergone a median of two previous systemic therapies. In the current study, the patients underwent a median of eight cycles of HER3-DXd. The dosage was 5.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The primary outcome was overall response and disease progression after 3 months. Dr. Pistilli, who is also a coauthor of the research, provided data from 56 evaluable patients.
After 3 months, 16 patients (28.6%) showed a partial response, 30 patients showed stable disease (54%), and 10 (18%) showed disease progression. “No patients had a complete response,” Dr. Pistilli noted.
As for the safety profile, all patients reported at least one treatment-emergent event of any grade, but less than half (48.2%) were grade 3 or higher, and 12.5% led to treatment discontinuation. Fatigue and nausea were the most frequently reported adverse events overall, and occurred in 89.3% and 76.8% of patients, respectively. All grade and grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurred in four patients and six patients, respectively; all grade and grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia occurred in four patients and two patients, respectively, Dr. Pistilli said.
Data on circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were available for 31 patients, and the researchers reviewed CTC counts after the first HER3-DXd cycle.
“We found that the median number of CTCs decreased by one to two cell cycles of HER3-DXd,” said Dr. Pistilli. She and her coauthors found no substantial impact of the treatment on HER3 negative CTC counts, and “more importantly, no increase of HER3 negative CTC counts at disease progression,” Dr. Pistilli continued.
In addition, patients with higher HER+ CTC counts at baseline or a greater decrease in HER3+ CTC counts after one cycle of HER3-DXd were more likely to have an early treatment response, but this association was not statistically significant.
Looking ahead, further analysis will be performed to evaluate the association between HER3+ CTC counts and dynamics and the main outcomes of overall response rate and progression-free survival to determine the potential of HER3+ CTC counts to identify patients who can benefit from HER3-DXd, said Dr. Pistilli. The ICARUS-BREAST01 study is ongoing, and further efficacy and biomarker analysis will be presented, she added.
In the question-and-answer session, Dr. Pistilli was asked why she chose CTC as a measure.
Dr. Pistilli responded that she and her coauthors wanted to understand whether CTC could serve as a biomarker to help in patient selection.
Also, when asked about which genes might be upregulated and downregulated in responders vs. nonresponders, she noted that some genes related to DNA repair were involved in patients who were responders, but more research is needed.
Early results merit further exploration
Although patritumab deruxtecan is early in development, “there is a clear signal to expand,” based on preliminary research, said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, who served as discussant for the two studies.
“There is no clear role for a specific subtype in both protein and gene expression,” noted Dr. Dent, who is a professor at Duke NUS Medical School, a collaboration between Duke University, Durham, N.C., and the National University of Singapore.
In the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, the small numbers make teasing out correlations a challenge, said Dr. Dent. However, changes were observed after just one cycle of the drug, and the upregulation of immune signature genes was reassuring, she said.
“A single dose of HER3-DXd induced an overall response of approximately 30% independently of hormone receptor status,” she emphasized, and the lower incidence of hematological and hepatic toxicity with the lower dose is good news as well. The findings were limited by the small sample size, but the results support moving forward with clinical development of HER3-DXd, she said.
The ICARUS-BREAST01 study researchers tried to show whether they could identify potential markers of early treatment response, and they examined CTCs and gene alterations, said Dr. Dent. “I think it is reassuring that despite these patients being heavily pretreated, HER-DXd seems to be active regardless of most frequent breast cancer genomic alterations,” she noted. Remaining questions include the need for more data on primary resistance.
“We are able to get these patients to respond, but what makes patients resistant to ADCs is just as important,” she said. “We see exciting data across all these subtypes,”
In Dr. Dent’s opinion, future research should focus on triple negative breast cancer, an opinion supported by the stronger response in this subset of patients in the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial. “I think you need to bring triple negative to the table,” she said.
The SOLTI TOT-HER3 study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Oliveira disclosed relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Zenith Epigenetics, Daiichi Sankyo, iTEOS, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Relay Therapeutics, and Eisai. ICARUS-BREAST01 was sponsored by the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center and supported by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Pistilli disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Seagen, MSD, Novartis, Lilly, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Dent disclosed financial relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer.
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2023
T-DXd for HER2-low BC: Analysis confirms adverse effects
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) also remains a concern, and it’s not clear if retreatment after resolution is warranted.
In general, however, “T-DXd demonstrates a manageable safety profile consistent with prior reports. Results from this safety analysis continued to support its use as a new standard of care in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer,” said report lead author Hope Rugo, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
T-DXd, an antibody-drug conjugate, received FDA approval in August 2022 for patients with HER2-low disease. The drug has been touted as “practice changing” and a “new standard of care.”
However, physicians have noted that the benefits of the drug come at the cost of significant adverse effects, including some that can cause hospitalization. There’s special concern about high-grade interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, and an FDA boxed warning cautions clinicians about this possible side effect.
For the new analysis, researchers presented additional safety data from the industry-funded DESTINY-Breast04 trial, whose results was published in July 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine. That study randomized 373 patients to T-DXd and 184 to physician’s choice of treatment. It found that, “among all patients, the median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; P < .001), and overall survival was 23.4 months and 16.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; P = .001).”
Exposure-adjusted incidence rates for any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events were lower for T-DXd versus physician’s choice of treatment (1.30 vs. 2.66). However, nausea and vomiting events were more than twice as common in patients who took T-DXd versus the physician’s choice (79.5% vs. 35.5%).
A total of 50.9% of patients in the T-DXd arm received antiemetic prophylaxis versus 37.2% in the physician’s choice arm. A single patient discontinued T-DXd treatment because of vomiting, and a single patient discontinued treatment because of nausea. No patients in the physician choice group discontinued treatment because of nausea or vomiting.
Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were less frequent in the T-DXd arm versus physician’s choice (12.9% vs. 18.0% and 0.3% vs. 2.9%, respectively.)
ILD occurred in 45 patients (12.1%) of those in the T-DXd arm versus 1 (0.6%) in the physician choice arm. Ten patients of the patients in the T-DXd arm had not recovered by the data cutoff point.
Six patients with ILD were retreated following resolution; one discontinued because of an adverse event, two discontinued because of progressive disease, and three remained on the drug. “Given that there was only a small number of patients who were retreated with T-DXd, it’s difficult to make clinically meaningful conclusions on the effect of retreatment following grade IDL events that have resolved,” Dr. Rugo said.
In the big picture, “ILD pneumonitis remains an important identified risk and an adverse event of interest associated with T-DXd,” Dr. Rugo said. “It’s important that we adhere to management guidelines and updated toxicity management guidelines.”
In a discussion, Dr. Rugo said she prescribes three antiemetic drugs to help patients tolerate T-DXd therapy: “It makes a big difference. Anecdotally, it really has improved management of nausea. Start more and back down [as symptoms fade].”
Gustavo Werutsky, MD, PhD, of Moinhos de Vento Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil, the discussant for the presentation, also emphasized the importance of prevention and said he prescribes two or three prophylactic drugs. “In the beginning, we didn’t know these events were so important. A big part of the message is that patients from the beginning need to have a good prophylaxis for the nausea and vomiting.”
The researchers also presented a related report at the conference, an analysis of patient-reported outcomes from DESTINY-Breast02, a randomized phase 3 study of T-DXd (n = 406) versus physician’s choice of treatment (n = 202) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who were resistant/refractory to trastuzumab emtansine.
The analysis, led by Tanja Fehm, MD, of University Hospital Düsseldorf (Germany), found that the median time to definitive deterioration was longer with T-DXd versus the other arm per the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life score (14.1 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.71).
The studies were funded by Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca, which make T-DXd. Dr. Hugo discloses relationships with Puma, NAPO, Blueprint, Scorpion Therapeutics, Merck, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Novartis, OBI, Pfizer, Pionyr, Sermonix, Taiho Oncology, and Veru. Multiple other authors of both studies have various disclosures.
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) also remains a concern, and it’s not clear if retreatment after resolution is warranted.
In general, however, “T-DXd demonstrates a manageable safety profile consistent with prior reports. Results from this safety analysis continued to support its use as a new standard of care in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer,” said report lead author Hope Rugo, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
T-DXd, an antibody-drug conjugate, received FDA approval in August 2022 for patients with HER2-low disease. The drug has been touted as “practice changing” and a “new standard of care.”
However, physicians have noted that the benefits of the drug come at the cost of significant adverse effects, including some that can cause hospitalization. There’s special concern about high-grade interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, and an FDA boxed warning cautions clinicians about this possible side effect.
For the new analysis, researchers presented additional safety data from the industry-funded DESTINY-Breast04 trial, whose results was published in July 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine. That study randomized 373 patients to T-DXd and 184 to physician’s choice of treatment. It found that, “among all patients, the median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; P < .001), and overall survival was 23.4 months and 16.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; P = .001).”
Exposure-adjusted incidence rates for any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events were lower for T-DXd versus physician’s choice of treatment (1.30 vs. 2.66). However, nausea and vomiting events were more than twice as common in patients who took T-DXd versus the physician’s choice (79.5% vs. 35.5%).
A total of 50.9% of patients in the T-DXd arm received antiemetic prophylaxis versus 37.2% in the physician’s choice arm. A single patient discontinued T-DXd treatment because of vomiting, and a single patient discontinued treatment because of nausea. No patients in the physician choice group discontinued treatment because of nausea or vomiting.
Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were less frequent in the T-DXd arm versus physician’s choice (12.9% vs. 18.0% and 0.3% vs. 2.9%, respectively.)
ILD occurred in 45 patients (12.1%) of those in the T-DXd arm versus 1 (0.6%) in the physician choice arm. Ten patients of the patients in the T-DXd arm had not recovered by the data cutoff point.
Six patients with ILD were retreated following resolution; one discontinued because of an adverse event, two discontinued because of progressive disease, and three remained on the drug. “Given that there was only a small number of patients who were retreated with T-DXd, it’s difficult to make clinically meaningful conclusions on the effect of retreatment following grade IDL events that have resolved,” Dr. Rugo said.
In the big picture, “ILD pneumonitis remains an important identified risk and an adverse event of interest associated with T-DXd,” Dr. Rugo said. “It’s important that we adhere to management guidelines and updated toxicity management guidelines.”
In a discussion, Dr. Rugo said she prescribes three antiemetic drugs to help patients tolerate T-DXd therapy: “It makes a big difference. Anecdotally, it really has improved management of nausea. Start more and back down [as symptoms fade].”
Gustavo Werutsky, MD, PhD, of Moinhos de Vento Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil, the discussant for the presentation, also emphasized the importance of prevention and said he prescribes two or three prophylactic drugs. “In the beginning, we didn’t know these events were so important. A big part of the message is that patients from the beginning need to have a good prophylaxis for the nausea and vomiting.”
The researchers also presented a related report at the conference, an analysis of patient-reported outcomes from DESTINY-Breast02, a randomized phase 3 study of T-DXd (n = 406) versus physician’s choice of treatment (n = 202) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who were resistant/refractory to trastuzumab emtansine.
The analysis, led by Tanja Fehm, MD, of University Hospital Düsseldorf (Germany), found that the median time to definitive deterioration was longer with T-DXd versus the other arm per the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life score (14.1 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.71).
The studies were funded by Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca, which make T-DXd. Dr. Hugo discloses relationships with Puma, NAPO, Blueprint, Scorpion Therapeutics, Merck, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Novartis, OBI, Pfizer, Pionyr, Sermonix, Taiho Oncology, and Veru. Multiple other authors of both studies have various disclosures.
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) also remains a concern, and it’s not clear if retreatment after resolution is warranted.
In general, however, “T-DXd demonstrates a manageable safety profile consistent with prior reports. Results from this safety analysis continued to support its use as a new standard of care in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer,” said report lead author Hope Rugo, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
T-DXd, an antibody-drug conjugate, received FDA approval in August 2022 for patients with HER2-low disease. The drug has been touted as “practice changing” and a “new standard of care.”
However, physicians have noted that the benefits of the drug come at the cost of significant adverse effects, including some that can cause hospitalization. There’s special concern about high-grade interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, and an FDA boxed warning cautions clinicians about this possible side effect.
For the new analysis, researchers presented additional safety data from the industry-funded DESTINY-Breast04 trial, whose results was published in July 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine. That study randomized 373 patients to T-DXd and 184 to physician’s choice of treatment. It found that, “among all patients, the median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; P < .001), and overall survival was 23.4 months and 16.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; P = .001).”
Exposure-adjusted incidence rates for any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events were lower for T-DXd versus physician’s choice of treatment (1.30 vs. 2.66). However, nausea and vomiting events were more than twice as common in patients who took T-DXd versus the physician’s choice (79.5% vs. 35.5%).
A total of 50.9% of patients in the T-DXd arm received antiemetic prophylaxis versus 37.2% in the physician’s choice arm. A single patient discontinued T-DXd treatment because of vomiting, and a single patient discontinued treatment because of nausea. No patients in the physician choice group discontinued treatment because of nausea or vomiting.
Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were less frequent in the T-DXd arm versus physician’s choice (12.9% vs. 18.0% and 0.3% vs. 2.9%, respectively.)
ILD occurred in 45 patients (12.1%) of those in the T-DXd arm versus 1 (0.6%) in the physician choice arm. Ten patients of the patients in the T-DXd arm had not recovered by the data cutoff point.
Six patients with ILD were retreated following resolution; one discontinued because of an adverse event, two discontinued because of progressive disease, and three remained on the drug. “Given that there was only a small number of patients who were retreated with T-DXd, it’s difficult to make clinically meaningful conclusions on the effect of retreatment following grade IDL events that have resolved,” Dr. Rugo said.
In the big picture, “ILD pneumonitis remains an important identified risk and an adverse event of interest associated with T-DXd,” Dr. Rugo said. “It’s important that we adhere to management guidelines and updated toxicity management guidelines.”
In a discussion, Dr. Rugo said she prescribes three antiemetic drugs to help patients tolerate T-DXd therapy: “It makes a big difference. Anecdotally, it really has improved management of nausea. Start more and back down [as symptoms fade].”
Gustavo Werutsky, MD, PhD, of Moinhos de Vento Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil, the discussant for the presentation, also emphasized the importance of prevention and said he prescribes two or three prophylactic drugs. “In the beginning, we didn’t know these events were so important. A big part of the message is that patients from the beginning need to have a good prophylaxis for the nausea and vomiting.”
The researchers also presented a related report at the conference, an analysis of patient-reported outcomes from DESTINY-Breast02, a randomized phase 3 study of T-DXd (n = 406) versus physician’s choice of treatment (n = 202) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who were resistant/refractory to trastuzumab emtansine.
The analysis, led by Tanja Fehm, MD, of University Hospital Düsseldorf (Germany), found that the median time to definitive deterioration was longer with T-DXd versus the other arm per the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life score (14.1 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.71).
The studies were funded by Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca, which make T-DXd. Dr. Hugo discloses relationships with Puma, NAPO, Blueprint, Scorpion Therapeutics, Merck, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Novartis, OBI, Pfizer, Pionyr, Sermonix, Taiho Oncology, and Veru. Multiple other authors of both studies have various disclosures.
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2023
BMI has greater impact on survival in younger breast cancer patients
new data suggest.
Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.
Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.
The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.
Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), or obese (30 kg/m2 or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.
DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).
“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.
In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.
The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.
In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.
When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors
The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.
Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.
Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.
“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.
The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.
new data suggest.
Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.
Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.
The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.
Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), or obese (30 kg/m2 or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.
DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).
“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.
In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.
The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.
In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.
When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors
The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.
Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.
Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.
“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.
The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.
new data suggest.
Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.
Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.
The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.
Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), or obese (30 kg/m2 or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.
DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).
“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.
In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.
The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.
In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.
When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors
The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.
Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.
Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.
“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.
The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2023
Number of cancer survivors with functional limitations doubled in 20 years
Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.
Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.
The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.
For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
Patients surveyed on function
Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.
Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
Not just a result of living longer
Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.
“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.
Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.
Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.
“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
Quality of life beyond survivorship
Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.
“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.
The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.
There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”
Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.
“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.
A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.
Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.
The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.
For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
Patients surveyed on function
Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.
Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
Not just a result of living longer
Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.
“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.
Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.
Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.
“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
Quality of life beyond survivorship
Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.
“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.
The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.
There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”
Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.
“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.
A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.
Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.
The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.
For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
Patients surveyed on function
Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.
Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
Not just a result of living longer
Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.
“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.
Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.
Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.
“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
Quality of life beyond survivorship
Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.
“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.
The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.
There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”
Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.
“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.
A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Study shows higher obesity-related cancer mortality in areas with more fast food
based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.
Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.
In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.
“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.
In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.
Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.
The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).
Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.
A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).
Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.
The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
Community-level investments can benefit individual health
Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.
“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said.
“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.
Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions
The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.
The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.
“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.
Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.
In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.
“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.
In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.
Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.
The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).
Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.
A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).
Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.
The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
Community-level investments can benefit individual health
Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.
“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said.
“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.
Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions
The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.
The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.
“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.
Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.
In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.
“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.
In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.
Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.
The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).
Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.
A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).
Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.
The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
Community-level investments can benefit individual health
Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.
“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said.
“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.
Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions
The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.
The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.
“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Adherence to cancer prevention guidance linked with reduced breast cancer recurrence, death risk
Following such recommendations surrounding smoking, physical activity (PA), eating fruits and vegetables and reducing or eliminating sugar-sweetened beverages seemed to be the most beneficial, wrote the authors of the paper published online in JAMA Network Open.
Rikki A. Cannioto, PhD, EdD, with the department of cancer prevention & control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., led the prospective cohort study of 1,340 patients.
The American Institute for Cancer Research and American Cancer Society regularly recommend and publish lifestyle modifications for cancer prevention. To conduct this study Dr. Cannioto and colleagues developed an aggregate lifestyle scoring index to investigate whether those recommendations have an effect on high-risk breast cancer survival.
Highest adherence vs. lowest cut death risk by more than half
The researchers found patients with highest vs. lowest lifestyle index scores saw a 37% reduction in cancer recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.82) and a 58% reduction in mortality (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30-0.59).
“As a person who has based her career on the belief that our modifiable lifestyle behaviors are associated with cancer survival, I was actually surprised about how strong these associations were, especially for breast cancer recurrence,” Dr. Cannioto said in an interview,
The author also expressed surprise about the associations that were seen “in patients diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer and HER2-positive breast cancer, which are the two subtypes traditionally more aggressive and more difficult to treat.”
Most patients in the study were diagnosed with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (873 [65.3%]); completed some education beyond high school (954 [71.2%]); were postmenopausal (696 [52.5%]); and self-identified as non-Hispanic White (1,118 [83.7%]).
Patients were drawn from the Diet, Exercise, Lifestyles, and Cancer Prognosis (DELCaP) study, a prospective, observational cohort study ancillary to a multicenter phase 3 trial led by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG). The DELCaP study was designed to examine lifestyles before diagnosis, during treatment, and at 1 and 2 years after treatment.
Never smoking, physical activity had strongest links
Never smoking and meeting or exceeding PA guidelines had the strongest and most consistent associations with outcomes; each factor was linked with a 44%-45% reduced risk of mortality and a 35% reduced risk of recurrence.
Strongest adherence to the alcohol and body mass index (BMI) recommendations were not significantly associated with improved outcomes.
Partial and full adherence to red and processed meat recommendations were associated with significant reductions in mortality, but not recurrence.
The authors note that, while medications are the foundation for breast cancer treatment, lifestyle interventions could be a safe and inexpensive additional strategy for delaying and preventing recurrence and death.
“Such developments could be especially impactful for patients diagnosed with more aggressive tumors that do not respond well to current therapies,” they write.
Dr. Cannioto says the guidelines around physical activity advise 150 minutes or more of moderate to vigorous intensity a week. But she noted that this research shows that any physical activity can lead to longer survival.
“The greatest benefits from physical activity occur from moving from a sedentary lifestyle to beginning to be active,” she said.
Dr. Cannioto acknowledged the homogeneity of the study population as a limitation and recommended the associations next be tested in a more racially and ethnically diverse population of breast cancer patients.
This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Amgen.
The authors report receiving grants from the Southwest Oncology Group and the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and receiving personal fees, grants, or serving on the boards or independent monitoring committees of many pharmaceutical companies. A full list of disclosures is available with the paper.
Following such recommendations surrounding smoking, physical activity (PA), eating fruits and vegetables and reducing or eliminating sugar-sweetened beverages seemed to be the most beneficial, wrote the authors of the paper published online in JAMA Network Open.
Rikki A. Cannioto, PhD, EdD, with the department of cancer prevention & control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., led the prospective cohort study of 1,340 patients.
The American Institute for Cancer Research and American Cancer Society regularly recommend and publish lifestyle modifications for cancer prevention. To conduct this study Dr. Cannioto and colleagues developed an aggregate lifestyle scoring index to investigate whether those recommendations have an effect on high-risk breast cancer survival.
Highest adherence vs. lowest cut death risk by more than half
The researchers found patients with highest vs. lowest lifestyle index scores saw a 37% reduction in cancer recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.82) and a 58% reduction in mortality (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30-0.59).
“As a person who has based her career on the belief that our modifiable lifestyle behaviors are associated with cancer survival, I was actually surprised about how strong these associations were, especially for breast cancer recurrence,” Dr. Cannioto said in an interview,
The author also expressed surprise about the associations that were seen “in patients diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer and HER2-positive breast cancer, which are the two subtypes traditionally more aggressive and more difficult to treat.”
Most patients in the study were diagnosed with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (873 [65.3%]); completed some education beyond high school (954 [71.2%]); were postmenopausal (696 [52.5%]); and self-identified as non-Hispanic White (1,118 [83.7%]).
Patients were drawn from the Diet, Exercise, Lifestyles, and Cancer Prognosis (DELCaP) study, a prospective, observational cohort study ancillary to a multicenter phase 3 trial led by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG). The DELCaP study was designed to examine lifestyles before diagnosis, during treatment, and at 1 and 2 years after treatment.
Never smoking, physical activity had strongest links
Never smoking and meeting or exceeding PA guidelines had the strongest and most consistent associations with outcomes; each factor was linked with a 44%-45% reduced risk of mortality and a 35% reduced risk of recurrence.
Strongest adherence to the alcohol and body mass index (BMI) recommendations were not significantly associated with improved outcomes.
Partial and full adherence to red and processed meat recommendations were associated with significant reductions in mortality, but not recurrence.
The authors note that, while medications are the foundation for breast cancer treatment, lifestyle interventions could be a safe and inexpensive additional strategy for delaying and preventing recurrence and death.
“Such developments could be especially impactful for patients diagnosed with more aggressive tumors that do not respond well to current therapies,” they write.
Dr. Cannioto says the guidelines around physical activity advise 150 minutes or more of moderate to vigorous intensity a week. But she noted that this research shows that any physical activity can lead to longer survival.
“The greatest benefits from physical activity occur from moving from a sedentary lifestyle to beginning to be active,” she said.
Dr. Cannioto acknowledged the homogeneity of the study population as a limitation and recommended the associations next be tested in a more racially and ethnically diverse population of breast cancer patients.
This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Amgen.
The authors report receiving grants from the Southwest Oncology Group and the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and receiving personal fees, grants, or serving on the boards or independent monitoring committees of many pharmaceutical companies. A full list of disclosures is available with the paper.
Following such recommendations surrounding smoking, physical activity (PA), eating fruits and vegetables and reducing or eliminating sugar-sweetened beverages seemed to be the most beneficial, wrote the authors of the paper published online in JAMA Network Open.
Rikki A. Cannioto, PhD, EdD, with the department of cancer prevention & control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., led the prospective cohort study of 1,340 patients.
The American Institute for Cancer Research and American Cancer Society regularly recommend and publish lifestyle modifications for cancer prevention. To conduct this study Dr. Cannioto and colleagues developed an aggregate lifestyle scoring index to investigate whether those recommendations have an effect on high-risk breast cancer survival.
Highest adherence vs. lowest cut death risk by more than half
The researchers found patients with highest vs. lowest lifestyle index scores saw a 37% reduction in cancer recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.82) and a 58% reduction in mortality (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30-0.59).
“As a person who has based her career on the belief that our modifiable lifestyle behaviors are associated with cancer survival, I was actually surprised about how strong these associations were, especially for breast cancer recurrence,” Dr. Cannioto said in an interview,
The author also expressed surprise about the associations that were seen “in patients diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer and HER2-positive breast cancer, which are the two subtypes traditionally more aggressive and more difficult to treat.”
Most patients in the study were diagnosed with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (873 [65.3%]); completed some education beyond high school (954 [71.2%]); were postmenopausal (696 [52.5%]); and self-identified as non-Hispanic White (1,118 [83.7%]).
Patients were drawn from the Diet, Exercise, Lifestyles, and Cancer Prognosis (DELCaP) study, a prospective, observational cohort study ancillary to a multicenter phase 3 trial led by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG). The DELCaP study was designed to examine lifestyles before diagnosis, during treatment, and at 1 and 2 years after treatment.
Never smoking, physical activity had strongest links
Never smoking and meeting or exceeding PA guidelines had the strongest and most consistent associations with outcomes; each factor was linked with a 44%-45% reduced risk of mortality and a 35% reduced risk of recurrence.
Strongest adherence to the alcohol and body mass index (BMI) recommendations were not significantly associated with improved outcomes.
Partial and full adherence to red and processed meat recommendations were associated with significant reductions in mortality, but not recurrence.
The authors note that, while medications are the foundation for breast cancer treatment, lifestyle interventions could be a safe and inexpensive additional strategy for delaying and preventing recurrence and death.
“Such developments could be especially impactful for patients diagnosed with more aggressive tumors that do not respond well to current therapies,” they write.
Dr. Cannioto says the guidelines around physical activity advise 150 minutes or more of moderate to vigorous intensity a week. But she noted that this research shows that any physical activity can lead to longer survival.
“The greatest benefits from physical activity occur from moving from a sedentary lifestyle to beginning to be active,” she said.
Dr. Cannioto acknowledged the homogeneity of the study population as a limitation and recommended the associations next be tested in a more racially and ethnically diverse population of breast cancer patients.
This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Amgen.
The authors report receiving grants from the Southwest Oncology Group and the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and receiving personal fees, grants, or serving on the boards or independent monitoring committees of many pharmaceutical companies. A full list of disclosures is available with the paper.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Cancer pain declines with cannabis use
in a study.
Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.
In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.
The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.
Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.
Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).
Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).
“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.
In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.
Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.
Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.
The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.
The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
in a study.
Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.
In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.
The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.
Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.
Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).
Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).
“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.
In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.
Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.
Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.
The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.
The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
in a study.
Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.
In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.
The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.
Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.
Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).
Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).
“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.
In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.
Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.
Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.
The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.
The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM BMJ SUPPORTIVE & PALLIATIVE CARE
Antibody Drug Conjugates: a growing field of targeted therapy for breast cancer
The landscape of breast cancer care and how we're working on pushing the targeted treatment movement forward is rapidly changing, especially with antibody drug conjugates (ADCs).
I like to think of ADCs as targeted missiles. They're essentially composed of antibodies against specific antigens, or targets of interest, and then they're combined with a linker to a chemotherapy payload. It's a way to deliver the chemotherapy in a more targeted manner than traditional chemotherapy, which is an exciting opportunity to allow us to target those patients who otherwise prefer agents that were more difficult to tolerate before this technology was invented.
This field has grown exponentially in the last 5 to 10 years and has presented multiple new opportunities for research. What is most exciting is that we have new targets for these treatments—new antigens that we can target with novel ADCs.
The NeoSTAR trial evaluated the ADC sacituzumab govitecan (SG), which is used for patients who have earlier stage triple negative breast cancer before surgery. The idea of this is to hopefully spare patients from many of the more toxic effects of traditional chemotherapy, while still providing them precision in terms of the treatment that we're targeting in the body.
I was involved in the ASCENT trial, which is also notable for precise treatment. It demonstrated the superiority of SG in metastatic triple negative breast cancer, and more recently the US Food and Drug Administration label has been expanded to the metastatic hormone-positive space as well. As we're developing these ADCs and broadening their use, we're able to reach larger patient populations. It's really exciting because we know there's such an appetite among our patients to use these agents, given how effective they can be and, in some situations, less toxic than the standard chemotherapy they would have otherwise gotten.
The other big category of trials involves another ADC called trastuzumab deruxtecan (TD). Trastuzumab is conjugated against HER2, a breast cancer specific agent, and is combined with the linker, deruxtecan—a very potent chemotherapy payload. TD was initially used in patients who had HER2-positive breast cancer. In fact, trastuzumab, the first half of the drug, was used as an antibody in and of itself in a lot of earlier stage and metastatic cancer for years. We've known about that for a long time. But more recently, with the series of DESTINY trials, we have seen the major impact that TD in HER2 can have compared to other chemotherapy agents and against other ADCs as well.
What was so exciting about the trials presented in 2022 is that they created a new category of patients called HER2-low. Before, we had always considered patients as HER2-positive or HER2-negative. We now know it's not that binary. We had already known by the way we do the pathology that people can have levels of HER2 expression. HER2-low patients are people who would have been considered HER2-negative before this—but have some HER2 expression. They have what we consider low on a scale of 0 to 3+, typically. Therefore, they're 1+ or 2+, not 0, and not 3+, because that would be considered HER2-positive. It's a little more complicated because when it's triple 2-positive, they could also do a back-up test, if a patient is positive on that, they are considered as HER2-positive.
There is now a new category of HER2-low patients who were also shown to have a tremendous improvement benefit with TD; this new category of patients could be candidates for this treatment, although they would never have been used for HER2 targeting before. These agents can be so effective that it's even causing us to rethink our classifications of disease.
Some of what we're working on right now is specifically looking at how patients are resistant to these agents; that's one of our major focuses as Mass General. We know these treatments are highly effective, but unfortunately, they don't last forever. Very few of these cancer treatments do, because as we know, cancer has this remarkable ability to evolve resistance to agents that we use. The amazing thing about ADCs is they've extended (in some cases) overall survival for patients, which is fantastic. But as I said, we know that they are not lasting forever. Part of what we're involved in with that clinical and research setting is to look at patients who've had success with these agents and ultimately progressed, and then figure out what changed before and after treatment (down to the single cell or genetic level) in order to continue expanding use of these treatments, extending use of the treatments, and making them more effective for more patients.
The landscape of breast cancer care and how we're working on pushing the targeted treatment movement forward is rapidly changing, especially with antibody drug conjugates (ADCs).
I like to think of ADCs as targeted missiles. They're essentially composed of antibodies against specific antigens, or targets of interest, and then they're combined with a linker to a chemotherapy payload. It's a way to deliver the chemotherapy in a more targeted manner than traditional chemotherapy, which is an exciting opportunity to allow us to target those patients who otherwise prefer agents that were more difficult to tolerate before this technology was invented.
This field has grown exponentially in the last 5 to 10 years and has presented multiple new opportunities for research. What is most exciting is that we have new targets for these treatments—new antigens that we can target with novel ADCs.
The NeoSTAR trial evaluated the ADC sacituzumab govitecan (SG), which is used for patients who have earlier stage triple negative breast cancer before surgery. The idea of this is to hopefully spare patients from many of the more toxic effects of traditional chemotherapy, while still providing them precision in terms of the treatment that we're targeting in the body.
I was involved in the ASCENT trial, which is also notable for precise treatment. It demonstrated the superiority of SG in metastatic triple negative breast cancer, and more recently the US Food and Drug Administration label has been expanded to the metastatic hormone-positive space as well. As we're developing these ADCs and broadening their use, we're able to reach larger patient populations. It's really exciting because we know there's such an appetite among our patients to use these agents, given how effective they can be and, in some situations, less toxic than the standard chemotherapy they would have otherwise gotten.
The other big category of trials involves another ADC called trastuzumab deruxtecan (TD). Trastuzumab is conjugated against HER2, a breast cancer specific agent, and is combined with the linker, deruxtecan—a very potent chemotherapy payload. TD was initially used in patients who had HER2-positive breast cancer. In fact, trastuzumab, the first half of the drug, was used as an antibody in and of itself in a lot of earlier stage and metastatic cancer for years. We've known about that for a long time. But more recently, with the series of DESTINY trials, we have seen the major impact that TD in HER2 can have compared to other chemotherapy agents and against other ADCs as well.
What was so exciting about the trials presented in 2022 is that they created a new category of patients called HER2-low. Before, we had always considered patients as HER2-positive or HER2-negative. We now know it's not that binary. We had already known by the way we do the pathology that people can have levels of HER2 expression. HER2-low patients are people who would have been considered HER2-negative before this—but have some HER2 expression. They have what we consider low on a scale of 0 to 3+, typically. Therefore, they're 1+ or 2+, not 0, and not 3+, because that would be considered HER2-positive. It's a little more complicated because when it's triple 2-positive, they could also do a back-up test, if a patient is positive on that, they are considered as HER2-positive.
There is now a new category of HER2-low patients who were also shown to have a tremendous improvement benefit with TD; this new category of patients could be candidates for this treatment, although they would never have been used for HER2 targeting before. These agents can be so effective that it's even causing us to rethink our classifications of disease.
Some of what we're working on right now is specifically looking at how patients are resistant to these agents; that's one of our major focuses as Mass General. We know these treatments are highly effective, but unfortunately, they don't last forever. Very few of these cancer treatments do, because as we know, cancer has this remarkable ability to evolve resistance to agents that we use. The amazing thing about ADCs is they've extended (in some cases) overall survival for patients, which is fantastic. But as I said, we know that they are not lasting forever. Part of what we're involved in with that clinical and research setting is to look at patients who've had success with these agents and ultimately progressed, and then figure out what changed before and after treatment (down to the single cell or genetic level) in order to continue expanding use of these treatments, extending use of the treatments, and making them more effective for more patients.
The landscape of breast cancer care and how we're working on pushing the targeted treatment movement forward is rapidly changing, especially with antibody drug conjugates (ADCs).
I like to think of ADCs as targeted missiles. They're essentially composed of antibodies against specific antigens, or targets of interest, and then they're combined with a linker to a chemotherapy payload. It's a way to deliver the chemotherapy in a more targeted manner than traditional chemotherapy, which is an exciting opportunity to allow us to target those patients who otherwise prefer agents that were more difficult to tolerate before this technology was invented.
This field has grown exponentially in the last 5 to 10 years and has presented multiple new opportunities for research. What is most exciting is that we have new targets for these treatments—new antigens that we can target with novel ADCs.
The NeoSTAR trial evaluated the ADC sacituzumab govitecan (SG), which is used for patients who have earlier stage triple negative breast cancer before surgery. The idea of this is to hopefully spare patients from many of the more toxic effects of traditional chemotherapy, while still providing them precision in terms of the treatment that we're targeting in the body.
I was involved in the ASCENT trial, which is also notable for precise treatment. It demonstrated the superiority of SG in metastatic triple negative breast cancer, and more recently the US Food and Drug Administration label has been expanded to the metastatic hormone-positive space as well. As we're developing these ADCs and broadening their use, we're able to reach larger patient populations. It's really exciting because we know there's such an appetite among our patients to use these agents, given how effective they can be and, in some situations, less toxic than the standard chemotherapy they would have otherwise gotten.
The other big category of trials involves another ADC called trastuzumab deruxtecan (TD). Trastuzumab is conjugated against HER2, a breast cancer specific agent, and is combined with the linker, deruxtecan—a very potent chemotherapy payload. TD was initially used in patients who had HER2-positive breast cancer. In fact, trastuzumab, the first half of the drug, was used as an antibody in and of itself in a lot of earlier stage and metastatic cancer for years. We've known about that for a long time. But more recently, with the series of DESTINY trials, we have seen the major impact that TD in HER2 can have compared to other chemotherapy agents and against other ADCs as well.
What was so exciting about the trials presented in 2022 is that they created a new category of patients called HER2-low. Before, we had always considered patients as HER2-positive or HER2-negative. We now know it's not that binary. We had already known by the way we do the pathology that people can have levels of HER2 expression. HER2-low patients are people who would have been considered HER2-negative before this—but have some HER2 expression. They have what we consider low on a scale of 0 to 3+, typically. Therefore, they're 1+ or 2+, not 0, and not 3+, because that would be considered HER2-positive. It's a little more complicated because when it's triple 2-positive, they could also do a back-up test, if a patient is positive on that, they are considered as HER2-positive.
There is now a new category of HER2-low patients who were also shown to have a tremendous improvement benefit with TD; this new category of patients could be candidates for this treatment, although they would never have been used for HER2 targeting before. These agents can be so effective that it's even causing us to rethink our classifications of disease.
Some of what we're working on right now is specifically looking at how patients are resistant to these agents; that's one of our major focuses as Mass General. We know these treatments are highly effective, but unfortunately, they don't last forever. Very few of these cancer treatments do, because as we know, cancer has this remarkable ability to evolve resistance to agents that we use. The amazing thing about ADCs is they've extended (in some cases) overall survival for patients, which is fantastic. But as I said, we know that they are not lasting forever. Part of what we're involved in with that clinical and research setting is to look at patients who've had success with these agents and ultimately progressed, and then figure out what changed before and after treatment (down to the single cell or genetic level) in order to continue expanding use of these treatments, extending use of the treatments, and making them more effective for more patients.