Breast Cancer ICYMI

Key clinical point: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) may increase the odds of a pathological complete response (pCR) in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) breast cancer (BC) and BRCA1 mutation vs in those with sporadic BC.

Major finding: The rate of achieving a pCR was significantly higher in BRCA1/2 and BRCA1 mutation carriers vs non-carriers (16% and 38%, respectively, vs 7.8%; P < .001), with BRCA1 mutation carrier vs non-carrier status being associated with higher odds of achieving a pCR (odds ratio 6.31; P = .002).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 522 patients with HR+/HER2− BC who received NAC, of whom 21 and 38 patients had BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by a  US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Myers SP et al. Mutational status is associated with a higher rate of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023 (Oct 5). doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-14319-0

Key clinical point: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) may increase the odds of a pathological complete response (pCR) in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) breast cancer (BC) and BRCA1 mutation vs in those with sporadic BC.

Major finding: The rate of achieving a pCR was significantly higher in BRCA1/2 and BRCA1 mutation carriers vs non-carriers (16% and 38%, respectively, vs 7.8%; P < .001), with BRCA1 mutation carrier vs non-carrier status being associated with higher odds of achieving a pCR (odds ratio 6.31; P = .002).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 522 patients with HR+/HER2− BC who received NAC, of whom 21 and 38 patients had BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by a  US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Myers SP et al. Mutational status is associated with a higher rate of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023 (Oct 5). doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-14319-0

Key clinical point: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) may increase the odds of a pathological complete response (pCR) in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) breast cancer (BC) and BRCA1 mutation vs in those with sporadic BC.

Major finding: The rate of achieving a pCR was significantly higher in BRCA1/2 and BRCA1 mutation carriers vs non-carriers (16% and 38%, respectively, vs 7.8%; P < .001), with BRCA1 mutation carrier vs non-carrier status being associated with higher odds of achieving a pCR (odds ratio 6.31; P = .002).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 522 patients with HR+/HER2− BC who received NAC, of whom 21 and 38 patients had BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by a  US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Myers SP et al. Mutational status is associated with a higher rate of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023 (Oct 5). doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-14319-0

Key clinical point: A majority of patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC) who received alpelisib developed hyperglycemia of any grade, with alpelisib-associated hyperglycemia being more prevalent in standard clinical practice than in clinical trials.

Major finding: Overall, 61.5% of patients developed any-grade hyperglycemia, with the rate being considerably higher in patients who received alpelisib as part of standard care vs clinical trial (80.3% vs 34.0%). Baseline body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m² (P = .036) and A1c levels in the prediabetes and diabetes range (P < .001) were significantly associated with the development of any-grade hyperglycemia.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 247 patients with metastatic BC who received alpelisib either as standard care (n = 147) or in a clinical trial setting (n = 100).

Disclosures: This work was supported partly by the US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. Some authors declared receiving honoraria, research funding, or consultant fees from some sources.

Source: Shen S et al. Incidence, risk factors, and management of alpelisib-associated hyperglycemia in metastatic breast cancer. Cancer. 2023 (Sep 25). doi: 10.1002/cncr.34928

Key clinical point: A majority of patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC) who received alpelisib developed hyperglycemia of any grade, with alpelisib-associated hyperglycemia being more prevalent in standard clinical practice than in clinical trials.

Major finding: Overall, 61.5% of patients developed any-grade hyperglycemia, with the rate being considerably higher in patients who received alpelisib as part of standard care vs clinical trial (80.3% vs 34.0%). Baseline body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m² (P = .036) and A1c levels in the prediabetes and diabetes range (P < .001) were significantly associated with the development of any-grade hyperglycemia.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 247 patients with metastatic BC who received alpelisib either as standard care (n = 147) or in a clinical trial setting (n = 100).

Disclosures: This work was supported partly by the US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. Some authors declared receiving honoraria, research funding, or consultant fees from some sources.

Source: Shen S et al. Incidence, risk factors, and management of alpelisib-associated hyperglycemia in metastatic breast cancer. Cancer. 2023 (Sep 25). doi: 10.1002/cncr.34928

Key clinical point: A majority of patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC) who received alpelisib developed hyperglycemia of any grade, with alpelisib-associated hyperglycemia being more prevalent in standard clinical practice than in clinical trials.

Major finding: Overall, 61.5% of patients developed any-grade hyperglycemia, with the rate being considerably higher in patients who received alpelisib as part of standard care vs clinical trial (80.3% vs 34.0%). Baseline body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m² (P = .036) and A1c levels in the prediabetes and diabetes range (P < .001) were significantly associated with the development of any-grade hyperglycemia.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 247 patients with metastatic BC who received alpelisib either as standard care (n = 147) or in a clinical trial setting (n = 100).

Disclosures: This work was supported partly by the US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. Some authors declared receiving honoraria, research funding, or consultant fees from some sources.

Source: Shen S et al. Incidence, risk factors, and management of alpelisib-associated hyperglycemia in metastatic breast cancer. Cancer. 2023 (Sep 25). doi: 10.1002/cncr.34928

Key clinical point: Chemotherapy-free front-line treatment with dalpiciclib plus pyrotinib demonstrated promising efficacy and manageable safety in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) advanced breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 25.9 months, 28 (70%) patients had a confirmed objective response, with 2 and 26 patients achieving complete and partial responses, respectively. Grades 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported by 82.9% and 12.2% of patients respectively, and of these, decreased white blood cells, decreased neutrophil count, diarrhea, and anemia were the most common.

Study details: Findings are from a single arm phase 2 study including 41 patients with HER2+ advanced BC who received front-line treatment with dalpiciclib+pyrotinib.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the XINRUI Project of Cancer Supportive Care and Treatment Research, China. H Li declared serving as an employee of Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China) during the study period.

Source: Yan M et al. Dalpiciclib and pyrotinib in women with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer: A single-arm phase II trial. Nat Commun. 2023;14:6272 (Oct 7). doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-41955-7

Key clinical point: Chemotherapy-free front-line treatment with dalpiciclib plus pyrotinib demonstrated promising efficacy and manageable safety in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) advanced breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 25.9 months, 28 (70%) patients had a confirmed objective response, with 2 and 26 patients achieving complete and partial responses, respectively. Grades 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported by 82.9% and 12.2% of patients respectively, and of these, decreased white blood cells, decreased neutrophil count, diarrhea, and anemia were the most common.

Study details: Findings are from a single arm phase 2 study including 41 patients with HER2+ advanced BC who received front-line treatment with dalpiciclib+pyrotinib.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the XINRUI Project of Cancer Supportive Care and Treatment Research, China. H Li declared serving as an employee of Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China) during the study period.

Source: Yan M et al. Dalpiciclib and pyrotinib in women with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer: A single-arm phase II trial. Nat Commun. 2023;14:6272 (Oct 7). doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-41955-7

Key clinical point: Chemotherapy-free front-line treatment with dalpiciclib plus pyrotinib demonstrated promising efficacy and manageable safety in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) advanced breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 25.9 months, 28 (70%) patients had a confirmed objective response, with 2 and 26 patients achieving complete and partial responses, respectively. Grades 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported by 82.9% and 12.2% of patients respectively, and of these, decreased white blood cells, decreased neutrophil count, diarrhea, and anemia were the most common.

Study details: Findings are from a single arm phase 2 study including 41 patients with HER2+ advanced BC who received front-line treatment with dalpiciclib+pyrotinib.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the XINRUI Project of Cancer Supportive Care and Treatment Research, China. H Li declared serving as an employee of Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China) during the study period.

Source: Yan M et al. Dalpiciclib and pyrotinib in women with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer: A single-arm phase II trial. Nat Commun. 2023;14:6272 (Oct 7). doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-41955-7

Key clinical point: In patients with breast cancer (BC), hypofractionated proton postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT), which is administered in larger doses and fewer sessions, showed similar rates of complications as conventional fractionated proton PMRT.

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 39.3 months, both conventional fractionated and hypofractionated proton PMRT had similar complication rates (15% vs 20%; absolute difference 4.9%; one-sided 95% CI 18.5; P = .27), with all complications occurring in patients with immediate expander or implant-based reconstruction.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 MC1631 trial including 82 patients with BC who underwent mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction and were randomly assigned to receive either conventional fractionated (50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy) or hypofractionated (40.05 Gy in 15 fractions of 2.67 Gy) proton PMRT.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by Mayo Clinic and other sources. The lead author declared serving as co-chair of the Breast Cancer Subcommittee of the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group.

Source: Mutter RW et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy proton radiotherapy in the USA (MC1631): A randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023 24(10):1083-1093 (Sep 8). doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00388-1

Key clinical point: In patients with breast cancer (BC), hypofractionated proton postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT), which is administered in larger doses and fewer sessions, showed similar rates of complications as conventional fractionated proton PMRT.

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 39.3 months, both conventional fractionated and hypofractionated proton PMRT had similar complication rates (15% vs 20%; absolute difference 4.9%; one-sided 95% CI 18.5; P = .27), with all complications occurring in patients with immediate expander or implant-based reconstruction.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 MC1631 trial including 82 patients with BC who underwent mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction and were randomly assigned to receive either conventional fractionated (50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy) or hypofractionated (40.05 Gy in 15 fractions of 2.67 Gy) proton PMRT.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by Mayo Clinic and other sources. The lead author declared serving as co-chair of the Breast Cancer Subcommittee of the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group.

Source: Mutter RW et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy proton radiotherapy in the USA (MC1631): A randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023 24(10):1083-1093 (Sep 8). doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00388-1

Key clinical point: In patients with breast cancer (BC), hypofractionated proton postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT), which is administered in larger doses and fewer sessions, showed similar rates of complications as conventional fractionated proton PMRT.

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 39.3 months, both conventional fractionated and hypofractionated proton PMRT had similar complication rates (15% vs 20%; absolute difference 4.9%; one-sided 95% CI 18.5; P = .27), with all complications occurring in patients with immediate expander or implant-based reconstruction.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 MC1631 trial including 82 patients with BC who underwent mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction and were randomly assigned to receive either conventional fractionated (50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy) or hypofractionated (40.05 Gy in 15 fractions of 2.67 Gy) proton PMRT.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by Mayo Clinic and other sources. The lead author declared serving as co-chair of the Breast Cancer Subcommittee of the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group.

Source: Mutter RW et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy proton radiotherapy in the USA (MC1631): A randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023 24(10):1083-1093 (Sep 8). doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00388-1

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Fatima Cardoso, MD: Today we will be discussing breast cancer in male patients. To join me in this discussion, I have Sharon Giordano and Oliver Bogler. I will ask, to start, that we briefly introduce ourselves.

I’m Fatima Cardoso. I’m a medical oncologist based in Lisbon, Portugal. I have had a special interest in this topic for a couple of years. Sharon?

Sharon H. Giordano, MD, MPH, FASCO: I’m Sharon Giordano. I practice at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. I’m also a medical oncologist and treat most of the male breast cancer patients that are seen here.

Oliver Bogler, PhD: I’m Oliver Bogler. I’m a cancer biologist by background and an 11-year survivor of breast cancer. Dr. Giordano was my oncologist during the active phase of my treatment. It’s great to be here with you.

Special considerations surrounding male patients

• Dr. Cardoso: Sharon, when you are treating breast cancer in a male patient, what specific considerations do you have?
• Dr. Giordano: As we all know, breast cancer in men is a rare disease. It makes up about 1 in 1,000 cases of breast cancer. I think that one of the major challenges in treating the disease is we just don’t have the same to support our treatments as we do for women.

Often, what we need to do and what we end up doing is extrapolating as much as possible from clinical trials that were conducted in female patients with breast cancer. I think that’s one of the major challenges we face in treating the disease. There have been international efforts to try to put together standardized treatment approaches.

For example, ASCO has created guidelines for the management of male breast cancer. NCCN also has a special page on considerations for treatment of men with breast cancer. I would encourage people to look at those resources if questions do come up on the topic.

Dr. Cardoso: Perhaps we can also mention that the latest clinical trials fortunately have been allowing for male patients to be included, which is very important so that we can start having some data on the new drugs. I think that’s also relevant.

Dr. Giordano: That’s a great point because, historically, most of the trials explicitly excluded men. I don’t know if it was intentional or they just wrote the trials saying “women with breast cancer,” because that’s what most people thought of. I think it’s a great effort by the FDA and by investigators to make sure now that men are included in the trials. That will help build our evidence base.

Dr. Cardoso: Oliver, 11 years ago, you faced the diagnosis and you went through this. Can you speak a little bit about this challenge of going through what is considered a rare disease, but also a disease that is very much associated with the female gender traditionally?

Dr. Bogler: Gladly. For me, it was particularly odd because my wife, at the time that I was diagnosed, was a 5-year survivor of breast cancer. It took me some time to even think that the lump I felt might be the same disease. That seemed very unlikely, statistically, and also odd.

I have to say that I was protected from much of the fish-out-of-water experience that many men have because I both worked and was treated at MD Anderson, where Dr Giordano has a large practice, so my colleagues and my friends were not surprised that a man could get this disease.

Many of the patients I met had that experience, difficulty convincing their primary care physician or even their first-line oncologist that this could be the case. I just want to connect to what you both said, which is that 10 years ago, inclusion of men in clinical trials was not standard. It is a fantastic development to see that because unless we include men, we won’t learn about that type of breast cancer.

Dr. Cardoso: Even if only a few are entering each trial, at least it allows us to see if the drug behaves the same way or if there is any strange behavior of the drug in a male patient. It’s already one step forward. You were going to mention something, Sharon?

Dr. Giordano: I was going to say that, anecdotally, I’ve heard the experience that Oliver referred to, of many men feeling not so much uncomfortable with the diagnosis – although that does happen – but not having an obvious fit within the health care system.

For example, going to get their mammogram as part of their diagnostic workup and whoever might be taking them back saying, “Oh, no, this is Mrs. Jones, not Mr.,” and trying to argue with them that it’s not really meant for them. I had a patient – and this guy had a great sense of humor – who had a biopsy done and the instructions were to place this pink, floral ice pack inside your bra.

Even the materials that we have are gender specific. I think those things all together can certainly contribute to a man feeling like a fish out of water.

Dr. Cardoso: Actually, I fought in my institution because they wanted to call the Breast and Gynecology Unit the Women’s Unit. I said that there is no way you can call it the Women’s Unit because we have male patients. There are small things that we can do in our institutions to try to decrease the stigma and to make it less awkward for a man to be in a waiting room that says Women’s Clinic or something similar to that.

The importance of a support system

Dr. Cardoso: I wanted Oliver, perhaps, to mention experiences that you may have heard from other men. Some men do not feel that comfortable speaking about the disease. Also, some of them do not feel comfortable after treatment to go to the beach, to show the scar, and to show what happens after you have radiation.

Some men actually take it quite heavily, psychologically speaking. Have you encountered some of these men?

Dr. Bogler: Definitely. I think it leads to men not accessing the support opportunities – their family, their friends, or the support groups – and staying away from those because of this feeling of not wanting to share about it. That can be damaging. Cancer treatment is usually a tough road for most people, and the long-term consequences of hormone therapy – most men have hormone-driven disease – can be significant. I agree with you.

I participated in the male breast cancer SCAR Project by David Jay, a famous photographer. One of the high points of my life has been appearing in The New York Times topless, right after my radiation treatment, showing my scar. There are quite a few of us out there who’ve done that.

I’ll just mention in passing the Male Breast Cancer Global Alliance, which is a patient support supergroup, if you will. We’ve got a symposium coming up in November. That’s a great place for men who are early in the stage of their disease, or at any stage, to connect to others who are facing this issue.

Dr. Cardoso: They can also find specific information. This is a really good website where you can find information. One of the most important topics that I’ve heard from my patients is, “I never thought that I could have this disease. I never heard that men could have breast cancer as well.” Information is very crucial.

I believe that if you are well informed, you will also be less scared of the disease. Sources of reliable information are really crucial for patients. Since you mentioned the SCAR Project, we have a similar project here in Portugal that really called attention to the disease. It was very visual and really interesting.
 

Discussions during and after treatment

Dr. Cardoso: I wanted to say something, and I don’t know if both of you would agree. I think only recently surgeons have started to pay attention to the way they operate on men with breast cancer, and even in considering techniques of breast conservation and oncoplastic surgery. I had the feeling, looking at those photos, that some years ago, it wouldn’t have mattered how they do with the mastectomy scar just because it was a man. This was biased, right?

Just because it was a man, there was no need to pay attention to the aesthetic outcome. That is wrong, in my perspective. I’m very happy to see that now there are surgeons considering other types of breast surgery to conserve as much as possible the aesthetic outcome.

Dr. Bogler: I have to say that I was offered reconstruction at MD Anderson. I declined it. It wasn’t that big a part of my body image. When I raised this issue at home, my kids, who were quite young at the time, just suggested, “Well, Dad, why don’t you just wear a swim shirt?” They came up with a very practical solution for this issue.

I agree with you that it should be an option. I was also offered a nipple tattoo. I have yet to take that up, but maybe one day.

Dr. Cardoso: I’m not sure that we need to go into reconstruction. It also depends on whether a man has gynecomastia, if it’s going to be very asymmetric. There are other techniques to do, and depending on the size of the tumor, we can also do breast conservation, which we have done here in a couple of patients.

It’s quite an interesting approach where, for example, a skin-sparing mastectomy would be less aggressive, let’s say. Sharon?

Dr. Giordano: I completely agree. I’ve noticed increasing attention to the issue over the years that I’ve been in practice. I do think that it’s more front-and-center when the surgeons are having discussions with the patients now.

Also, although it’s still a minority, some do choose to have reconstructive surgery; some have more extensive surgeries, and some maybe have nipple reconstruction or a nipple tattoo. In a few men, like you mentioned, who are somewhat asymmetric, it actually can make a difference even when they’re dressed.

For many men, it’s more that they want to take off their shirt to play basketball or go swimming, and to decrease the feeling of awkwardness or like they have to make an explanation for why they have a nipple missing and a scar across their chest.
 

Biological aspects of male patients

Dr. Cardoso: Let’s switch gears now to the management, and before that, the biology. Oliver, with your other hat of biology, speak a little bit on what we know so far – whether it is exactly the same disease or there are biological specific characteristics of breast cancer in men.

Dr. Bogler: I should preface this by saying that I spent my career studying brain tumors. That was clearly a mistake.

Dr. Cardoso: It starts with a B. ...

Dr. Bogler: It starts with a B, but it’s the wrong part of the body. The reality is that we don’t really know that much fundamental biology yet, though the picture is changing and it has changed in recent years. Part of the reason is we don’t have many of the tools that we’ve had for the female disease for many years, particularly laboratory models.

On the genetic and transcriptomics front, there has been some really good activity. There was a comprehensive systematic review by Professor Val Speirs from the University of Aberdeen earlier this year that summarized much of the recent data. It showed that there are a handful of molecular hallmarks of the male disease, compared with the female disease, that are worth exploring.

Interestingly enough, one of them is the androgen receptor. It does beg the question of whether hormone-driven disease might not show up quite differently in males and females, where the hormone picture is a little different. I think there’s increasing evidence that there’s information out there to go after.

I will say that I was treated by Dr. Giordano and her colleagues very much like a woman would have been with my disease, and actually, very similarly to my wife. I’ve done well with it, so I would say, in most cases, the current standard of care is very effective but it falls a little short of personalized medicine, particularly when it comes to the hormone component.

Dr. Cardoso: Sharon?

Dr. Giordano: I would add that when I think about it as a clinician, although there’s a large amount of overlap and many similarities, when we’re treating men with breast cancer, almost all of the men have hormone receptor–positive disease, which I think Oliver mentioned earlier. We’re really thinking about endocrine therapy as one of the mainstays of treatment.

Obviously, as he also mentioned, it’s a different biologic background of hormones in a male vs. a female patient. There’s reason to think that some of those treatments could differ. In general, the subtypes are a little bit different. We see very, very few cases of triple-negative breast cancer in men. I think I’ve seen only one or two in my career. The ones I remember were probably radiation induced. They were cancer survivors who’d had chest-wall radiation for previous diseases. Those patients are very uncommon.

We also tend to see that the histology patterns are a little bit different. We tend to see more ductal cancers in men than we do in women as a relative proportion.

One thing that I always try to remember is that the risk for BRCA mutations or underlying germline genetic mutations is higher in men than in women. Just having a diagnosis of male breast cancer is an indication to consider genetic testing or meet with a genetic counselor to look for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Now, most men will not have that. Only roughly 10% of male patients, or maybe a little less, will have a BRCA2 mutation; for BRCA1, it’s more like only 1% or 2%. They’re not that common. Certainly, male breast cancer is recognized as being associated with the BRCA mutations.

Dr. Cardoso: If I have to give a take-home message in terms of biology, it would be that if there is a diagnosis of hormone receptor–negative or HER2-positive disease in a male patient, I would ask for a confirmation of the diagnosis. It’s not that it cannot exist, but it’s so rare that it’s worthwhile to confirm.

You mentioned that triple-negative disease is less than 1%, at about 0.5%, and HER2-positive disease is about 9%-10%. I think it will be very important to keep this in mind and confirm the biology if you have a different diagnosis than ER-positive, HER2-negative. Unfortunately, I received some cases where this was not done, and in fact, it ended up being a technical problem. People can receive the wrong treatment based on that.

Dr. Giordano: I’ve also seen that happen when it’s a metastasis to the breast rather than a primary breast cancer. I completely agree. That’s an excellent point. 

Management approaches

Dr. Cardoso: Let’s go now to management and focus on early breast cancer first. Sharon, what are your main take-home messages for a professional who doesn’t see this very often? What does someone need to remember when they manage a male patient who has early breast cancer?

Dr. Giordano: In general, in terms of chemotherapy, we essentially use the same guidelines as we do for women. Most of the male patients will have tumors that are hormone receptor positive. For endocrine therapy, we typically rely on tamoxifen as the standard of care for adjuvant endocrine treatment for breast cancer.

There are some data suggesting that there can be some efficacy of aromatase inhibitors as single agents. In general, and extrapolated from some population-based registry data, the outcomes for men treated with single-agent aromatase inhibitors don’t tend to be as good as for those treated with tamoxifen.

I know that these are not randomized data so there are all the caveats of that, but the best information we have suggests that tamoxifen appears to likely be more effective. Typically, we stay with tamoxifen. If, for some reason, a man cannot tolerate tamoxifen or has a contraindication, then we could use a GnRH agonist along with an aromatase inhibitor.

Dr. Cardoso: I would like to mention that, because it’s ER-positive, HER2-negative disease most of the time, there will be the question as to whether we can use genomic tests. I think it is important that people know that we have much less data regarding the use of Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, or any of the genomic tests in male patients.

We have some data on the distribution of, for example, Oncotype DX or MammaPrint scores. Whether we can use these tests for the decision of chemotherapy, we don’t have much data on that. I’ve seen many people making exactly the same decisions as with female patients, but that’s not really based on very strong evidence.

Dr. Giordano: It’s hard to know what to do with that. There are prognostic data on Oncotype, so the higher-risk tumors do seem to have a worse outcome than the lower-score tumors. You’re right, though; I don’t think we have any predictive information to really show that the Oncotype DX score predicts benefit to chemotherapy.

Having said that, I will sometimes order the test in my practice. If somebody comes back with a score of 5 or a very low-risk score, I will use that in my decision-making.

Dr. Cardoso: There is something we didn’t exactly mention in the diagnosis that may be important. We discussed most men not knowing that they can have breast cancer, and Oliver, you mentioned that sometimes the first-line physicians can think that very often. Usually, we have late diagnosis and that means a higher tumor burden.

Sometimes we have to go to chemotherapy because of locally advanced or very positive axillas and not really because of the biology. That’s one of the reasons to go for chemotherapy in this setting, right?

Dr. Bogler: Yes. I remember that conversation with you, Dr. Giordano. I asked you whether I should do one of these tests. You said, “Don’t worry about it. At stage III, you’re going to have chemo anyway.”

Dr. Cardoso: The problem of these rare diagnoses is the not thinking about it, even from the health professional side, and then having the diagnosis quite late that will demand chemotherapy use.

To clarify to everybody, in terms of distinguishing luminal A–like, luminal B–like, and what that implies in a male patient, we really don’t know if it’s the same as in a female. There have been some very interesting studies from our Nordic country colleagues showing that maybe the subtyping is different. There is likely a male-specific subtype that does not exist in female breast cancer and that probably behaves differently. We still have a large amount of research to do to understand that.

Is there anything else you would like to mention about early breast cancer management?

Dr. Bogler: One of the things that’s probably underexplored is adherence to tamoxifen therapy in men. I do know anecdotally that this is the discussion among men because of the impact on quality of life. I do worry that sometimes men perhaps make the wrong choice, and I think that’s an opportunity for more research. Again, if there were alternative therapies that were perhaps a little less impactful on things like libido, that might be an advance in the field.

Dr. Cardoso: We have been seeing more studies on the issue of quality of life. Noncompliance is also an issue in female patients. We have to acknowledge that. Not everybody is able to keep taking the treatments. Interestingly, when there is a relapse and people had stopped taking the tamoxifen, most of them say, “I stopped because I had not understood exactly how important it is.”

We come back to the importance of explaining that it is the most crucial treatment for this subtype of breast cancer. Again, information is really key.

Sometimes I also use the argument with my patients that the alternative is even worse because if you use an aromatase inhibitor, and you have to use an LHRH agonist, then the implications for your sexual life are even worse. That’s how I try to convince them to stay on tamoxifen.

Let’s finalize with a couple of words on metastatic breast cancer in male patients. Sharon, I’ll start with you again. Is there any difference in the management if you have a patient with metastatic, ER-positive, HER2-negative disease? How do you treat? How do you sequence the available therapies? Is it different from the female patient?

Dr. Giordano: I’d say that, big picture, it’s quite similar. Again, most of the men have hormone receptor–positive disease, so really, the mainstay of treatment and the first treatments are going to be endocrine therapies. We’ll sequence through the endocrine therapies like we do in women. When using aromatase inhibitors, I typically would add a GnRH agonist to that, and I have had that be a very successful therapy, along now with the CDK inhibitors that are also approved.

I don’t think the studies of CDK inhibitors included male patients, but at least palbociclib actually was approved in the United States, based on some real-world evidence of its efficacy. Anecdotally, again, in my clinical practice, that tends to be a really powerful combination of leuprolide, an aromatase inhibitor, and a CDK inhibitor.

I think there’s less information about drugs like fulvestrant, whether that would benefit from combination with a GnRH agonist or whether those should be given as single agents. We just don’t really know. We have a few case series out there.

Similar to the early breast cancer setting, I think it’s really important to remember to check for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. PARP inhibitors could be a part of the treatment plan if those underlying germline mutations are found. Generally, we’re following a similar sequence of endocrine therapies and then, eventually, chemotherapy.

Dr. Cardoso: Maybe, Oliver, you’re also seeing that one consistent finding in the biology study is the importance of the AKT/PI3K/mTOR pathway in male patients with breast cancer, because we now have at least two classes of agents to tackle this pathway. Again, anecdotally – we’re not talking about trials – I’ve been seeing quite interesting responses, for example, to everolimus combined with endocrine therapy.

We have a little less experience with the PI3K inhibitor, but that’s just because of accessibility to the drug. I think this combination is also something to keep in mind that can be quite effective in these patients.

Dr. Bogler: I agree. Those findings are exciting in the context of dealing with something as difficult as metastatic breast cancer. It’s good to know that there’s some information coming and opportunities and options, hopefully, down the road for men facing that problem.

Dr. Cardoso: Sharon, although small numbers, in these cases where there is HER2-positive disease, you would also use the new anti-HER2 agents and more or less the same sequence, right?

Dr. Giordano: Absolutely. It’s not particularly data driven, but yes, I would. If it’s a HER2-positive tumor, I would use the same HER2-targeted therapies that are used for women with breast cancer.

Working toward a balance in patient care

Dr. Cardoso: I would like to add something for all of us to be united in the fight. I don’t know if it happens in the U.S., but in many countries, access to these new agents for male patients is very difficult because of the approval and the labeling. This is why I’m always fighting with those who are proposing that the labeling, again, says “women with breast cancer.”

It is really important that we keep on lobbying and pushing for the labeling to say “patients with breast cancer” so that nobody can withhold access to these new therapies because of gender. In the U.S., maybe you don’t have this problem. There are many European countries where men cannot access, for example, fulvestrant because it has been approved for women with breast cancer.

Dr. Giordano: Thankfully, I have not faced that issue very often. I’ve had occasional issues with getting GnRH agonists approved. Generally, in the U.S., if I provide, for example, the NCCN guideline recommendations, most insurers will cover it. I think it’s often just lack of knowledge.

Dr. Cardoso: It’s something to keep working hard on because for the old drugs that were approved with the wording that still said “women,” we have to keep fighting for accessibility.

I think we had a really nice discussion. I’m going to give you an opportunity for any last words that you want to say on this topic. Perhaps we’ll start with you, Sharon, and we’ll leave the very last word to Oliver.

Dr. Giordano: I would just emphasize the importance of doing research in this area. Hopefully, we will be able to get clinical trials. There are reasons to think that endocrine therapies may behave differently in men and women. We need to continue to work together as a community to collect the data so that we can ultimately improve the outcomes for our patients.

Dr. Bogler: I would echo what you just said, Dr. Giordano. I would like to express my gratitude to both of you. Dr. Giordano, you have a huge practice of men at MD Anderson. You took care of me and many other people I know.

Dr. Cardoso, you are a pioneer of a big registry trial that I am privileged to be working on, trying to gather data on men. You’re both pioneers in this field of working on behalf of people like me. I’m just very grateful for what you do.

Dr. Giordano: Thank you.

Dr. Cardoso: Thank you both for accepting this invitation. We hope that everybody takes more interest in this field. Who knows? Maybe we can find enough funds to run a specific trial for male patients with breast cancer.

Dr. Cardoso is director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Centre/Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon. Dr. Giordano is professor of breast medical oncology and chair of health services research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Bogler is a cancer biologist at the Randolph (Vt.) Center. Dr. Cardoso reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies; Dr. Giordano and Dr. Bogler reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Fatima Cardoso, MD: Today we will be discussing breast cancer in male patients. To join me in this discussion, I have Sharon Giordano and Oliver Bogler. I will ask, to start, that we briefly introduce ourselves.

I’m Fatima Cardoso. I’m a medical oncologist based in Lisbon, Portugal. I have had a special interest in this topic for a couple of years. Sharon?

Sharon H. Giordano, MD, MPH, FASCO: I’m Sharon Giordano. I practice at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. I’m also a medical oncologist and treat most of the male breast cancer patients that are seen here.

Oliver Bogler, PhD: I’m Oliver Bogler. I’m a cancer biologist by background and an 11-year survivor of breast cancer. Dr. Giordano was my oncologist during the active phase of my treatment. It’s great to be here with you.

Special considerations surrounding male patients

• Dr. Cardoso: Sharon, when you are treating breast cancer in a male patient, what specific considerations do you have?
• Dr. Giordano: As we all know, breast cancer in men is a rare disease. It makes up about 1 in 1,000 cases of breast cancer. I think that one of the major challenges in treating the disease is we just don’t have the same to support our treatments as we do for women.

Often, what we need to do and what we end up doing is extrapolating as much as possible from clinical trials that were conducted in female patients with breast cancer. I think that’s one of the major challenges we face in treating the disease. There have been international efforts to try to put together standardized treatment approaches.

For example, ASCO has created guidelines for the management of male breast cancer. NCCN also has a special page on considerations for treatment of men with breast cancer. I would encourage people to look at those resources if questions do come up on the topic.

Dr. Cardoso: Perhaps we can also mention that the latest clinical trials fortunately have been allowing for male patients to be included, which is very important so that we can start having some data on the new drugs. I think that’s also relevant.

Dr. Giordano: That’s a great point because, historically, most of the trials explicitly excluded men. I don’t know if it was intentional or they just wrote the trials saying “women with breast cancer,” because that’s what most people thought of. I think it’s a great effort by the FDA and by investigators to make sure now that men are included in the trials. That will help build our evidence base.

Dr. Cardoso: Oliver, 11 years ago, you faced the diagnosis and you went through this. Can you speak a little bit about this challenge of going through what is considered a rare disease, but also a disease that is very much associated with the female gender traditionally?

Dr. Bogler: Gladly. For me, it was particularly odd because my wife, at the time that I was diagnosed, was a 5-year survivor of breast cancer. It took me some time to even think that the lump I felt might be the same disease. That seemed very unlikely, statistically, and also odd.

I have to say that I was protected from much of the fish-out-of-water experience that many men have because I both worked and was treated at MD Anderson, where Dr Giordano has a large practice, so my colleagues and my friends were not surprised that a man could get this disease.

Many of the patients I met had that experience, difficulty convincing their primary care physician or even their first-line oncologist that this could be the case. I just want to connect to what you both said, which is that 10 years ago, inclusion of men in clinical trials was not standard. It is a fantastic development to see that because unless we include men, we won’t learn about that type of breast cancer.

Dr. Cardoso: Even if only a few are entering each trial, at least it allows us to see if the drug behaves the same way or if there is any strange behavior of the drug in a male patient. It’s already one step forward. You were going to mention something, Sharon?

Dr. Giordano: I was going to say that, anecdotally, I’ve heard the experience that Oliver referred to, of many men feeling not so much uncomfortable with the diagnosis – although that does happen – but not having an obvious fit within the health care system.

For example, going to get their mammogram as part of their diagnostic workup and whoever might be taking them back saying, “Oh, no, this is Mrs. Jones, not Mr.,” and trying to argue with them that it’s not really meant for them. I had a patient – and this guy had a great sense of humor – who had a biopsy done and the instructions were to place this pink, floral ice pack inside your bra.

Even the materials that we have are gender specific. I think those things all together can certainly contribute to a man feeling like a fish out of water.

Dr. Cardoso: Actually, I fought in my institution because they wanted to call the Breast and Gynecology Unit the Women’s Unit. I said that there is no way you can call it the Women’s Unit because we have male patients. There are small things that we can do in our institutions to try to decrease the stigma and to make it less awkward for a man to be in a waiting room that says Women’s Clinic or something similar to that.

The importance of a support system

Dr. Cardoso: I wanted Oliver, perhaps, to mention experiences that you may have heard from other men. Some men do not feel that comfortable speaking about the disease. Also, some of them do not feel comfortable after treatment to go to the beach, to show the scar, and to show what happens after you have radiation.

Some men actually take it quite heavily, psychologically speaking. Have you encountered some of these men?

Dr. Bogler: Definitely. I think it leads to men not accessing the support opportunities – their family, their friends, or the support groups – and staying away from those because of this feeling of not wanting to share about it. That can be damaging. Cancer treatment is usually a tough road for most people, and the long-term consequences of hormone therapy – most men have hormone-driven disease – can be significant. I agree with you.

I participated in the male breast cancer SCAR Project by David Jay, a famous photographer. One of the high points of my life has been appearing in The New York Times topless, right after my radiation treatment, showing my scar. There are quite a few of us out there who’ve done that.

I’ll just mention in passing the Male Breast Cancer Global Alliance, which is a patient support supergroup, if you will. We’ve got a symposium coming up in November. That’s a great place for men who are early in the stage of their disease, or at any stage, to connect to others who are facing this issue.

Dr. Cardoso: They can also find specific information. This is a really good website where you can find information. One of the most important topics that I’ve heard from my patients is, “I never thought that I could have this disease. I never heard that men could have breast cancer as well.” Information is very crucial.

I believe that if you are well informed, you will also be less scared of the disease. Sources of reliable information are really crucial for patients. Since you mentioned the SCAR Project, we have a similar project here in Portugal that really called attention to the disease. It was very visual and really interesting.
 

Discussions during and after treatment

Dr. Cardoso: I wanted to say something, and I don’t know if both of you would agree. I think only recently surgeons have started to pay attention to the way they operate on men with breast cancer, and even in considering techniques of breast conservation and oncoplastic surgery. I had the feeling, looking at those photos, that some years ago, it wouldn’t have mattered how they do with the mastectomy scar just because it was a man. This was biased, right?

Just because it was a man, there was no need to pay attention to the aesthetic outcome. That is wrong, in my perspective. I’m very happy to see that now there are surgeons considering other types of breast surgery to conserve as much as possible the aesthetic outcome.

Dr. Bogler: I have to say that I was offered reconstruction at MD Anderson. I declined it. It wasn’t that big a part of my body image. When I raised this issue at home, my kids, who were quite young at the time, just suggested, “Well, Dad, why don’t you just wear a swim shirt?” They came up with a very practical solution for this issue.

I agree with you that it should be an option. I was also offered a nipple tattoo. I have yet to take that up, but maybe one day.

Dr. Cardoso: I’m not sure that we need to go into reconstruction. It also depends on whether a man has gynecomastia, if it’s going to be very asymmetric. There are other techniques to do, and depending on the size of the tumor, we can also do breast conservation, which we have done here in a couple of patients.

It’s quite an interesting approach where, for example, a skin-sparing mastectomy would be less aggressive, let’s say. Sharon?

Dr. Giordano: I completely agree. I’ve noticed increasing attention to the issue over the years that I’ve been in practice. I do think that it’s more front-and-center when the surgeons are having discussions with the patients now.

Also, although it’s still a minority, some do choose to have reconstructive surgery; some have more extensive surgeries, and some maybe have nipple reconstruction or a nipple tattoo. In a few men, like you mentioned, who are somewhat asymmetric, it actually can make a difference even when they’re dressed.

For many men, it’s more that they want to take off their shirt to play basketball or go swimming, and to decrease the feeling of awkwardness or like they have to make an explanation for why they have a nipple missing and a scar across their chest.
 

Biological aspects of male patients

Dr. Cardoso: Let’s switch gears now to the management, and before that, the biology. Oliver, with your other hat of biology, speak a little bit on what we know so far – whether it is exactly the same disease or there are biological specific characteristics of breast cancer in men.

Dr. Bogler: I should preface this by saying that I spent my career studying brain tumors. That was clearly a mistake.

Dr. Cardoso: It starts with a B. ...

Dr. Bogler: It starts with a B, but it’s the wrong part of the body. The reality is that we don’t really know that much fundamental biology yet, though the picture is changing and it has changed in recent years. Part of the reason is we don’t have many of the tools that we’ve had for the female disease for many years, particularly laboratory models.

On the genetic and transcriptomics front, there has been some really good activity. There was a comprehensive systematic review by Professor Val Speirs from the University of Aberdeen earlier this year that summarized much of the recent data. It showed that there are a handful of molecular hallmarks of the male disease, compared with the female disease, that are worth exploring.

Interestingly enough, one of them is the androgen receptor. It does beg the question of whether hormone-driven disease might not show up quite differently in males and females, where the hormone picture is a little different. I think there’s increasing evidence that there’s information out there to go after.

I will say that I was treated by Dr. Giordano and her colleagues very much like a woman would have been with my disease, and actually, very similarly to my wife. I’ve done well with it, so I would say, in most cases, the current standard of care is very effective but it falls a little short of personalized medicine, particularly when it comes to the hormone component.

Dr. Cardoso: Sharon?

Dr. Giordano: I would add that when I think about it as a clinician, although there’s a large amount of overlap and many similarities, when we’re treating men with breast cancer, almost all of the men have hormone receptor–positive disease, which I think Oliver mentioned earlier. We’re really thinking about endocrine therapy as one of the mainstays of treatment.

Obviously, as he also mentioned, it’s a different biologic background of hormones in a male vs. a female patient. There’s reason to think that some of those treatments could differ. In general, the subtypes are a little bit different. We see very, very few cases of triple-negative breast cancer in men. I think I’ve seen only one or two in my career. The ones I remember were probably radiation induced. They were cancer survivors who’d had chest-wall radiation for previous diseases. Those patients are very uncommon.

We also tend to see that the histology patterns are a little bit different. We tend to see more ductal cancers in men than we do in women as a relative proportion.

One thing that I always try to remember is that the risk for BRCA mutations or underlying germline genetic mutations is higher in men than in women. Just having a diagnosis of male breast cancer is an indication to consider genetic testing or meet with a genetic counselor to look for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Now, most men will not have that. Only roughly 10% of male patients, or maybe a little less, will have a BRCA2 mutation; for BRCA1, it’s more like only 1% or 2%. They’re not that common. Certainly, male breast cancer is recognized as being associated with the BRCA mutations.

Dr. Cardoso: If I have to give a take-home message in terms of biology, it would be that if there is a diagnosis of hormone receptor–negative or HER2-positive disease in a male patient, I would ask for a confirmation of the diagnosis. It’s not that it cannot exist, but it’s so rare that it’s worthwhile to confirm.

You mentioned that triple-negative disease is less than 1%, at about 0.5%, and HER2-positive disease is about 9%-10%. I think it will be very important to keep this in mind and confirm the biology if you have a different diagnosis than ER-positive, HER2-negative. Unfortunately, I received some cases where this was not done, and in fact, it ended up being a technical problem. People can receive the wrong treatment based on that.

Dr. Giordano: I’ve also seen that happen when it’s a metastasis to the breast rather than a primary breast cancer. I completely agree. That’s an excellent point. 

Management approaches

Dr. Cardoso: Let’s go now to management and focus on early breast cancer first. Sharon, what are your main take-home messages for a professional who doesn’t see this very often? What does someone need to remember when they manage a male patient who has early breast cancer?

Dr. Giordano: In general, in terms of chemotherapy, we essentially use the same guidelines as we do for women. Most of the male patients will have tumors that are hormone receptor positive. For endocrine therapy, we typically rely on tamoxifen as the standard of care for adjuvant endocrine treatment for breast cancer.

There are some data suggesting that there can be some efficacy of aromatase inhibitors as single agents. In general, and extrapolated from some population-based registry data, the outcomes for men treated with single-agent aromatase inhibitors don’t tend to be as good as for those treated with tamoxifen.

I know that these are not randomized data so there are all the caveats of that, but the best information we have suggests that tamoxifen appears to likely be more effective. Typically, we stay with tamoxifen. If, for some reason, a man cannot tolerate tamoxifen or has a contraindication, then we could use a GnRH agonist along with an aromatase inhibitor.

Dr. Cardoso: I would like to mention that, because it’s ER-positive, HER2-negative disease most of the time, there will be the question as to whether we can use genomic tests. I think it is important that people know that we have much less data regarding the use of Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, or any of the genomic tests in male patients.

We have some data on the distribution of, for example, Oncotype DX or MammaPrint scores. Whether we can use these tests for the decision of chemotherapy, we don’t have much data on that. I’ve seen many people making exactly the same decisions as with female patients, but that’s not really based on very strong evidence.

Dr. Giordano: It’s hard to know what to do with that. There are prognostic data on Oncotype, so the higher-risk tumors do seem to have a worse outcome than the lower-score tumors. You’re right, though; I don’t think we have any predictive information to really show that the Oncotype DX score predicts benefit to chemotherapy.

Having said that, I will sometimes order the test in my practice. If somebody comes back with a score of 5 or a very low-risk score, I will use that in my decision-making.

Dr. Cardoso: There is something we didn’t exactly mention in the diagnosis that may be important. We discussed most men not knowing that they can have breast cancer, and Oliver, you mentioned that sometimes the first-line physicians can think that very often. Usually, we have late diagnosis and that means a higher tumor burden.

Sometimes we have to go to chemotherapy because of locally advanced or very positive axillas and not really because of the biology. That’s one of the reasons to go for chemotherapy in this setting, right?

Dr. Bogler: Yes. I remember that conversation with you, Dr. Giordano. I asked you whether I should do one of these tests. You said, “Don’t worry about it. At stage III, you’re going to have chemo anyway.”

Dr. Cardoso: The problem of these rare diagnoses is the not thinking about it, even from the health professional side, and then having the diagnosis quite late that will demand chemotherapy use.

To clarify to everybody, in terms of distinguishing luminal A–like, luminal B–like, and what that implies in a male patient, we really don’t know if it’s the same as in a female. There have been some very interesting studies from our Nordic country colleagues showing that maybe the subtyping is different. There is likely a male-specific subtype that does not exist in female breast cancer and that probably behaves differently. We still have a large amount of research to do to understand that.

Is there anything else you would like to mention about early breast cancer management?

Dr. Bogler: One of the things that’s probably underexplored is adherence to tamoxifen therapy in men. I do know anecdotally that this is the discussion among men because of the impact on quality of life. I do worry that sometimes men perhaps make the wrong choice, and I think that’s an opportunity for more research. Again, if there were alternative therapies that were perhaps a little less impactful on things like libido, that might be an advance in the field.

Dr. Cardoso: We have been seeing more studies on the issue of quality of life. Noncompliance is also an issue in female patients. We have to acknowledge that. Not everybody is able to keep taking the treatments. Interestingly, when there is a relapse and people had stopped taking the tamoxifen, most of them say, “I stopped because I had not understood exactly how important it is.”

We come back to the importance of explaining that it is the most crucial treatment for this subtype of breast cancer. Again, information is really key.

Sometimes I also use the argument with my patients that the alternative is even worse because if you use an aromatase inhibitor, and you have to use an LHRH agonist, then the implications for your sexual life are even worse. That’s how I try to convince them to stay on tamoxifen.

Let’s finalize with a couple of words on metastatic breast cancer in male patients. Sharon, I’ll start with you again. Is there any difference in the management if you have a patient with metastatic, ER-positive, HER2-negative disease? How do you treat? How do you sequence the available therapies? Is it different from the female patient?

Dr. Giordano: I’d say that, big picture, it’s quite similar. Again, most of the men have hormone receptor–positive disease, so really, the mainstay of treatment and the first treatments are going to be endocrine therapies. We’ll sequence through the endocrine therapies like we do in women. When using aromatase inhibitors, I typically would add a GnRH agonist to that, and I have had that be a very successful therapy, along now with the CDK inhibitors that are also approved.

I don’t think the studies of CDK inhibitors included male patients, but at least palbociclib actually was approved in the United States, based on some real-world evidence of its efficacy. Anecdotally, again, in my clinical practice, that tends to be a really powerful combination of leuprolide, an aromatase inhibitor, and a CDK inhibitor.

I think there’s less information about drugs like fulvestrant, whether that would benefit from combination with a GnRH agonist or whether those should be given as single agents. We just don’t really know. We have a few case series out there.

Similar to the early breast cancer setting, I think it’s really important to remember to check for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. PARP inhibitors could be a part of the treatment plan if those underlying germline mutations are found. Generally, we’re following a similar sequence of endocrine therapies and then, eventually, chemotherapy.

Dr. Cardoso: Maybe, Oliver, you’re also seeing that one consistent finding in the biology study is the importance of the AKT/PI3K/mTOR pathway in male patients with breast cancer, because we now have at least two classes of agents to tackle this pathway. Again, anecdotally – we’re not talking about trials – I’ve been seeing quite interesting responses, for example, to everolimus combined with endocrine therapy.

We have a little less experience with the PI3K inhibitor, but that’s just because of accessibility to the drug. I think this combination is also something to keep in mind that can be quite effective in these patients.

Dr. Bogler: I agree. Those findings are exciting in the context of dealing with something as difficult as metastatic breast cancer. It’s good to know that there’s some information coming and opportunities and options, hopefully, down the road for men facing that problem.

Dr. Cardoso: Sharon, although small numbers, in these cases where there is HER2-positive disease, you would also use the new anti-HER2 agents and more or less the same sequence, right?

Dr. Giordano: Absolutely. It’s not particularly data driven, but yes, I would. If it’s a HER2-positive tumor, I would use the same HER2-targeted therapies that are used for women with breast cancer.

Working toward a balance in patient care

Dr. Cardoso: I would like to add something for all of us to be united in the fight. I don’t know if it happens in the U.S., but in many countries, access to these new agents for male patients is very difficult because of the approval and the labeling. This is why I’m always fighting with those who are proposing that the labeling, again, says “women with breast cancer.”

It is really important that we keep on lobbying and pushing for the labeling to say “patients with breast cancer” so that nobody can withhold access to these new therapies because of gender. In the U.S., maybe you don’t have this problem. There are many European countries where men cannot access, for example, fulvestrant because it has been approved for women with breast cancer.

Dr. Giordano: Thankfully, I have not faced that issue very often. I’ve had occasional issues with getting GnRH agonists approved. Generally, in the U.S., if I provide, for example, the NCCN guideline recommendations, most insurers will cover it. I think it’s often just lack of knowledge.

Dr. Cardoso: It’s something to keep working hard on because for the old drugs that were approved with the wording that still said “women,” we have to keep fighting for accessibility.

I think we had a really nice discussion. I’m going to give you an opportunity for any last words that you want to say on this topic. Perhaps we’ll start with you, Sharon, and we’ll leave the very last word to Oliver.

Dr. Giordano: I would just emphasize the importance of doing research in this area. Hopefully, we will be able to get clinical trials. There are reasons to think that endocrine therapies may behave differently in men and women. We need to continue to work together as a community to collect the data so that we can ultimately improve the outcomes for our patients.

Dr. Bogler: I would echo what you just said, Dr. Giordano. I would like to express my gratitude to both of you. Dr. Giordano, you have a huge practice of men at MD Anderson. You took care of me and many other people I know.

Dr. Cardoso, you are a pioneer of a big registry trial that I am privileged to be working on, trying to gather data on men. You’re both pioneers in this field of working on behalf of people like me. I’m just very grateful for what you do.

Dr. Giordano: Thank you.

Dr. Cardoso: Thank you both for accepting this invitation. We hope that everybody takes more interest in this field. Who knows? Maybe we can find enough funds to run a specific trial for male patients with breast cancer.

Dr. Cardoso is director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Centre/Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon. Dr. Giordano is professor of breast medical oncology and chair of health services research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Bogler is a cancer biologist at the Randolph (Vt.) Center. Dr. Cardoso reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies; Dr. Giordano and Dr. Bogler reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Fatima Cardoso, MD: Today we will be discussing breast cancer in male patients. To join me in this discussion, I have Sharon Giordano and Oliver Bogler. I will ask, to start, that we briefly introduce ourselves.

I’m Fatima Cardoso. I’m a medical oncologist based in Lisbon, Portugal. I have had a special interest in this topic for a couple of years. Sharon?

Sharon H. Giordano, MD, MPH, FASCO: I’m Sharon Giordano. I practice at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. I’m also a medical oncologist and treat most of the male breast cancer patients that are seen here.

Oliver Bogler, PhD: I’m Oliver Bogler. I’m a cancer biologist by background and an 11-year survivor of breast cancer. Dr. Giordano was my oncologist during the active phase of my treatment. It’s great to be here with you.

Special considerations surrounding male patients

• Dr. Cardoso: Sharon, when you are treating breast cancer in a male patient, what specific considerations do you have?
• Dr. Giordano: As we all know, breast cancer in men is a rare disease. It makes up about 1 in 1,000 cases of breast cancer. I think that one of the major challenges in treating the disease is we just don’t have the same to support our treatments as we do for women.

Often, what we need to do and what we end up doing is extrapolating as much as possible from clinical trials that were conducted in female patients with breast cancer. I think that’s one of the major challenges we face in treating the disease. There have been international efforts to try to put together standardized treatment approaches.

For example, ASCO has created guidelines for the management of male breast cancer. NCCN also has a special page on considerations for treatment of men with breast cancer. I would encourage people to look at those resources if questions do come up on the topic.

Dr. Cardoso: Perhaps we can also mention that the latest clinical trials fortunately have been allowing for male patients to be included, which is very important so that we can start having some data on the new drugs. I think that’s also relevant.

Dr. Giordano: That’s a great point because, historically, most of the trials explicitly excluded men. I don’t know if it was intentional or they just wrote the trials saying “women with breast cancer,” because that’s what most people thought of. I think it’s a great effort by the FDA and by investigators to make sure now that men are included in the trials. That will help build our evidence base.

Dr. Cardoso: Oliver, 11 years ago, you faced the diagnosis and you went through this. Can you speak a little bit about this challenge of going through what is considered a rare disease, but also a disease that is very much associated with the female gender traditionally?

Dr. Bogler: Gladly. For me, it was particularly odd because my wife, at the time that I was diagnosed, was a 5-year survivor of breast cancer. It took me some time to even think that the lump I felt might be the same disease. That seemed very unlikely, statistically, and also odd.

I have to say that I was protected from much of the fish-out-of-water experience that many men have because I both worked and was treated at MD Anderson, where Dr Giordano has a large practice, so my colleagues and my friends were not surprised that a man could get this disease.

Many of the patients I met had that experience, difficulty convincing their primary care physician or even their first-line oncologist that this could be the case. I just want to connect to what you both said, which is that 10 years ago, inclusion of men in clinical trials was not standard. It is a fantastic development to see that because unless we include men, we won’t learn about that type of breast cancer.

Dr. Cardoso: Even if only a few are entering each trial, at least it allows us to see if the drug behaves the same way or if there is any strange behavior of the drug in a male patient. It’s already one step forward. You were going to mention something, Sharon?

Dr. Giordano: I was going to say that, anecdotally, I’ve heard the experience that Oliver referred to, of many men feeling not so much uncomfortable with the diagnosis – although that does happen – but not having an obvious fit within the health care system.

For example, going to get their mammogram as part of their diagnostic workup and whoever might be taking them back saying, “Oh, no, this is Mrs. Jones, not Mr.,” and trying to argue with them that it’s not really meant for them. I had a patient – and this guy had a great sense of humor – who had a biopsy done and the instructions were to place this pink, floral ice pack inside your bra.

Even the materials that we have are gender specific. I think those things all together can certainly contribute to a man feeling like a fish out of water.

Dr. Cardoso: Actually, I fought in my institution because they wanted to call the Breast and Gynecology Unit the Women’s Unit. I said that there is no way you can call it the Women’s Unit because we have male patients. There are small things that we can do in our institutions to try to decrease the stigma and to make it less awkward for a man to be in a waiting room that says Women’s Clinic or something similar to that.

The importance of a support system

Dr. Cardoso: I wanted Oliver, perhaps, to mention experiences that you may have heard from other men. Some men do not feel that comfortable speaking about the disease. Also, some of them do not feel comfortable after treatment to go to the beach, to show the scar, and to show what happens after you have radiation.

Some men actually take it quite heavily, psychologically speaking. Have you encountered some of these men?

Dr. Bogler: Definitely. I think it leads to men not accessing the support opportunities – their family, their friends, or the support groups – and staying away from those because of this feeling of not wanting to share about it. That can be damaging. Cancer treatment is usually a tough road for most people, and the long-term consequences of hormone therapy – most men have hormone-driven disease – can be significant. I agree with you.

I participated in the male breast cancer SCAR Project by David Jay, a famous photographer. One of the high points of my life has been appearing in The New York Times topless, right after my radiation treatment, showing my scar. There are quite a few of us out there who’ve done that.

I’ll just mention in passing the Male Breast Cancer Global Alliance, which is a patient support supergroup, if you will. We’ve got a symposium coming up in November. That’s a great place for men who are early in the stage of their disease, or at any stage, to connect to others who are facing this issue.

Dr. Cardoso: They can also find specific information. This is a really good website where you can find information. One of the most important topics that I’ve heard from my patients is, “I never thought that I could have this disease. I never heard that men could have breast cancer as well.” Information is very crucial.

I believe that if you are well informed, you will also be less scared of the disease. Sources of reliable information are really crucial for patients. Since you mentioned the SCAR Project, we have a similar project here in Portugal that really called attention to the disease. It was very visual and really interesting.
 

Discussions during and after treatment

Dr. Cardoso: I wanted to say something, and I don’t know if both of you would agree. I think only recently surgeons have started to pay attention to the way they operate on men with breast cancer, and even in considering techniques of breast conservation and oncoplastic surgery. I had the feeling, looking at those photos, that some years ago, it wouldn’t have mattered how they do with the mastectomy scar just because it was a man. This was biased, right?

Just because it was a man, there was no need to pay attention to the aesthetic outcome. That is wrong, in my perspective. I’m very happy to see that now there are surgeons considering other types of breast surgery to conserve as much as possible the aesthetic outcome.

Dr. Bogler: I have to say that I was offered reconstruction at MD Anderson. I declined it. It wasn’t that big a part of my body image. When I raised this issue at home, my kids, who were quite young at the time, just suggested, “Well, Dad, why don’t you just wear a swim shirt?” They came up with a very practical solution for this issue.

I agree with you that it should be an option. I was also offered a nipple tattoo. I have yet to take that up, but maybe one day.

Dr. Cardoso: I’m not sure that we need to go into reconstruction. It also depends on whether a man has gynecomastia, if it’s going to be very asymmetric. There are other techniques to do, and depending on the size of the tumor, we can also do breast conservation, which we have done here in a couple of patients.

It’s quite an interesting approach where, for example, a skin-sparing mastectomy would be less aggressive, let’s say. Sharon?

Dr. Giordano: I completely agree. I’ve noticed increasing attention to the issue over the years that I’ve been in practice. I do think that it’s more front-and-center when the surgeons are having discussions with the patients now.

Also, although it’s still a minority, some do choose to have reconstructive surgery; some have more extensive surgeries, and some maybe have nipple reconstruction or a nipple tattoo. In a few men, like you mentioned, who are somewhat asymmetric, it actually can make a difference even when they’re dressed.

For many men, it’s more that they want to take off their shirt to play basketball or go swimming, and to decrease the feeling of awkwardness or like they have to make an explanation for why they have a nipple missing and a scar across their chest.
 

Biological aspects of male patients

Dr. Cardoso: Let’s switch gears now to the management, and before that, the biology. Oliver, with your other hat of biology, speak a little bit on what we know so far – whether it is exactly the same disease or there are biological specific characteristics of breast cancer in men.

Dr. Bogler: I should preface this by saying that I spent my career studying brain tumors. That was clearly a mistake.

Dr. Cardoso: It starts with a B. ...

Dr. Bogler: It starts with a B, but it’s the wrong part of the body. The reality is that we don’t really know that much fundamental biology yet, though the picture is changing and it has changed in recent years. Part of the reason is we don’t have many of the tools that we’ve had for the female disease for many years, particularly laboratory models.

On the genetic and transcriptomics front, there has been some really good activity. There was a comprehensive systematic review by Professor Val Speirs from the University of Aberdeen earlier this year that summarized much of the recent data. It showed that there are a handful of molecular hallmarks of the male disease, compared with the female disease, that are worth exploring.

Interestingly enough, one of them is the androgen receptor. It does beg the question of whether hormone-driven disease might not show up quite differently in males and females, where the hormone picture is a little different. I think there’s increasing evidence that there’s information out there to go after.

I will say that I was treated by Dr. Giordano and her colleagues very much like a woman would have been with my disease, and actually, very similarly to my wife. I’ve done well with it, so I would say, in most cases, the current standard of care is very effective but it falls a little short of personalized medicine, particularly when it comes to the hormone component.

Dr. Cardoso: Sharon?

Dr. Giordano: I would add that when I think about it as a clinician, although there’s a large amount of overlap and many similarities, when we’re treating men with breast cancer, almost all of the men have hormone receptor–positive disease, which I think Oliver mentioned earlier. We’re really thinking about endocrine therapy as one of the mainstays of treatment.

Obviously, as he also mentioned, it’s a different biologic background of hormones in a male vs. a female patient. There’s reason to think that some of those treatments could differ. In general, the subtypes are a little bit different. We see very, very few cases of triple-negative breast cancer in men. I think I’ve seen only one or two in my career. The ones I remember were probably radiation induced. They were cancer survivors who’d had chest-wall radiation for previous diseases. Those patients are very uncommon.

We also tend to see that the histology patterns are a little bit different. We tend to see more ductal cancers in men than we do in women as a relative proportion.

One thing that I always try to remember is that the risk for BRCA mutations or underlying germline genetic mutations is higher in men than in women. Just having a diagnosis of male breast cancer is an indication to consider genetic testing or meet with a genetic counselor to look for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Now, most men will not have that. Only roughly 10% of male patients, or maybe a little less, will have a BRCA2 mutation; for BRCA1, it’s more like only 1% or 2%. They’re not that common. Certainly, male breast cancer is recognized as being associated with the BRCA mutations.

Dr. Cardoso: If I have to give a take-home message in terms of biology, it would be that if there is a diagnosis of hormone receptor–negative or HER2-positive disease in a male patient, I would ask for a confirmation of the diagnosis. It’s not that it cannot exist, but it’s so rare that it’s worthwhile to confirm.

You mentioned that triple-negative disease is less than 1%, at about 0.5%, and HER2-positive disease is about 9%-10%. I think it will be very important to keep this in mind and confirm the biology if you have a different diagnosis than ER-positive, HER2-negative. Unfortunately, I received some cases where this was not done, and in fact, it ended up being a technical problem. People can receive the wrong treatment based on that.

Dr. Giordano: I’ve also seen that happen when it’s a metastasis to the breast rather than a primary breast cancer. I completely agree. That’s an excellent point. 

Management approaches

Dr. Cardoso: Let’s go now to management and focus on early breast cancer first. Sharon, what are your main take-home messages for a professional who doesn’t see this very often? What does someone need to remember when they manage a male patient who has early breast cancer?

Dr. Giordano: In general, in terms of chemotherapy, we essentially use the same guidelines as we do for women. Most of the male patients will have tumors that are hormone receptor positive. For endocrine therapy, we typically rely on tamoxifen as the standard of care for adjuvant endocrine treatment for breast cancer.

There are some data suggesting that there can be some efficacy of aromatase inhibitors as single agents. In general, and extrapolated from some population-based registry data, the outcomes for men treated with single-agent aromatase inhibitors don’t tend to be as good as for those treated with tamoxifen.

I know that these are not randomized data so there are all the caveats of that, but the best information we have suggests that tamoxifen appears to likely be more effective. Typically, we stay with tamoxifen. If, for some reason, a man cannot tolerate tamoxifen or has a contraindication, then we could use a GnRH agonist along with an aromatase inhibitor.

Dr. Cardoso: I would like to mention that, because it’s ER-positive, HER2-negative disease most of the time, there will be the question as to whether we can use genomic tests. I think it is important that people know that we have much less data regarding the use of Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, or any of the genomic tests in male patients.

We have some data on the distribution of, for example, Oncotype DX or MammaPrint scores. Whether we can use these tests for the decision of chemotherapy, we don’t have much data on that. I’ve seen many people making exactly the same decisions as with female patients, but that’s not really based on very strong evidence.

Dr. Giordano: It’s hard to know what to do with that. There are prognostic data on Oncotype, so the higher-risk tumors do seem to have a worse outcome than the lower-score tumors. You’re right, though; I don’t think we have any predictive information to really show that the Oncotype DX score predicts benefit to chemotherapy.

Having said that, I will sometimes order the test in my practice. If somebody comes back with a score of 5 or a very low-risk score, I will use that in my decision-making.

Dr. Cardoso: There is something we didn’t exactly mention in the diagnosis that may be important. We discussed most men not knowing that they can have breast cancer, and Oliver, you mentioned that sometimes the first-line physicians can think that very often. Usually, we have late diagnosis and that means a higher tumor burden.

Sometimes we have to go to chemotherapy because of locally advanced or very positive axillas and not really because of the biology. That’s one of the reasons to go for chemotherapy in this setting, right?

Dr. Bogler: Yes. I remember that conversation with you, Dr. Giordano. I asked you whether I should do one of these tests. You said, “Don’t worry about it. At stage III, you’re going to have chemo anyway.”

Dr. Cardoso: The problem of these rare diagnoses is the not thinking about it, even from the health professional side, and then having the diagnosis quite late that will demand chemotherapy use.

To clarify to everybody, in terms of distinguishing luminal A–like, luminal B–like, and what that implies in a male patient, we really don’t know if it’s the same as in a female. There have been some very interesting studies from our Nordic country colleagues showing that maybe the subtyping is different. There is likely a male-specific subtype that does not exist in female breast cancer and that probably behaves differently. We still have a large amount of research to do to understand that.

Is there anything else you would like to mention about early breast cancer management?

Dr. Bogler: One of the things that’s probably underexplored is adherence to tamoxifen therapy in men. I do know anecdotally that this is the discussion among men because of the impact on quality of life. I do worry that sometimes men perhaps make the wrong choice, and I think that’s an opportunity for more research. Again, if there were alternative therapies that were perhaps a little less impactful on things like libido, that might be an advance in the field.

Dr. Cardoso: We have been seeing more studies on the issue of quality of life. Noncompliance is also an issue in female patients. We have to acknowledge that. Not everybody is able to keep taking the treatments. Interestingly, when there is a relapse and people had stopped taking the tamoxifen, most of them say, “I stopped because I had not understood exactly how important it is.”

We come back to the importance of explaining that it is the most crucial treatment for this subtype of breast cancer. Again, information is really key.

Sometimes I also use the argument with my patients that the alternative is even worse because if you use an aromatase inhibitor, and you have to use an LHRH agonist, then the implications for your sexual life are even worse. That’s how I try to convince them to stay on tamoxifen.

Let’s finalize with a couple of words on metastatic breast cancer in male patients. Sharon, I’ll start with you again. Is there any difference in the management if you have a patient with metastatic, ER-positive, HER2-negative disease? How do you treat? How do you sequence the available therapies? Is it different from the female patient?

Dr. Giordano: I’d say that, big picture, it’s quite similar. Again, most of the men have hormone receptor–positive disease, so really, the mainstay of treatment and the first treatments are going to be endocrine therapies. We’ll sequence through the endocrine therapies like we do in women. When using aromatase inhibitors, I typically would add a GnRH agonist to that, and I have had that be a very successful therapy, along now with the CDK inhibitors that are also approved.

I don’t think the studies of CDK inhibitors included male patients, but at least palbociclib actually was approved in the United States, based on some real-world evidence of its efficacy. Anecdotally, again, in my clinical practice, that tends to be a really powerful combination of leuprolide, an aromatase inhibitor, and a CDK inhibitor.

I think there’s less information about drugs like fulvestrant, whether that would benefit from combination with a GnRH agonist or whether those should be given as single agents. We just don’t really know. We have a few case series out there.

Similar to the early breast cancer setting, I think it’s really important to remember to check for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. PARP inhibitors could be a part of the treatment plan if those underlying germline mutations are found. Generally, we’re following a similar sequence of endocrine therapies and then, eventually, chemotherapy.

Dr. Cardoso: Maybe, Oliver, you’re also seeing that one consistent finding in the biology study is the importance of the AKT/PI3K/mTOR pathway in male patients with breast cancer, because we now have at least two classes of agents to tackle this pathway. Again, anecdotally – we’re not talking about trials – I’ve been seeing quite interesting responses, for example, to everolimus combined with endocrine therapy.

We have a little less experience with the PI3K inhibitor, but that’s just because of accessibility to the drug. I think this combination is also something to keep in mind that can be quite effective in these patients.

Dr. Bogler: I agree. Those findings are exciting in the context of dealing with something as difficult as metastatic breast cancer. It’s good to know that there’s some information coming and opportunities and options, hopefully, down the road for men facing that problem.

Dr. Cardoso: Sharon, although small numbers, in these cases where there is HER2-positive disease, you would also use the new anti-HER2 agents and more or less the same sequence, right?

Dr. Giordano: Absolutely. It’s not particularly data driven, but yes, I would. If it’s a HER2-positive tumor, I would use the same HER2-targeted therapies that are used for women with breast cancer.

Working toward a balance in patient care

Dr. Cardoso: I would like to add something for all of us to be united in the fight. I don’t know if it happens in the U.S., but in many countries, access to these new agents for male patients is very difficult because of the approval and the labeling. This is why I’m always fighting with those who are proposing that the labeling, again, says “women with breast cancer.”

It is really important that we keep on lobbying and pushing for the labeling to say “patients with breast cancer” so that nobody can withhold access to these new therapies because of gender. In the U.S., maybe you don’t have this problem. There are many European countries where men cannot access, for example, fulvestrant because it has been approved for women with breast cancer.

Dr. Giordano: Thankfully, I have not faced that issue very often. I’ve had occasional issues with getting GnRH agonists approved. Generally, in the U.S., if I provide, for example, the NCCN guideline recommendations, most insurers will cover it. I think it’s often just lack of knowledge.

Dr. Cardoso: It’s something to keep working hard on because for the old drugs that were approved with the wording that still said “women,” we have to keep fighting for accessibility.

I think we had a really nice discussion. I’m going to give you an opportunity for any last words that you want to say on this topic. Perhaps we’ll start with you, Sharon, and we’ll leave the very last word to Oliver.

Dr. Giordano: I would just emphasize the importance of doing research in this area. Hopefully, we will be able to get clinical trials. There are reasons to think that endocrine therapies may behave differently in men and women. We need to continue to work together as a community to collect the data so that we can ultimately improve the outcomes for our patients.

Dr. Bogler: I would echo what you just said, Dr. Giordano. I would like to express my gratitude to both of you. Dr. Giordano, you have a huge practice of men at MD Anderson. You took care of me and many other people I know.

Dr. Cardoso, you are a pioneer of a big registry trial that I am privileged to be working on, trying to gather data on men. You’re both pioneers in this field of working on behalf of people like me. I’m just very grateful for what you do.

Dr. Giordano: Thank you.

Dr. Cardoso: Thank you both for accepting this invitation. We hope that everybody takes more interest in this field. Who knows? Maybe we can find enough funds to run a specific trial for male patients with breast cancer.

Dr. Cardoso is director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Centre/Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon. Dr. Giordano is professor of breast medical oncology and chair of health services research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Bogler is a cancer biologist at the Randolph (Vt.) Center. Dr. Cardoso reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies; Dr. Giordano and Dr. Bogler reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The risk for abdominal morbidity, complications, and additional operations are the most important factors weighing on women who are considering postmastectomy breast reconstruction, a new survey suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• As many as 40% of women feel dissatisfied after breast reconstruction because of unexpected outcomes that are poorly aligned with their personal preferences. Identifying what women value when considering breast reconstruction surgery could improve shared decision-making.
• Researchers used an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis, a survey-based method used in marketing research, to identify attributes of breast reconstruction that are most important to women considering it.
• A total of 406 women completed the survey, which assessed the relative importance of breast appearance (flap or implant), abdominal morbidity, recovery time, additional operations, and complications of breast reconstruction.
• The survey included 105 women from Duke University, Durham, N.C., who had a new diagnosis of, or genetic predisposition to, breast cancer and were considering mastectomy with reconstruction. The survey also included another 301 women, identified through the Love Research Army registry, who had a history of breast cancer or a genetic predisposition.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the risk for abdominal morbidity was most important to patients (mean relative importance, 28%); women also rated the chance for major complications (RI, 25%), the number of additional surgeries (RI, 23%), breast appearance (RI, 13%), and recovery time (RI, 11%) as important factors.
• Most women preferred implant-based reconstruction (85%), and these women cared most about abdominal morbidity (RI, 30%), risk for complications (RI, 26%), and added operations (RI, 21%).
• Women who preferred flap reconstruction cared most about additional operations (RI, 31%), followed by breast appearance (RI, 27%) and risk of complications (RI, 18%), which suggests that the appearance of the reconstruction procedure was particularly important, the authors noted.
• Participants who preferred the flap appearance were willing to accept an increased risk for abdominal morbidity and a slightly higher risk for complications; among the participants who preferred the implant option, one-third actually preferred the flap appearance.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides information on how women value different aspects of their care when making decisions for breast reconstruction,” the authors conclude, adding that “developing decision aids that elicit individual-level preferences and align patient values with treatment may provide an avenue to improve patient-centered care.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by first author Ronnie Shammas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The attributes included in the survey may not represent all factors that women consider during the decision-making process. The cohort was composed of predominately upper-middle class and White women, which may reflect an increased preference toward implant, compared with flap reconstruction, as suggested in previous studies.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the research was provided by a grant from the National Endowment for Plastic Surgery awarded by the Plastic Surgery Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The risk for abdominal morbidity, complications, and additional operations are the most important factors weighing on women who are considering postmastectomy breast reconstruction, a new survey suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• As many as 40% of women feel dissatisfied after breast reconstruction because of unexpected outcomes that are poorly aligned with their personal preferences. Identifying what women value when considering breast reconstruction surgery could improve shared decision-making.
• Researchers used an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis, a survey-based method used in marketing research, to identify attributes of breast reconstruction that are most important to women considering it.
• A total of 406 women completed the survey, which assessed the relative importance of breast appearance (flap or implant), abdominal morbidity, recovery time, additional operations, and complications of breast reconstruction.
• The survey included 105 women from Duke University, Durham, N.C., who had a new diagnosis of, or genetic predisposition to, breast cancer and were considering mastectomy with reconstruction. The survey also included another 301 women, identified through the Love Research Army registry, who had a history of breast cancer or a genetic predisposition.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the risk for abdominal morbidity was most important to patients (mean relative importance, 28%); women also rated the chance for major complications (RI, 25%), the number of additional surgeries (RI, 23%), breast appearance (RI, 13%), and recovery time (RI, 11%) as important factors.
• Most women preferred implant-based reconstruction (85%), and these women cared most about abdominal morbidity (RI, 30%), risk for complications (RI, 26%), and added operations (RI, 21%).
• Women who preferred flap reconstruction cared most about additional operations (RI, 31%), followed by breast appearance (RI, 27%) and risk of complications (RI, 18%), which suggests that the appearance of the reconstruction procedure was particularly important, the authors noted.
• Participants who preferred the flap appearance were willing to accept an increased risk for abdominal morbidity and a slightly higher risk for complications; among the participants who preferred the implant option, one-third actually preferred the flap appearance.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides information on how women value different aspects of their care when making decisions for breast reconstruction,” the authors conclude, adding that “developing decision aids that elicit individual-level preferences and align patient values with treatment may provide an avenue to improve patient-centered care.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by first author Ronnie Shammas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The attributes included in the survey may not represent all factors that women consider during the decision-making process. The cohort was composed of predominately upper-middle class and White women, which may reflect an increased preference toward implant, compared with flap reconstruction, as suggested in previous studies.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the research was provided by a grant from the National Endowment for Plastic Surgery awarded by the Plastic Surgery Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The risk for abdominal morbidity, complications, and additional operations are the most important factors weighing on women who are considering postmastectomy breast reconstruction, a new survey suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• As many as 40% of women feel dissatisfied after breast reconstruction because of unexpected outcomes that are poorly aligned with their personal preferences. Identifying what women value when considering breast reconstruction surgery could improve shared decision-making.
• Researchers used an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis, a survey-based method used in marketing research, to identify attributes of breast reconstruction that are most important to women considering it.
• A total of 406 women completed the survey, which assessed the relative importance of breast appearance (flap or implant), abdominal morbidity, recovery time, additional operations, and complications of breast reconstruction.
• The survey included 105 women from Duke University, Durham, N.C., who had a new diagnosis of, or genetic predisposition to, breast cancer and were considering mastectomy with reconstruction. The survey also included another 301 women, identified through the Love Research Army registry, who had a history of breast cancer or a genetic predisposition.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the risk for abdominal morbidity was most important to patients (mean relative importance, 28%); women also rated the chance for major complications (RI, 25%), the number of additional surgeries (RI, 23%), breast appearance (RI, 13%), and recovery time (RI, 11%) as important factors.
• Most women preferred implant-based reconstruction (85%), and these women cared most about abdominal morbidity (RI, 30%), risk for complications (RI, 26%), and added operations (RI, 21%).
• Women who preferred flap reconstruction cared most about additional operations (RI, 31%), followed by breast appearance (RI, 27%) and risk of complications (RI, 18%), which suggests that the appearance of the reconstruction procedure was particularly important, the authors noted.
• Participants who preferred the flap appearance were willing to accept an increased risk for abdominal morbidity and a slightly higher risk for complications; among the participants who preferred the implant option, one-third actually preferred the flap appearance.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides information on how women value different aspects of their care when making decisions for breast reconstruction,” the authors conclude, adding that “developing decision aids that elicit individual-level preferences and align patient values with treatment may provide an avenue to improve patient-centered care.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by first author Ronnie Shammas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The attributes included in the survey may not represent all factors that women consider during the decision-making process. The cohort was composed of predominately upper-middle class and White women, which may reflect an increased preference toward implant, compared with flap reconstruction, as suggested in previous studies.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the research was provided by a grant from the National Endowment for Plastic Surgery awarded by the Plastic Surgery Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Surgery of the primary tumor in patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer does not prolong overall survival, except potentially in younger, premenopausal patients. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Given conflicting results from prospective trials and improved outcomes reported in retrospective studies, removing the primary tumor in patients with metastatic breast cancer remains common practice but also “controversial,” the authors explained.
• To clarify whether to remove the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer, investigators performed a meta-analysis of the five randomized clinical trials evaluating the issue.
• The five trials, published from 2015 to 2023, included 1,381 women with de novo metastatic breast cancer; half had their primary tumor removed, half did not.

TAKEAWAY:  

• The analysis revealed no overall survival benefit for patients who underwent surgical excision of their primary breast tumor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.14).
• Surgery was not associated with an overall survival benefit in subgroup analyses by receptor status, pattern of metastasis (bone vs. viscera or oligometastatic vs nonoligometastatic disease), number of metastatic sites, or location of metastatic lesions.
• The one possible exception: Surgery did appear to improve overall survival in younger, premenopausal women (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.58-0.94), but “the lack of uniform definitions and inconsistent trial results suggest that this subgroup analysis should be viewed as exploratory and requiring further validation,” the authors said.
• Breast surgery was associated with improved local progression-free survival (HR, 0.37) but not distant progression-free survival or patient-reported quality of life. 

IN PRACTICE:

“We conclude that surgical excision of the primary tumor in case of de novo metastatic breast cancer is not associated with improved patient survival,” with a “potential exception” among younger patients, the authors said. “As such, besides the need to palliate local symptoms, surgery should not be routinely offered to patients with metastatic disease.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Guillermo Villacampa of the SOLTI Breast Cancer Research Group in Barcelona, was published Sept. 12 in The Oncologist.

LIMITATIONS:

The five trials had various weaknesses, including imbalances in patient characteristics, protocol violations regarding planned and administered treatment, and missing information on associations between surgical margins and outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding for the work. Investigators reported speaker fees, consultant fees, and/or research funding from various companies, including Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Surgery of the primary tumor in patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer does not prolong overall survival, except potentially in younger, premenopausal patients. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Given conflicting results from prospective trials and improved outcomes reported in retrospective studies, removing the primary tumor in patients with metastatic breast cancer remains common practice but also “controversial,” the authors explained.
• To clarify whether to remove the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer, investigators performed a meta-analysis of the five randomized clinical trials evaluating the issue.
• The five trials, published from 2015 to 2023, included 1,381 women with de novo metastatic breast cancer; half had their primary tumor removed, half did not.

TAKEAWAY:  

• The analysis revealed no overall survival benefit for patients who underwent surgical excision of their primary breast tumor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.14).
• Surgery was not associated with an overall survival benefit in subgroup analyses by receptor status, pattern of metastasis (bone vs. viscera or oligometastatic vs nonoligometastatic disease), number of metastatic sites, or location of metastatic lesions.
• The one possible exception: Surgery did appear to improve overall survival in younger, premenopausal women (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.58-0.94), but “the lack of uniform definitions and inconsistent trial results suggest that this subgroup analysis should be viewed as exploratory and requiring further validation,” the authors said.
• Breast surgery was associated with improved local progression-free survival (HR, 0.37) but not distant progression-free survival or patient-reported quality of life. 

IN PRACTICE:

“We conclude that surgical excision of the primary tumor in case of de novo metastatic breast cancer is not associated with improved patient survival,” with a “potential exception” among younger patients, the authors said. “As such, besides the need to palliate local symptoms, surgery should not be routinely offered to patients with metastatic disease.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Guillermo Villacampa of the SOLTI Breast Cancer Research Group in Barcelona, was published Sept. 12 in The Oncologist.

LIMITATIONS:

The five trials had various weaknesses, including imbalances in patient characteristics, protocol violations regarding planned and administered treatment, and missing information on associations between surgical margins and outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding for the work. Investigators reported speaker fees, consultant fees, and/or research funding from various companies, including Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Surgery of the primary tumor in patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer does not prolong overall survival, except potentially in younger, premenopausal patients. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Given conflicting results from prospective trials and improved outcomes reported in retrospective studies, removing the primary tumor in patients with metastatic breast cancer remains common practice but also “controversial,” the authors explained.
• To clarify whether to remove the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer, investigators performed a meta-analysis of the five randomized clinical trials evaluating the issue.
• The five trials, published from 2015 to 2023, included 1,381 women with de novo metastatic breast cancer; half had their primary tumor removed, half did not.

TAKEAWAY:  

• The analysis revealed no overall survival benefit for patients who underwent surgical excision of their primary breast tumor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.14).
• Surgery was not associated with an overall survival benefit in subgroup analyses by receptor status, pattern of metastasis (bone vs. viscera or oligometastatic vs nonoligometastatic disease), number of metastatic sites, or location of metastatic lesions.
• The one possible exception: Surgery did appear to improve overall survival in younger, premenopausal women (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.58-0.94), but “the lack of uniform definitions and inconsistent trial results suggest that this subgroup analysis should be viewed as exploratory and requiring further validation,” the authors said.
• Breast surgery was associated with improved local progression-free survival (HR, 0.37) but not distant progression-free survival or patient-reported quality of life. 

IN PRACTICE:

“We conclude that surgical excision of the primary tumor in case of de novo metastatic breast cancer is not associated with improved patient survival,” with a “potential exception” among younger patients, the authors said. “As such, besides the need to palliate local symptoms, surgery should not be routinely offered to patients with metastatic disease.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Guillermo Villacampa of the SOLTI Breast Cancer Research Group in Barcelona, was published Sept. 12 in The Oncologist.

LIMITATIONS:

The five trials had various weaknesses, including imbalances in patient characteristics, protocol violations regarding planned and administered treatment, and missing information on associations between surgical margins and outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding for the work. Investigators reported speaker fees, consultant fees, and/or research funding from various companies, including Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – In a 10-year analysis, a landmark study of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy in early breast cancer continues to show that the treatments are noninferior to full-breast therapy despite reduced radiation exposure.

The follow-up analysis of the 2,016-subject IMPORT LOW study found that 10-year overall survival rates were 87.8% (95% confidence interval, 84.9-90.1) for a full-breast radiation group, 87.2% (95% CI, 84.3-89.6) for a reduced-dose group, and 90.3% (95% CI, 87.7-92.4) in a partial-breast group. Breast cancer radiotherapy specialist Anna Kirby, MB, MD (Res), MA, of the Royal Marsden and Institute of Cancer Research, London, reported the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Ipsilateral breast tumor relapse was also similar in the three groups at the 10-year mark at 2.8% (95% CI, 1.8-4.5), 1.9% (95% CI, 1.1-3.4), and 2.8% (95% CI, 1.7-4.5), respectively. Moderate/marked adverse effects were deemed to be low.

Dr. Kirby said the new findings are not “practice-changing.” However, “this complementary data supporting the change in practice that happened in the UK and elsewhere following the publication back in 2017.”

The findings are “reassuring,” breast cancer radiology specialist Robert W. Mutter, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview after reviewing the study findings. While the outcomes and adverse events are similar between the groups, “partial-breast irradiation is attractive because it exposes less normal tissue such as the heart and lungs than whole-breast irradiation. This could lead to fewer side effects for patients later in life at a population level. Partial-breast irradiation should be considered a standard of care in selected patients.”

In a presentation at ASTRO, Dr. Kirby provided background about the motivation for the study. It was clear that radiotherapy reduces local recurrence by up to two-thirds in early breast cancer, she said. “But in a population with excellent prognosis, this translates into relatively small absolute benefits from radiotherapy for many of our lower-risk patients,” she said. “All patients treated are at risk of radiotherapy side effects, and these become the main hazard for many women. Radiotherapy that’s focused on the part of the breast that contained the tumor – the so-called tumor bed – may reduce the long-term complications from radiotherapy, particularly in the breast, and potentially in the heart and lung, whilst hopefully maintaining low local recurrence rates.”

The initial 5-year study was a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of patients ≥ age 50 in the United Kingdom who were tracked since recruitment in 2007-2010 (median age, 63). All had undergone breast conservation surgery. The patients were assigned to the control group (n = 674, 40 Gy), reduced-dose (n = 673, 40 Gy) and partial-breast (n = 669, 40 Gy to partial breast only) in 15 daily treatment fractions. The initial results, published in The Lancet, reported noninferiority for both reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy. Adverse effects were similar in the three groups except for change in breast appearance, which was better in partial-breast therapy vs. whole-breast, and breast harder or firmer, which was better in both partial- and reduced-dose groups vs. whole-breast.

Dr. Mutter described the IMPORT LOW trial as “a practice-changing study.”

The trial was unique since both the whole-breast and partial-breast arms received the same dosing schedule, he said, which “enables an unbiased assessment of the impact of target volume on treatment outcomes.” This contrasts “with other partial-breast irradiation studies where a different dosing schedule was employed for whole-breast and partial-breast irradiation.”

The new analysis tracked patients for a median of 121 months. “There is no difference in local recurrence rate across the three arms,” Dr. Kirby said. There were no differences in overall survival, breast cancer or cardiac deaths, she added, and “neither was there any difference in the time to any moderate or marked clinician-assessed breast normal tissue endpoint.”

Heart and lung outcomes may improve over time in the lower-dose groups because of less radiation exposure, “but we haven’t shown that yet with this data set.”

Dr. Mutter cautioned that “the results of this trial may not necessarily be extrapolated to other partial-breast irradiation techniques that treat a much smaller volume of breast tissue such as intracavitary brachytherapy and intraoperative radiotherapy. Whether these same excellent outcomes can be achieved with smaller treatment volumes is an area for further investigation.”

Funding information was not provided; the initial study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. Kirby discloses travel costs paid by European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology, and other authors have various disclosures including relationships with companies such as Pfizer, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Bayer, and Janssen. Dr. Mutter has no disclosures.
 

SAN DIEGO – In a 10-year analysis, a landmark study of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy in early breast cancer continues to show that the treatments are noninferior to full-breast therapy despite reduced radiation exposure.

The follow-up analysis of the 2,016-subject IMPORT LOW study found that 10-year overall survival rates were 87.8% (95% confidence interval, 84.9-90.1) for a full-breast radiation group, 87.2% (95% CI, 84.3-89.6) for a reduced-dose group, and 90.3% (95% CI, 87.7-92.4) in a partial-breast group. Breast cancer radiotherapy specialist Anna Kirby, MB, MD (Res), MA, of the Royal Marsden and Institute of Cancer Research, London, reported the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Ipsilateral breast tumor relapse was also similar in the three groups at the 10-year mark at 2.8% (95% CI, 1.8-4.5), 1.9% (95% CI, 1.1-3.4), and 2.8% (95% CI, 1.7-4.5), respectively. Moderate/marked adverse effects were deemed to be low.

Dr. Kirby said the new findings are not “practice-changing.” However, “this complementary data supporting the change in practice that happened in the UK and elsewhere following the publication back in 2017.”

The findings are “reassuring,” breast cancer radiology specialist Robert W. Mutter, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview after reviewing the study findings. While the outcomes and adverse events are similar between the groups, “partial-breast irradiation is attractive because it exposes less normal tissue such as the heart and lungs than whole-breast irradiation. This could lead to fewer side effects for patients later in life at a population level. Partial-breast irradiation should be considered a standard of care in selected patients.”

In a presentation at ASTRO, Dr. Kirby provided background about the motivation for the study. It was clear that radiotherapy reduces local recurrence by up to two-thirds in early breast cancer, she said. “But in a population with excellent prognosis, this translates into relatively small absolute benefits from radiotherapy for many of our lower-risk patients,” she said. “All patients treated are at risk of radiotherapy side effects, and these become the main hazard for many women. Radiotherapy that’s focused on the part of the breast that contained the tumor – the so-called tumor bed – may reduce the long-term complications from radiotherapy, particularly in the breast, and potentially in the heart and lung, whilst hopefully maintaining low local recurrence rates.”

The initial 5-year study was a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of patients ≥ age 50 in the United Kingdom who were tracked since recruitment in 2007-2010 (median age, 63). All had undergone breast conservation surgery. The patients were assigned to the control group (n = 674, 40 Gy), reduced-dose (n = 673, 40 Gy) and partial-breast (n = 669, 40 Gy to partial breast only) in 15 daily treatment fractions. The initial results, published in The Lancet, reported noninferiority for both reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy. Adverse effects were similar in the three groups except for change in breast appearance, which was better in partial-breast therapy vs. whole-breast, and breast harder or firmer, which was better in both partial- and reduced-dose groups vs. whole-breast.

Dr. Mutter described the IMPORT LOW trial as “a practice-changing study.”

The trial was unique since both the whole-breast and partial-breast arms received the same dosing schedule, he said, which “enables an unbiased assessment of the impact of target volume on treatment outcomes.” This contrasts “with other partial-breast irradiation studies where a different dosing schedule was employed for whole-breast and partial-breast irradiation.”

The new analysis tracked patients for a median of 121 months. “There is no difference in local recurrence rate across the three arms,” Dr. Kirby said. There were no differences in overall survival, breast cancer or cardiac deaths, she added, and “neither was there any difference in the time to any moderate or marked clinician-assessed breast normal tissue endpoint.”

Heart and lung outcomes may improve over time in the lower-dose groups because of less radiation exposure, “but we haven’t shown that yet with this data set.”

Dr. Mutter cautioned that “the results of this trial may not necessarily be extrapolated to other partial-breast irradiation techniques that treat a much smaller volume of breast tissue such as intracavitary brachytherapy and intraoperative radiotherapy. Whether these same excellent outcomes can be achieved with smaller treatment volumes is an area for further investigation.”

Funding information was not provided; the initial study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. Kirby discloses travel costs paid by European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology, and other authors have various disclosures including relationships with companies such as Pfizer, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Bayer, and Janssen. Dr. Mutter has no disclosures.
 

SAN DIEGO – In a 10-year analysis, a landmark study of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy in early breast cancer continues to show that the treatments are noninferior to full-breast therapy despite reduced radiation exposure.

The follow-up analysis of the 2,016-subject IMPORT LOW study found that 10-year overall survival rates were 87.8% (95% confidence interval, 84.9-90.1) for a full-breast radiation group, 87.2% (95% CI, 84.3-89.6) for a reduced-dose group, and 90.3% (95% CI, 87.7-92.4) in a partial-breast group. Breast cancer radiotherapy specialist Anna Kirby, MB, MD (Res), MA, of the Royal Marsden and Institute of Cancer Research, London, reported the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Ipsilateral breast tumor relapse was also similar in the three groups at the 10-year mark at 2.8% (95% CI, 1.8-4.5), 1.9% (95% CI, 1.1-3.4), and 2.8% (95% CI, 1.7-4.5), respectively. Moderate/marked adverse effects were deemed to be low.

Dr. Kirby said the new findings are not “practice-changing.” However, “this complementary data supporting the change in practice that happened in the UK and elsewhere following the publication back in 2017.”

The findings are “reassuring,” breast cancer radiology specialist Robert W. Mutter, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview after reviewing the study findings. While the outcomes and adverse events are similar between the groups, “partial-breast irradiation is attractive because it exposes less normal tissue such as the heart and lungs than whole-breast irradiation. This could lead to fewer side effects for patients later in life at a population level. Partial-breast irradiation should be considered a standard of care in selected patients.”

In a presentation at ASTRO, Dr. Kirby provided background about the motivation for the study. It was clear that radiotherapy reduces local recurrence by up to two-thirds in early breast cancer, she said. “But in a population with excellent prognosis, this translates into relatively small absolute benefits from radiotherapy for many of our lower-risk patients,” she said. “All patients treated are at risk of radiotherapy side effects, and these become the main hazard for many women. Radiotherapy that’s focused on the part of the breast that contained the tumor – the so-called tumor bed – may reduce the long-term complications from radiotherapy, particularly in the breast, and potentially in the heart and lung, whilst hopefully maintaining low local recurrence rates.”

The initial 5-year study was a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of patients ≥ age 50 in the United Kingdom who were tracked since recruitment in 2007-2010 (median age, 63). All had undergone breast conservation surgery. The patients were assigned to the control group (n = 674, 40 Gy), reduced-dose (n = 673, 40 Gy) and partial-breast (n = 669, 40 Gy to partial breast only) in 15 daily treatment fractions. The initial results, published in The Lancet, reported noninferiority for both reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy. Adverse effects were similar in the three groups except for change in breast appearance, which was better in partial-breast therapy vs. whole-breast, and breast harder or firmer, which was better in both partial- and reduced-dose groups vs. whole-breast.

Dr. Mutter described the IMPORT LOW trial as “a practice-changing study.”

The trial was unique since both the whole-breast and partial-breast arms received the same dosing schedule, he said, which “enables an unbiased assessment of the impact of target volume on treatment outcomes.” This contrasts “with other partial-breast irradiation studies where a different dosing schedule was employed for whole-breast and partial-breast irradiation.”

The new analysis tracked patients for a median of 121 months. “There is no difference in local recurrence rate across the three arms,” Dr. Kirby said. There were no differences in overall survival, breast cancer or cardiac deaths, she added, and “neither was there any difference in the time to any moderate or marked clinician-assessed breast normal tissue endpoint.”

Heart and lung outcomes may improve over time in the lower-dose groups because of less radiation exposure, “but we haven’t shown that yet with this data set.”

Dr. Mutter cautioned that “the results of this trial may not necessarily be extrapolated to other partial-breast irradiation techniques that treat a much smaller volume of breast tissue such as intracavitary brachytherapy and intraoperative radiotherapy. Whether these same excellent outcomes can be achieved with smaller treatment volumes is an area for further investigation.”

Funding information was not provided; the initial study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. Kirby discloses travel costs paid by European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology, and other authors have various disclosures including relationships with companies such as Pfizer, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Bayer, and Janssen. Dr. Mutter has no disclosures.
 

SAN DIEGO – Women with breast cancer who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction benefited from shorter bursts of higher-dose radiation, compared with the standard therapy, according to a new prospective, randomized study.

Side effects and physical well-being scores were similar among 400 women who received the two treatment regimens, and outcomes were similar or slightly better in the higher-dose group, reported Rinaa Punglia, MD, MPH, an associate professor of radiation oncology at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center in Boston and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In a press statement, Dr. Punglia noted that the outcomes weren’t as impressive as researchers had hoped, but it’s positive that higher doses didn’t cause more side effects.

The use of the higher-dose approach, known as hypofractionation, “resulted in fewer treatment breaks and less financial toxicity” vs. conventional fractionation, Dr. Punglia said at a news briefing. The findings of the FABREC study “support the use of hypofractionated postmastectomy radiation for patients with basic reconstruction.”

According to Dr. Punglia, “postmastectomy radiation therapy is indicated for almost one-third of mastectomy patients and improves the lives of patients who are at an elevated risk for recurrence.” However, “the addition of radiation therapy greatly increases the risk of reconstruction complications.”

The typical radiation treatment period is 5-6 weeks in these patients, a major hardship for patients that can take them away from their families for extended periods of time. The researchers sought to understand whether another approach – hypofractionation over 3-4 weeks – is a better option. The strategy is widely used after breast-conserving surgery, she said, and has been linked to similar cancer outcomes, improved quality of life, and improved breast appearance.

From 2018 to 2021, the researchers recruited 400 patients with stage 0-III breast cancer who were treated with mastectomy and immediately underwent implant-based reconstruction (median age = 47.0, 23-79). None had tumors growing into the chest wall or skin.

The patients, spread nationwide across 16 institutions, were randomized to receive conventional fractionation (n = 201, 25 fractions, 5 days a week for 5 weeks of 200 cGy) or hypofractionation (n=199, 16 fractions, 5 days a week, for about 3 weeks of 266 cGy).

The researchers tracked 385 patients over a median follow-up of 40.4 months. There was no statistically significant difference in distant recurrence (12 in conventional fractionation arm, 11 in hypofractionation arm), death (2 in each arm), local recurrence (1 in each arm), or toxicity in the chest wall area (20 in conventional fractionation arm, 19 in hypofractionation arm). Changes in physical well-being scores, the primary endpoint, were similar after controlling for age.

“We found that younger patients randomized to hypofractionation were less bothered by side effects of treatment at 6 months relative to their counterparts who received conventional fractionation,” Dr. Punglia said.

Treatment breaks were more common in the conventional fractionation arm (7.7%, mean = 3.3 days) vs. the hypofractionation arm (2.7%, mean = 2.8 days, P = .03).

Among 51 patients who took unpaid time off work, those who underwent hypofractionation took fewer mean days off (73.7 days vs. 125.8 days for conventional fractionation, P = .046).

The study is the first of its kind to compare conventional fractionation to hypofractionation in this population in a randomized, phase III study, Dr. Punglia said.

At the news briefing, an independent expert – Lori Pierce, MD, a professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan – said the new study is a “game changer.”

The findings about the benefits of hypofractionation “will potentially impact thousands of women,” said Dr. Pierce, former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The shorter course of radiation is more convenient for patients, she said, and reduces hardship.

“Without a doubt, these results should be discussed with all patients who have had mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction,” she said.

In an interview, Bruce G. Haffty, MD, MS, professor and chair of Radiation Oncology at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, said the study adds to existing data suggesting that shorter courses of therapy “are probably OK.” The new findings “give people a little more confidence that [short courses are] safe in terms of well-being and toxicity.”

However, the follow-up in the trial is relatively short, he said, and longer-term research will be needed to change the standard of care in these patients. “It’ll be an evolving story over the next 5-10 years,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Punglia has no disclosures; disclosures for other authors were not provided. Disclosure information for Dr. Pierce was not provided. Dr. Haffty is an investigator in a similar study called RT CHARM.

SAN DIEGO – Women with breast cancer who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction benefited from shorter bursts of higher-dose radiation, compared with the standard therapy, according to a new prospective, randomized study.

Side effects and physical well-being scores were similar among 400 women who received the two treatment regimens, and outcomes were similar or slightly better in the higher-dose group, reported Rinaa Punglia, MD, MPH, an associate professor of radiation oncology at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center in Boston and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In a press statement, Dr. Punglia noted that the outcomes weren’t as impressive as researchers had hoped, but it’s positive that higher doses didn’t cause more side effects.

The use of the higher-dose approach, known as hypofractionation, “resulted in fewer treatment breaks and less financial toxicity” vs. conventional fractionation, Dr. Punglia said at a news briefing. The findings of the FABREC study “support the use of hypofractionated postmastectomy radiation for patients with basic reconstruction.”

According to Dr. Punglia, “postmastectomy radiation therapy is indicated for almost one-third of mastectomy patients and improves the lives of patients who are at an elevated risk for recurrence.” However, “the addition of radiation therapy greatly increases the risk of reconstruction complications.”

The typical radiation treatment period is 5-6 weeks in these patients, a major hardship for patients that can take them away from their families for extended periods of time. The researchers sought to understand whether another approach – hypofractionation over 3-4 weeks – is a better option. The strategy is widely used after breast-conserving surgery, she said, and has been linked to similar cancer outcomes, improved quality of life, and improved breast appearance.

From 2018 to 2021, the researchers recruited 400 patients with stage 0-III breast cancer who were treated with mastectomy and immediately underwent implant-based reconstruction (median age = 47.0, 23-79). None had tumors growing into the chest wall or skin.

The patients, spread nationwide across 16 institutions, were randomized to receive conventional fractionation (n = 201, 25 fractions, 5 days a week for 5 weeks of 200 cGy) or hypofractionation (n=199, 16 fractions, 5 days a week, for about 3 weeks of 266 cGy).

The researchers tracked 385 patients over a median follow-up of 40.4 months. There was no statistically significant difference in distant recurrence (12 in conventional fractionation arm, 11 in hypofractionation arm), death (2 in each arm), local recurrence (1 in each arm), or toxicity in the chest wall area (20 in conventional fractionation arm, 19 in hypofractionation arm). Changes in physical well-being scores, the primary endpoint, were similar after controlling for age.

“We found that younger patients randomized to hypofractionation were less bothered by side effects of treatment at 6 months relative to their counterparts who received conventional fractionation,” Dr. Punglia said.

Treatment breaks were more common in the conventional fractionation arm (7.7%, mean = 3.3 days) vs. the hypofractionation arm (2.7%, mean = 2.8 days, P = .03).

Among 51 patients who took unpaid time off work, those who underwent hypofractionation took fewer mean days off (73.7 days vs. 125.8 days for conventional fractionation, P = .046).

The study is the first of its kind to compare conventional fractionation to hypofractionation in this population in a randomized, phase III study, Dr. Punglia said.

At the news briefing, an independent expert – Lori Pierce, MD, a professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan – said the new study is a “game changer.”

The findings about the benefits of hypofractionation “will potentially impact thousands of women,” said Dr. Pierce, former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The shorter course of radiation is more convenient for patients, she said, and reduces hardship.

“Without a doubt, these results should be discussed with all patients who have had mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction,” she said.

In an interview, Bruce G. Haffty, MD, MS, professor and chair of Radiation Oncology at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, said the study adds to existing data suggesting that shorter courses of therapy “are probably OK.” The new findings “give people a little more confidence that [short courses are] safe in terms of well-being and toxicity.”

However, the follow-up in the trial is relatively short, he said, and longer-term research will be needed to change the standard of care in these patients. “It’ll be an evolving story over the next 5-10 years,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Punglia has no disclosures; disclosures for other authors were not provided. Disclosure information for Dr. Pierce was not provided. Dr. Haffty is an investigator in a similar study called RT CHARM.

SAN DIEGO – Women with breast cancer who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction benefited from shorter bursts of higher-dose radiation, compared with the standard therapy, according to a new prospective, randomized study.

Side effects and physical well-being scores were similar among 400 women who received the two treatment regimens, and outcomes were similar or slightly better in the higher-dose group, reported Rinaa Punglia, MD, MPH, an associate professor of radiation oncology at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center in Boston and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In a press statement, Dr. Punglia noted that the outcomes weren’t as impressive as researchers had hoped, but it’s positive that higher doses didn’t cause more side effects.

The use of the higher-dose approach, known as hypofractionation, “resulted in fewer treatment breaks and less financial toxicity” vs. conventional fractionation, Dr. Punglia said at a news briefing. The findings of the FABREC study “support the use of hypofractionated postmastectomy radiation for patients with basic reconstruction.”

According to Dr. Punglia, “postmastectomy radiation therapy is indicated for almost one-third of mastectomy patients and improves the lives of patients who are at an elevated risk for recurrence.” However, “the addition of radiation therapy greatly increases the risk of reconstruction complications.”

The typical radiation treatment period is 5-6 weeks in these patients, a major hardship for patients that can take them away from their families for extended periods of time. The researchers sought to understand whether another approach – hypofractionation over 3-4 weeks – is a better option. The strategy is widely used after breast-conserving surgery, she said, and has been linked to similar cancer outcomes, improved quality of life, and improved breast appearance.

From 2018 to 2021, the researchers recruited 400 patients with stage 0-III breast cancer who were treated with mastectomy and immediately underwent implant-based reconstruction (median age = 47.0, 23-79). None had tumors growing into the chest wall or skin.

The patients, spread nationwide across 16 institutions, were randomized to receive conventional fractionation (n = 201, 25 fractions, 5 days a week for 5 weeks of 200 cGy) or hypofractionation (n=199, 16 fractions, 5 days a week, for about 3 weeks of 266 cGy).

The researchers tracked 385 patients over a median follow-up of 40.4 months. There was no statistically significant difference in distant recurrence (12 in conventional fractionation arm, 11 in hypofractionation arm), death (2 in each arm), local recurrence (1 in each arm), or toxicity in the chest wall area (20 in conventional fractionation arm, 19 in hypofractionation arm). Changes in physical well-being scores, the primary endpoint, were similar after controlling for age.

“We found that younger patients randomized to hypofractionation were less bothered by side effects of treatment at 6 months relative to their counterparts who received conventional fractionation,” Dr. Punglia said.

Treatment breaks were more common in the conventional fractionation arm (7.7%, mean = 3.3 days) vs. the hypofractionation arm (2.7%, mean = 2.8 days, P = .03).

Among 51 patients who took unpaid time off work, those who underwent hypofractionation took fewer mean days off (73.7 days vs. 125.8 days for conventional fractionation, P = .046).

The study is the first of its kind to compare conventional fractionation to hypofractionation in this population in a randomized, phase III study, Dr. Punglia said.

At the news briefing, an independent expert – Lori Pierce, MD, a professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan – said the new study is a “game changer.”

The findings about the benefits of hypofractionation “will potentially impact thousands of women,” said Dr. Pierce, former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The shorter course of radiation is more convenient for patients, she said, and reduces hardship.

“Without a doubt, these results should be discussed with all patients who have had mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction,” she said.

In an interview, Bruce G. Haffty, MD, MS, professor and chair of Radiation Oncology at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, said the study adds to existing data suggesting that shorter courses of therapy “are probably OK.” The new findings “give people a little more confidence that [short courses are] safe in terms of well-being and toxicity.”

However, the follow-up in the trial is relatively short, he said, and longer-term research will be needed to change the standard of care in these patients. “It’ll be an evolving story over the next 5-10 years,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Punglia has no disclosures; disclosures for other authors were not provided. Disclosure information for Dr. Pierce was not provided. Dr. Haffty is an investigator in a similar study called RT CHARM.

SAN DIEGO – Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) appeared to delay the need for changes in systemic therapy in postmenopausal patients with oligoprogressive luminal ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, according to a new phase 2 study.

In the AVATAR trial, patients with one to five metastatic lesions who’d been treated with cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors for at least 6 months underwent SABR. Of those, 47% had event-free survival of more than 6 months, an unexpectedly high figure, reported radiation oncologist Steven David, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“We found surprisingly that SABR delayed a change in therapy by 10 months, which is great for patients. Also, one in three patients had a second round of SABR,” said Dr. David in an interview. “This trial provides the first prospective evidence to delay a change in therapy in this population, and this strategy is ready to go now.”

According to Dr. David, oligoprogressive luminal, ER-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer cannot be cured. However, patients can live more than 10 years in some cases, and an early treatment – CDK 4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors – is well tolerated. “Patients can lead a normal life and avoid chemo” as long as those medications keep working.

The goal of the study was to determine if SABR is helpful in these patients. The treatment, which produces highly focused radiation, “has very few side effects and does a great job in eliminating progressing metastases,” Dr. David said.

For the study, researchers recruited 32 subjects at 13 Australian sites. Participants could not have had leptomeningeal disease, previous chemotherapy for metastatic disease, or prior radiotherapy to an oligoprogressing lesion. Most metastases were to bone (n = 44, 71%), node (systemic, n = 8; 13%) and lung (n = 4; 6%).

The patients were treated with SABR, most commonly 24 Gy (n = 25; 43%) and 20 Gy (n = 10; 17%); half had one lesion treated (50%), and 25% had two lesions treated.

The median follow-up was 15.8 months. The median event-free survival was 5.2 months (95% confidence interval, 3.1-9.4 months), with events defined as progression within 6 months or in at least three lesions. Fifteen patients (47%) reached event-free survival of 6 or more months.

Elysia Donovan, MD, MSc, a radiation oncologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview that the new study is thoughtfully designed, although it’s not definitive. “At this point we still do not know the optimal treatment regimen for oligoprogressive breast cancer. The findings of this trial are promising and exciting. However, further randomized trials are required before routine implementation in clinical practice. For now, patients should be considered in a case by case basis with multidisciplinary discussion to determine the optimal systemic therapy regimen at oligoprogression and whether SABR may provide benefit.”

Median modified progression-free survival was 10.4 months, and median progression-free survival was 5.2 months; 31% of patients received SABR for further oligoprogression, and 46% patients remained on CDK4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors for 12 months. Overall survival was 100%.

A total of 14 patients had grade 1 adverse events, 2 had grade 2 events, and none had grade 3 or higher events; 47% had no treatment-related toxicity.

The strategy “potentially has a place in other cancer types and other breast cancer types,” Dr. David said.

In an interview, Katarzyna Jerzak, MD, MSc, a medical oncologist with Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center in Toronto, said the findings are promising, although the study is small and the patients are similar. Toxicity was limited, and a 12-month delay in a switch to therapy – reached by 46% – “is very meaningful for patients.” She added that “the positive results should serve as motivation to investigate the strategy further.”

Dr. David said a larger trial called AVATAR 2 is funded and in the works. It will have more patients and more breast cancer subtypes.

The study was funded by the Donald Ratcliffe and Phyllis McLeod Trust. Dr. David disclosed grant/research funding from Roche Genentech, and other authors reported various disclosures including relationships with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Jerzak disclosed speaker/advisor board/consultant relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Apobiologix, Eli Lilly, Esai, Genomic Health, Gilead, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, and Novartis and research funding from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Seagen. Dr. Donovan disclosed a Bright Foundation grant for a prospective trial of SABR for oligoprogressive breast cancer.

SAN DIEGO – Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) appeared to delay the need for changes in systemic therapy in postmenopausal patients with oligoprogressive luminal ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, according to a new phase 2 study.

In the AVATAR trial, patients with one to five metastatic lesions who’d been treated with cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors for at least 6 months underwent SABR. Of those, 47% had event-free survival of more than 6 months, an unexpectedly high figure, reported radiation oncologist Steven David, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“We found surprisingly that SABR delayed a change in therapy by 10 months, which is great for patients. Also, one in three patients had a second round of SABR,” said Dr. David in an interview. “This trial provides the first prospective evidence to delay a change in therapy in this population, and this strategy is ready to go now.”

According to Dr. David, oligoprogressive luminal, ER-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer cannot be cured. However, patients can live more than 10 years in some cases, and an early treatment – CDK 4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors – is well tolerated. “Patients can lead a normal life and avoid chemo” as long as those medications keep working.

The goal of the study was to determine if SABR is helpful in these patients. The treatment, which produces highly focused radiation, “has very few side effects and does a great job in eliminating progressing metastases,” Dr. David said.

For the study, researchers recruited 32 subjects at 13 Australian sites. Participants could not have had leptomeningeal disease, previous chemotherapy for metastatic disease, or prior radiotherapy to an oligoprogressing lesion. Most metastases were to bone (n = 44, 71%), node (systemic, n = 8; 13%) and lung (n = 4; 6%).

The patients were treated with SABR, most commonly 24 Gy (n = 25; 43%) and 20 Gy (n = 10; 17%); half had one lesion treated (50%), and 25% had two lesions treated.

The median follow-up was 15.8 months. The median event-free survival was 5.2 months (95% confidence interval, 3.1-9.4 months), with events defined as progression within 6 months or in at least three lesions. Fifteen patients (47%) reached event-free survival of 6 or more months.

Elysia Donovan, MD, MSc, a radiation oncologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview that the new study is thoughtfully designed, although it’s not definitive. “At this point we still do not know the optimal treatment regimen for oligoprogressive breast cancer. The findings of this trial are promising and exciting. However, further randomized trials are required before routine implementation in clinical practice. For now, patients should be considered in a case by case basis with multidisciplinary discussion to determine the optimal systemic therapy regimen at oligoprogression and whether SABR may provide benefit.”

Median modified progression-free survival was 10.4 months, and median progression-free survival was 5.2 months; 31% of patients received SABR for further oligoprogression, and 46% patients remained on CDK4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors for 12 months. Overall survival was 100%.

A total of 14 patients had grade 1 adverse events, 2 had grade 2 events, and none had grade 3 or higher events; 47% had no treatment-related toxicity.

The strategy “potentially has a place in other cancer types and other breast cancer types,” Dr. David said.

In an interview, Katarzyna Jerzak, MD, MSc, a medical oncologist with Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center in Toronto, said the findings are promising, although the study is small and the patients are similar. Toxicity was limited, and a 12-month delay in a switch to therapy – reached by 46% – “is very meaningful for patients.” She added that “the positive results should serve as motivation to investigate the strategy further.”

Dr. David said a larger trial called AVATAR 2 is funded and in the works. It will have more patients and more breast cancer subtypes.

The study was funded by the Donald Ratcliffe and Phyllis McLeod Trust. Dr. David disclosed grant/research funding from Roche Genentech, and other authors reported various disclosures including relationships with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Jerzak disclosed speaker/advisor board/consultant relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Apobiologix, Eli Lilly, Esai, Genomic Health, Gilead, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, and Novartis and research funding from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Seagen. Dr. Donovan disclosed a Bright Foundation grant for a prospective trial of SABR for oligoprogressive breast cancer.

SAN DIEGO – Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) appeared to delay the need for changes in systemic therapy in postmenopausal patients with oligoprogressive luminal ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, according to a new phase 2 study.

In the AVATAR trial, patients with one to five metastatic lesions who’d been treated with cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors for at least 6 months underwent SABR. Of those, 47% had event-free survival of more than 6 months, an unexpectedly high figure, reported radiation oncologist Steven David, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“We found surprisingly that SABR delayed a change in therapy by 10 months, which is great for patients. Also, one in three patients had a second round of SABR,” said Dr. David in an interview. “This trial provides the first prospective evidence to delay a change in therapy in this population, and this strategy is ready to go now.”

According to Dr. David, oligoprogressive luminal, ER-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer cannot be cured. However, patients can live more than 10 years in some cases, and an early treatment – CDK 4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors – is well tolerated. “Patients can lead a normal life and avoid chemo” as long as those medications keep working.

The goal of the study was to determine if SABR is helpful in these patients. The treatment, which produces highly focused radiation, “has very few side effects and does a great job in eliminating progressing metastases,” Dr. David said.

For the study, researchers recruited 32 subjects at 13 Australian sites. Participants could not have had leptomeningeal disease, previous chemotherapy for metastatic disease, or prior radiotherapy to an oligoprogressing lesion. Most metastases were to bone (n = 44, 71%), node (systemic, n = 8; 13%) and lung (n = 4; 6%).

The patients were treated with SABR, most commonly 24 Gy (n = 25; 43%) and 20 Gy (n = 10; 17%); half had one lesion treated (50%), and 25% had two lesions treated.

The median follow-up was 15.8 months. The median event-free survival was 5.2 months (95% confidence interval, 3.1-9.4 months), with events defined as progression within 6 months or in at least three lesions. Fifteen patients (47%) reached event-free survival of 6 or more months.

Elysia Donovan, MD, MSc, a radiation oncologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview that the new study is thoughtfully designed, although it’s not definitive. “At this point we still do not know the optimal treatment regimen for oligoprogressive breast cancer. The findings of this trial are promising and exciting. However, further randomized trials are required before routine implementation in clinical practice. For now, patients should be considered in a case by case basis with multidisciplinary discussion to determine the optimal systemic therapy regimen at oligoprogression and whether SABR may provide benefit.”

Median modified progression-free survival was 10.4 months, and median progression-free survival was 5.2 months; 31% of patients received SABR for further oligoprogression, and 46% patients remained on CDK4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors for 12 months. Overall survival was 100%.

A total of 14 patients had grade 1 adverse events, 2 had grade 2 events, and none had grade 3 or higher events; 47% had no treatment-related toxicity.

The strategy “potentially has a place in other cancer types and other breast cancer types,” Dr. David said.

In an interview, Katarzyna Jerzak, MD, MSc, a medical oncologist with Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center in Toronto, said the findings are promising, although the study is small and the patients are similar. Toxicity was limited, and a 12-month delay in a switch to therapy – reached by 46% – “is very meaningful for patients.” She added that “the positive results should serve as motivation to investigate the strategy further.”

Dr. David said a larger trial called AVATAR 2 is funded and in the works. It will have more patients and more breast cancer subtypes.

The study was funded by the Donald Ratcliffe and Phyllis McLeod Trust. Dr. David disclosed grant/research funding from Roche Genentech, and other authors reported various disclosures including relationships with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Jerzak disclosed speaker/advisor board/consultant relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Apobiologix, Eli Lilly, Esai, Genomic Health, Gilead, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, and Novartis and research funding from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Seagen. Dr. Donovan disclosed a Bright Foundation grant for a prospective trial of SABR for oligoprogressive breast cancer.