Breast Cancer ICYMI

Key clinical point: Nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel showed a superior pathological complete response (pCR) rate but similar disease-free survival (DFS) compared with docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Rate of pCR was significantly higher in the nab-paclitaxel vs. docetaxel group (36.71% vs. 20.00%; P = .031); however, DFS was not significantly different (P = .331). At least 1 drug-related adverse event was reported in 94.94% vs. 95.00% patients in the nab-paclitaxel vs. docetaxel group.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 159 patients with HER2-negative invasive BC who underwent surgery after receiving nab-paclitaxel (n = 79) or docetaxel (n = 80), both with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lv Z-D et al. Front Oncol. 2022 (Jan 11). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.760655.

Key clinical point: Nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel showed a superior pathological complete response (pCR) rate but similar disease-free survival (DFS) compared with docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Rate of pCR was significantly higher in the nab-paclitaxel vs. docetaxel group (36.71% vs. 20.00%; P = .031); however, DFS was not significantly different (P = .331). At least 1 drug-related adverse event was reported in 94.94% vs. 95.00% patients in the nab-paclitaxel vs. docetaxel group.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 159 patients with HER2-negative invasive BC who underwent surgery after receiving nab-paclitaxel (n = 79) or docetaxel (n = 80), both with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lv Z-D et al. Front Oncol. 2022 (Jan 11). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.760655.

Key clinical point: Nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel showed a superior pathological complete response (pCR) rate but similar disease-free survival (DFS) compared with docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Rate of pCR was significantly higher in the nab-paclitaxel vs. docetaxel group (36.71% vs. 20.00%; P = .031); however, DFS was not significantly different (P = .331). At least 1 drug-related adverse event was reported in 94.94% vs. 95.00% patients in the nab-paclitaxel vs. docetaxel group.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 159 patients with HER2-negative invasive BC who underwent surgery after receiving nab-paclitaxel (n = 79) or docetaxel (n = 80), both with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lv Z-D et al. Front Oncol. 2022 (Jan 11). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.760655.

Key clinical point: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low expression was significantly discordant between early and advanced stages of invasive breast cancer (BC), with the expression being enriched in the advanced stages.

Major finding: Significant discordance in HER2 expression between the primary tumor and matched biopsy samples was observed in the overall population (Cohen’s kappa coefficient (K) 0.33; 95% CI 0.21-0.44) and in subgroups of estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC (K 0.32; 95% CI 0.19-0.45) and triple-negative (TN) BC (K 0.18; 95% CI −0.09 to 0.46) with HER2-low expression being enriched in advanced-stage biopsies vs. primary tumors in the overall population (64% vs. 53%), ER+ BC (71% vs. 57%), and TNBC (38% vs. 36%).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 232 patients with HER2-negative invasive BC.

Disclosures: This study was partially funded by the Italian Ministry of Health with Ricerca Corrente. Some of the authors declared serving as an advisor and consultant or receiving honoraria from several sources.

Source: Tarantino P et al. Eur J Cancer. 2022;163:P35-43 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.12.022.

Key clinical point: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low expression was significantly discordant between early and advanced stages of invasive breast cancer (BC), with the expression being enriched in the advanced stages.

Major finding: Significant discordance in HER2 expression between the primary tumor and matched biopsy samples was observed in the overall population (Cohen’s kappa coefficient (K) 0.33; 95% CI 0.21-0.44) and in subgroups of estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC (K 0.32; 95% CI 0.19-0.45) and triple-negative (TN) BC (K 0.18; 95% CI −0.09 to 0.46) with HER2-low expression being enriched in advanced-stage biopsies vs. primary tumors in the overall population (64% vs. 53%), ER+ BC (71% vs. 57%), and TNBC (38% vs. 36%).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 232 patients with HER2-negative invasive BC.

Disclosures: This study was partially funded by the Italian Ministry of Health with Ricerca Corrente. Some of the authors declared serving as an advisor and consultant or receiving honoraria from several sources.

Source: Tarantino P et al. Eur J Cancer. 2022;163:P35-43 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.12.022.

Key clinical point: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low expression was significantly discordant between early and advanced stages of invasive breast cancer (BC), with the expression being enriched in the advanced stages.

Major finding: Significant discordance in HER2 expression between the primary tumor and matched biopsy samples was observed in the overall population (Cohen’s kappa coefficient (K) 0.33; 95% CI 0.21-0.44) and in subgroups of estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC (K 0.32; 95% CI 0.19-0.45) and triple-negative (TN) BC (K 0.18; 95% CI −0.09 to 0.46) with HER2-low expression being enriched in advanced-stage biopsies vs. primary tumors in the overall population (64% vs. 53%), ER+ BC (71% vs. 57%), and TNBC (38% vs. 36%).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 232 patients with HER2-negative invasive BC.

Disclosures: This study was partially funded by the Italian Ministry of Health with Ricerca Corrente. Some of the authors declared serving as an advisor and consultant or receiving honoraria from several sources.

Source: Tarantino P et al. Eur J Cancer. 2022;163:P35-43 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.12.022.

Key clinical point: A regimen consisting of docetaxel and capecitabine (TX) followed by cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and capecitabine (CEX) prolonged survival in patients with early breast cancer (BC) vs. a regimen containing of only docetaxel followed by cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil (T-CEF).

Major finding: Patients assigned to TX-CEX vs. T-CEF arms had significantly higher 15-year survival rate (77.6% vs. 73.3%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; log-rank P = .037) with patients in the triple-negative subgroup benefitting the most (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.36-0.97).

Study details: Findings are from the open-label, phase 3 FinXX study including 1,495 patients with axillary node-positive or high-risk node-negative early BC, who were randomly assigned to the TX-CEX or T-CEF arms.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Roche, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, the Cancer Society of Finland, and others. The authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or on the speaker’s bureau or receiving honoraria and research funding from several sources.

Source: Joensuu H et al. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jan 12). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02054.

Key clinical point: A regimen consisting of docetaxel and capecitabine (TX) followed by cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and capecitabine (CEX) prolonged survival in patients with early breast cancer (BC) vs. a regimen containing of only docetaxel followed by cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil (T-CEF).

Major finding: Patients assigned to TX-CEX vs. T-CEF arms had significantly higher 15-year survival rate (77.6% vs. 73.3%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; log-rank P = .037) with patients in the triple-negative subgroup benefitting the most (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.36-0.97).

Study details: Findings are from the open-label, phase 3 FinXX study including 1,495 patients with axillary node-positive or high-risk node-negative early BC, who were randomly assigned to the TX-CEX or T-CEF arms.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Roche, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, the Cancer Society of Finland, and others. The authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or on the speaker’s bureau or receiving honoraria and research funding from several sources.

Source: Joensuu H et al. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jan 12). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02054.

Key clinical point: A regimen consisting of docetaxel and capecitabine (TX) followed by cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and capecitabine (CEX) prolonged survival in patients with early breast cancer (BC) vs. a regimen containing of only docetaxel followed by cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil (T-CEF).

Major finding: Patients assigned to TX-CEX vs. T-CEF arms had significantly higher 15-year survival rate (77.6% vs. 73.3%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; log-rank P = .037) with patients in the triple-negative subgroup benefitting the most (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.36-0.97).

Study details: Findings are from the open-label, phase 3 FinXX study including 1,495 patients with axillary node-positive or high-risk node-negative early BC, who were randomly assigned to the TX-CEX or T-CEF arms.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Roche, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, the Cancer Society of Finland, and others. The authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or on the speaker’s bureau or receiving honoraria and research funding from several sources.

Source: Joensuu H et al. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jan 12). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02054.

Key clinical point: Fosnetupitant showed a favorable safety profile with a low risk of causing injection-site reactions in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC/EC).

Major finding: Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were reported by 21.2% vs. 22.0% of patients in fosnetupitant vs. fosaprepitant group with adverse events relevant to injection site reactions observed in 5.8% vs. 26.0% of patients in fosnetupitant vs. fosaprepitant groups. Grade 3 or higher TRAEs occurred in 9.6% vs. 0% patients in fosnetupitant vs. fosaprepitant groups, with none leading to death or treatment discontinuation.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 3 study including 102 patients with breast cancer receiving AC/EC chemotherapy who were randomly assigned to receive fosnetupitant or fosaprepitant, both in combination with intravenous palonosetron and dexamethasone.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Taiho Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd. The authors declared receiving grants, consulting fees, payments, honoraria, travel support, or contracts from several sources including Taiho Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd.

Source: Matsuura K et al. Cancer. 2022 (Jan 19). Doi: 10.1002/cncr.34088.

Key clinical point: Fosnetupitant showed a favorable safety profile with a low risk of causing injection-site reactions in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC/EC).

Major finding: Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were reported by 21.2% vs. 22.0% of patients in fosnetupitant vs. fosaprepitant group with adverse events relevant to injection site reactions observed in 5.8% vs. 26.0% of patients in fosnetupitant vs. fosaprepitant groups. Grade 3 or higher TRAEs occurred in 9.6% vs. 0% patients in fosnetupitant vs. fosaprepitant groups, with none leading to death or treatment discontinuation.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 3 study including 102 patients with breast cancer receiving AC/EC chemotherapy who were randomly assigned to receive fosnetupitant or fosaprepitant, both in combination with intravenous palonosetron and dexamethasone.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Taiho Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd. The authors declared receiving grants, consulting fees, payments, honoraria, travel support, or contracts from several sources including Taiho Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd.

Source: Matsuura K et al. Cancer. 2022 (Jan 19). Doi: 10.1002/cncr.34088.

Key clinical point: Fosnetupitant showed a favorable safety profile with a low risk of causing injection-site reactions in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC/EC).

Major finding: Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were reported by 21.2% vs. 22.0% of patients in fosnetupitant vs. fosaprepitant group with adverse events relevant to injection site reactions observed in 5.8% vs. 26.0% of patients in fosnetupitant vs. fosaprepitant groups. Grade 3 or higher TRAEs occurred in 9.6% vs. 0% patients in fosnetupitant vs. fosaprepitant groups, with none leading to death or treatment discontinuation.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 3 study including 102 patients with breast cancer receiving AC/EC chemotherapy who were randomly assigned to receive fosnetupitant or fosaprepitant, both in combination with intravenous palonosetron and dexamethasone.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Taiho Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd. The authors declared receiving grants, consulting fees, payments, honoraria, travel support, or contracts from several sources including Taiho Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd.

Source: Matsuura K et al. Cancer. 2022 (Jan 19). Doi: 10.1002/cncr.34088.

Key clinical point: Aromatase inhibitor vs. tamoxifen reduced the risk for breast cancer (BC) recurrence in premenopausal women with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC receiving ovarian suppression.

Major finding: Aromatase inhibitor vs. tamoxifen was associated with significantly reduced rates of BC recurrence during the first 4 years of follow-up (risk ratio [RR] 0.68; P < .0001) and distant recurrence (RR 0.83; P = .018). No significant differences in breast cancer mortality, death without recurrence, or all-cause mortality were observed between the treatment groups.

Study details: Findings are a meta-analysis of 4 phase 3 trials (ABCSG-XII, TEXT, SOFT, and HOBOE) including 7,030 premenopausal women with ER+ BC who were randomly assigned to aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole, exemestane, or letrozole) or tamoxifen for 3 or 5 years, all in combination with ovarian suppression or ablation.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Cancer Research UK and UK Medical Research Council. The authors declared serving as leaders and fiduciaries or receiving grants, consulting fees, travel support, or honoraria from several sources.

Source: Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Lancet Oncol. 2022 (Feb 3). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00758-0.

Key clinical point: Aromatase inhibitor vs. tamoxifen reduced the risk for breast cancer (BC) recurrence in premenopausal women with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC receiving ovarian suppression.

Major finding: Aromatase inhibitor vs. tamoxifen was associated with significantly reduced rates of BC recurrence during the first 4 years of follow-up (risk ratio [RR] 0.68; P < .0001) and distant recurrence (RR 0.83; P = .018). No significant differences in breast cancer mortality, death without recurrence, or all-cause mortality were observed between the treatment groups.

Study details: Findings are a meta-analysis of 4 phase 3 trials (ABCSG-XII, TEXT, SOFT, and HOBOE) including 7,030 premenopausal women with ER+ BC who were randomly assigned to aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole, exemestane, or letrozole) or tamoxifen for 3 or 5 years, all in combination with ovarian suppression or ablation.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Cancer Research UK and UK Medical Research Council. The authors declared serving as leaders and fiduciaries or receiving grants, consulting fees, travel support, or honoraria from several sources.

Source: Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Lancet Oncol. 2022 (Feb 3). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00758-0.

Key clinical point: Aromatase inhibitor vs. tamoxifen reduced the risk for breast cancer (BC) recurrence in premenopausal women with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC receiving ovarian suppression.

Major finding: Aromatase inhibitor vs. tamoxifen was associated with significantly reduced rates of BC recurrence during the first 4 years of follow-up (risk ratio [RR] 0.68; P < .0001) and distant recurrence (RR 0.83; P = .018). No significant differences in breast cancer mortality, death without recurrence, or all-cause mortality were observed between the treatment groups.

Study details: Findings are a meta-analysis of 4 phase 3 trials (ABCSG-XII, TEXT, SOFT, and HOBOE) including 7,030 premenopausal women with ER+ BC who were randomly assigned to aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole, exemestane, or letrozole) or tamoxifen for 3 or 5 years, all in combination with ovarian suppression or ablation.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Cancer Research UK and UK Medical Research Council. The authors declared serving as leaders and fiduciaries or receiving grants, consulting fees, travel support, or honoraria from several sources.

Source: Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Lancet Oncol. 2022 (Feb 3). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00758-0.

Key clinical point: Protein-truncating variants (PTV) of 9 breast cancer (BC) risk genes showed substantial differences in tumor pathology and were generally associated with triple-negative (TN) or high-grade disease.

Major finding: BRCA1 showed the highest association for TN disease (odds ratio [OR] 55.32; 95% CI 40.51-75.55) and ATM variants for the hormone receptor-positive (HR+) erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2-negative (ERBB2−) high-grade subtype (OR 4.99; 95% CI 3.68-6.76). RAD51C (OR 6.19; 95% CI 3.17-12.12), RAD51D (OR 6.19; 95% CI 2.99-12.79), and BARD1 (OR 10.05; 95% CI 5.27-19.19) were most strongly associated with TN disease. PALB2 PTVs showed higher ORs for HR+ERBB2− high-grade subtype (OR 9.43; 95% CI 6.24- 14.25) and TN disease (OR 8.05; 95% CI 5.17-12.53).

Study details: This was a case-control analysis of the BRIDGES study including 42,680 patients with BC who were matched with 46,387 healthy controls.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, Wellcome Trust, and several other sources. The authors declared receiving grants, honorariums, personal fees, or awards from several sources.

Source: Breast Cancer Association Consortium. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Jan 27). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6744.

Key clinical point: Protein-truncating variants (PTV) of 9 breast cancer (BC) risk genes showed substantial differences in tumor pathology and were generally associated with triple-negative (TN) or high-grade disease.

Major finding: BRCA1 showed the highest association for TN disease (odds ratio [OR] 55.32; 95% CI 40.51-75.55) and ATM variants for the hormone receptor-positive (HR+) erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2-negative (ERBB2−) high-grade subtype (OR 4.99; 95% CI 3.68-6.76). RAD51C (OR 6.19; 95% CI 3.17-12.12), RAD51D (OR 6.19; 95% CI 2.99-12.79), and BARD1 (OR 10.05; 95% CI 5.27-19.19) were most strongly associated with TN disease. PALB2 PTVs showed higher ORs for HR+ERBB2− high-grade subtype (OR 9.43; 95% CI 6.24- 14.25) and TN disease (OR 8.05; 95% CI 5.17-12.53).

Study details: This was a case-control analysis of the BRIDGES study including 42,680 patients with BC who were matched with 46,387 healthy controls.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, Wellcome Trust, and several other sources. The authors declared receiving grants, honorariums, personal fees, or awards from several sources.

Source: Breast Cancer Association Consortium. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Jan 27). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6744.

Key clinical point: Protein-truncating variants (PTV) of 9 breast cancer (BC) risk genes showed substantial differences in tumor pathology and were generally associated with triple-negative (TN) or high-grade disease.

Major finding: BRCA1 showed the highest association for TN disease (odds ratio [OR] 55.32; 95% CI 40.51-75.55) and ATM variants for the hormone receptor-positive (HR+) erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2-negative (ERBB2−) high-grade subtype (OR 4.99; 95% CI 3.68-6.76). RAD51C (OR 6.19; 95% CI 3.17-12.12), RAD51D (OR 6.19; 95% CI 2.99-12.79), and BARD1 (OR 10.05; 95% CI 5.27-19.19) were most strongly associated with TN disease. PALB2 PTVs showed higher ORs for HR+ERBB2− high-grade subtype (OR 9.43; 95% CI 6.24- 14.25) and TN disease (OR 8.05; 95% CI 5.17-12.53).

Study details: This was a case-control analysis of the BRIDGES study including 42,680 patients with BC who were matched with 46,387 healthy controls.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, Wellcome Trust, and several other sources. The authors declared receiving grants, honorariums, personal fees, or awards from several sources.

Source: Breast Cancer Association Consortium. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Jan 27). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6744.

Key clinical point: A regimen consisting of docetaxel and capecitabine (TX) followed by cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and capecitabine (CEX) vs. only docetaxel followed by cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil (T-CEF) prolonged recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with non- BRCA1-like early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: Overall, patients assigned to TX-CEX vs. T-CEF arms had higher RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39; P = .01), with the capecitabine-containing chemotherapy being significantly more effective than conventional chemotherapy in patients with non-BRCA1-like tumor (HR 0.23; P < .01) but not in patients with BRCA1-like tumor (HR 0.66; P = .42).

Study details: Findings are from the open-label, phase 3 FinXX study including 202 patients with early TNBC who were randomly assigned to TX-CEX or T-CEF arms.  BRCA1-like status was obtained for 129 patients.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society. The authors declared serving as board members and employees or receiving fees, grants, nonfinancial, and research support from several sources.

Source: de Boo LW et al. Br J Cancer. 2022 (Feb 5). Doi: 10.1038/s41416-022-01711-y.

Key clinical point: A regimen consisting of docetaxel and capecitabine (TX) followed by cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and capecitabine (CEX) vs. only docetaxel followed by cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil (T-CEF) prolonged recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with non- BRCA1-like early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: Overall, patients assigned to TX-CEX vs. T-CEF arms had higher RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39; P = .01), with the capecitabine-containing chemotherapy being significantly more effective than conventional chemotherapy in patients with non-BRCA1-like tumor (HR 0.23; P < .01) but not in patients with BRCA1-like tumor (HR 0.66; P = .42).

Study details: Findings are from the open-label, phase 3 FinXX study including 202 patients with early TNBC who were randomly assigned to TX-CEX or T-CEF arms.  BRCA1-like status was obtained for 129 patients.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society. The authors declared serving as board members and employees or receiving fees, grants, nonfinancial, and research support from several sources.

Source: de Boo LW et al. Br J Cancer. 2022 (Feb 5). Doi: 10.1038/s41416-022-01711-y.

Key clinical point: A regimen consisting of docetaxel and capecitabine (TX) followed by cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and capecitabine (CEX) vs. only docetaxel followed by cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil (T-CEF) prolonged recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with non- BRCA1-like early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: Overall, patients assigned to TX-CEX vs. T-CEF arms had higher RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39; P = .01), with the capecitabine-containing chemotherapy being significantly more effective than conventional chemotherapy in patients with non-BRCA1-like tumor (HR 0.23; P < .01) but not in patients with BRCA1-like tumor (HR 0.66; P = .42).

Study details: Findings are from the open-label, phase 3 FinXX study including 202 patients with early TNBC who were randomly assigned to TX-CEX or T-CEF arms.  BRCA1-like status was obtained for 129 patients.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society. The authors declared serving as board members and employees or receiving fees, grants, nonfinancial, and research support from several sources.

Source: de Boo LW et al. Br J Cancer. 2022 (Feb 5). Doi: 10.1038/s41416-022-01711-y.

Key clinical point: Adding carboplatin to neoadjuvant paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide improved long-term event-free survival (EFS) along with a manageable safety profile in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: Patients receiving carboplatin+veliparib+paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel showed significant improvements in EFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63; P = .02), whereas EFS was not significntly different among patients assigned to carboplatin+veliparib+paclitaxel vs. carboplatin+paclitaxel (HR 1.12; P = .62). Rates of treatment-emergent and post-treatment-emergent adverse events and secondary malignancies were similar across treatment groups.

Study details: Findings are based on the 4.5-year follow-up data from the phase 3 BrighTNess trial including 634 patients with stage II-III TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin+veliparib, carboplatin+veliparib placebo, or carboplatin placebo+veliparib placebo, all in combination with paclitaxel.

Disclosures: This study was supported by AbbVie. Some authors declared serving on the advisory board and speaker’s bureau or receiving travel funds, writing support, honoraria, research funds, and consulting fees from several sources including AbbVie. D Maag declared being an employee or stockholder of AbbVie.

Source: Geyer CE Jr et al. Ann Oncol. 2022 (Jan 27). Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.01.009.

Key clinical point: Adding carboplatin to neoadjuvant paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide improved long-term event-free survival (EFS) along with a manageable safety profile in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: Patients receiving carboplatin+veliparib+paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel showed significant improvements in EFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63; P = .02), whereas EFS was not significntly different among patients assigned to carboplatin+veliparib+paclitaxel vs. carboplatin+paclitaxel (HR 1.12; P = .62). Rates of treatment-emergent and post-treatment-emergent adverse events and secondary malignancies were similar across treatment groups.

Study details: Findings are based on the 4.5-year follow-up data from the phase 3 BrighTNess trial including 634 patients with stage II-III TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin+veliparib, carboplatin+veliparib placebo, or carboplatin placebo+veliparib placebo, all in combination with paclitaxel.

Disclosures: This study was supported by AbbVie. Some authors declared serving on the advisory board and speaker’s bureau or receiving travel funds, writing support, honoraria, research funds, and consulting fees from several sources including AbbVie. D Maag declared being an employee or stockholder of AbbVie.

Source: Geyer CE Jr et al. Ann Oncol. 2022 (Jan 27). Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.01.009.

Key clinical point: Adding carboplatin to neoadjuvant paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide improved long-term event-free survival (EFS) along with a manageable safety profile in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: Patients receiving carboplatin+veliparib+paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel showed significant improvements in EFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63; P = .02), whereas EFS was not significntly different among patients assigned to carboplatin+veliparib+paclitaxel vs. carboplatin+paclitaxel (HR 1.12; P = .62). Rates of treatment-emergent and post-treatment-emergent adverse events and secondary malignancies were similar across treatment groups.

Study details: Findings are based on the 4.5-year follow-up data from the phase 3 BrighTNess trial including 634 patients with stage II-III TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin+veliparib, carboplatin+veliparib placebo, or carboplatin placebo+veliparib placebo, all in combination with paclitaxel.

Disclosures: This study was supported by AbbVie. Some authors declared serving on the advisory board and speaker’s bureau or receiving travel funds, writing support, honoraria, research funds, and consulting fees from several sources including AbbVie. D Maag declared being an employee or stockholder of AbbVie.

Source: Geyer CE Jr et al. Ann Oncol. 2022 (Jan 27). Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.01.009.

Key clinical point: Pyrotinib+capecitabine showed intracranial objective response and was well tolerated in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (BC) and brain metastases in the PERMEATE phase 2 study.

Major finding: The intracranial objective response rate was 74.6% (95% CI 61.6%-85.0%) in radiotherapy-naive patients and 42.1% (95% CI 20.3%-66.5%) in patients with progressive disease after whole-brain radiotherapy. Common grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhea and decreased white blood cell count. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are from the single-arm, phase 2 PERMEATE study including 78 patients with HER2+ BC and brain metastases who were either radiotherapy-naive or had progressive disease after radiotherapy. Patients received 400 mg pyrotinib once daily and 1000 mg/m² capecitabine twice daily for 14 days, followed by 7 days off during each 21-day cycle.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Cancer Centre Climbing Foundation Key Project of China and Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Yan M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2022 (Jan 24). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00716-6.

Key clinical point: Pyrotinib+capecitabine showed intracranial objective response and was well tolerated in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (BC) and brain metastases in the PERMEATE phase 2 study.

Major finding: The intracranial objective response rate was 74.6% (95% CI 61.6%-85.0%) in radiotherapy-naive patients and 42.1% (95% CI 20.3%-66.5%) in patients with progressive disease after whole-brain radiotherapy. Common grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhea and decreased white blood cell count. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are from the single-arm, phase 2 PERMEATE study including 78 patients with HER2+ BC and brain metastases who were either radiotherapy-naive or had progressive disease after radiotherapy. Patients received 400 mg pyrotinib once daily and 1000 mg/m² capecitabine twice daily for 14 days, followed by 7 days off during each 21-day cycle.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Cancer Centre Climbing Foundation Key Project of China and Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Yan M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2022 (Jan 24). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00716-6.

Key clinical point: Pyrotinib+capecitabine showed intracranial objective response and was well tolerated in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (BC) and brain metastases in the PERMEATE phase 2 study.

Major finding: The intracranial objective response rate was 74.6% (95% CI 61.6%-85.0%) in radiotherapy-naive patients and 42.1% (95% CI 20.3%-66.5%) in patients with progressive disease after whole-brain radiotherapy. Common grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhea and decreased white blood cell count. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are from the single-arm, phase 2 PERMEATE study including 78 patients with HER2+ BC and brain metastases who were either radiotherapy-naive or had progressive disease after radiotherapy. Patients received 400 mg pyrotinib once daily and 1000 mg/m² capecitabine twice daily for 14 days, followed by 7 days off during each 21-day cycle.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Cancer Centre Climbing Foundation Key Project of China and Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Yan M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2022 (Jan 24). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00716-6.

The majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption causes a variety of cancers and especially do not consider wine and beer to have a link with cancer, suggest the results from a national survey.

coldsnowstorm/iStock / Getty Images Plus

“Alcohol is a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, yet most Americans are unaware that alcohol increases cancer risk,” write lead author Andrew Seidenberg, PhD, MPH, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., and colleagues.

“Increasing awareness of the alcohol-cancer link, such as through multimedia campaigns and patient-provider communication, may be an important new strategy for health advocates working to implement preventive alcohol policies,” they add.

The findings were published in the February issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

“This is the first study to examine the relationship between alcohol control policy support and awareness of the alcohol-cancer link among a national U.S. sample,” the authors write.

The results show that there is some public support for the idea of adding written warnings about the alcohol-cancer risk to alcoholic beverages, which is something that a number of cancer organizations have been petitioning for.

A petition filed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations, proposes labeling that would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Such labeling has “the potential to save lives by ensuring that consumers have a more accurate understanding of the link between alcohol and cancer, which will empower them to better protect their health,” the groups said in the petition.
 

Public support

The findings come from an analysis of the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 4. A total of 3,865 adults participated in the survey, approximately half of whom were nondrinkers.

As well as investigating how aware people were of the alcohol-cancer link, the investigators looked at how prevalent public support might be for the following three communication-focused alcohol policies:

• Banning outdoor alcohol-related advertising
• Requiring health warnings on alcohol beverage containers
• Requiring recommended drinking guidelines on alcoholic beverage containers

“Awareness of the alcohol-cancer link was measured separately for wine, beer, and liquor by asking: In your opinion, how much does drinking the following types of alcohol affect the risk of getting cancer?” the authors explain.

“Awareness of the alcohol-cancer link was low,” the investigators comment; only about one-third (31.8%) of participants were aware that alcohol increases the risk of cancer. The figures were even lower for individual beverage type, at 20.3% for wine, 24.9% for beer, and 31.2% for liquor. Furthermore, approximately half of participants responded with “don’t know” to the three awareness items, investigators noted.

On the other hand, more than half of the Americans surveyed supported adding both health warning labels (65.1%) and information on recommended drinking guidelines (63.9%) to alcoholic beverage containers. Support was lower (34.4% of respondents) for banning outdoor alcohol advertising.

Among Americans who were aware that alcohol increased cancer risk, support was also higher for all three policies.

For example, about 75% of respondents who were aware that alcohol increases cancer risk supported adding health warnings and drinking guidelines to beverage containers, compared with about half of Americans who felt that alcohol consumption had either no effect on or decreased cancer risk.

Even among those who were aware of the alcohol-cancer link, public support for outdoor advertising was not high (37.8%), but it was even lower (23.6%) among respondents who felt alcohol had no effect on or decreased the risk of cancer.

“Policy support was highest among nondrinkers, followed by drinkers, and was lowest among heavier drinkers,” the authors report.

For example, almost 43% of nondrinkers supported restrictions on outdoor alcohol advertising, compared with only about 28.6% of drinkers and 22% of heavier drinkers. More respondents supported adding health warning labels on alcoholic beverages – 70% of nondrinkers, 65% of drinkers, and 57% of heavier drinkers, investigators observe.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption causes a variety of cancers and especially do not consider wine and beer to have a link with cancer, suggest the results from a national survey.

coldsnowstorm/iStock / Getty Images Plus

“Alcohol is a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, yet most Americans are unaware that alcohol increases cancer risk,” write lead author Andrew Seidenberg, PhD, MPH, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., and colleagues.

“Increasing awareness of the alcohol-cancer link, such as through multimedia campaigns and patient-provider communication, may be an important new strategy for health advocates working to implement preventive alcohol policies,” they add.

The findings were published in the February issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

“This is the first study to examine the relationship between alcohol control policy support and awareness of the alcohol-cancer link among a national U.S. sample,” the authors write.

The results show that there is some public support for the idea of adding written warnings about the alcohol-cancer risk to alcoholic beverages, which is something that a number of cancer organizations have been petitioning for.

A petition filed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations, proposes labeling that would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Such labeling has “the potential to save lives by ensuring that consumers have a more accurate understanding of the link between alcohol and cancer, which will empower them to better protect their health,” the groups said in the petition.
 

Public support

The findings come from an analysis of the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 4. A total of 3,865 adults participated in the survey, approximately half of whom were nondrinkers.

As well as investigating how aware people were of the alcohol-cancer link, the investigators looked at how prevalent public support might be for the following three communication-focused alcohol policies:

• Banning outdoor alcohol-related advertising
• Requiring health warnings on alcohol beverage containers
• Requiring recommended drinking guidelines on alcoholic beverage containers

“Awareness of the alcohol-cancer link was measured separately for wine, beer, and liquor by asking: In your opinion, how much does drinking the following types of alcohol affect the risk of getting cancer?” the authors explain.

“Awareness of the alcohol-cancer link was low,” the investigators comment; only about one-third (31.8%) of participants were aware that alcohol increases the risk of cancer. The figures were even lower for individual beverage type, at 20.3% for wine, 24.9% for beer, and 31.2% for liquor. Furthermore, approximately half of participants responded with “don’t know” to the three awareness items, investigators noted.

On the other hand, more than half of the Americans surveyed supported adding both health warning labels (65.1%) and information on recommended drinking guidelines (63.9%) to alcoholic beverage containers. Support was lower (34.4% of respondents) for banning outdoor alcohol advertising.

Among Americans who were aware that alcohol increased cancer risk, support was also higher for all three policies.

For example, about 75% of respondents who were aware that alcohol increases cancer risk supported adding health warnings and drinking guidelines to beverage containers, compared with about half of Americans who felt that alcohol consumption had either no effect on or decreased cancer risk.

Even among those who were aware of the alcohol-cancer link, public support for outdoor advertising was not high (37.8%), but it was even lower (23.6%) among respondents who felt alcohol had no effect on or decreased the risk of cancer.

“Policy support was highest among nondrinkers, followed by drinkers, and was lowest among heavier drinkers,” the authors report.

For example, almost 43% of nondrinkers supported restrictions on outdoor alcohol advertising, compared with only about 28.6% of drinkers and 22% of heavier drinkers. More respondents supported adding health warning labels on alcoholic beverages – 70% of nondrinkers, 65% of drinkers, and 57% of heavier drinkers, investigators observe.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption causes a variety of cancers and especially do not consider wine and beer to have a link with cancer, suggest the results from a national survey.

coldsnowstorm/iStock / Getty Images Plus

“Alcohol is a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, yet most Americans are unaware that alcohol increases cancer risk,” write lead author Andrew Seidenberg, PhD, MPH, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., and colleagues.

“Increasing awareness of the alcohol-cancer link, such as through multimedia campaigns and patient-provider communication, may be an important new strategy for health advocates working to implement preventive alcohol policies,” they add.

The findings were published in the February issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

“This is the first study to examine the relationship between alcohol control policy support and awareness of the alcohol-cancer link among a national U.S. sample,” the authors write.

The results show that there is some public support for the idea of adding written warnings about the alcohol-cancer risk to alcoholic beverages, which is something that a number of cancer organizations have been petitioning for.

A petition filed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations, proposes labeling that would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Such labeling has “the potential to save lives by ensuring that consumers have a more accurate understanding of the link between alcohol and cancer, which will empower them to better protect their health,” the groups said in the petition.
 

Public support

The findings come from an analysis of the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 4. A total of 3,865 adults participated in the survey, approximately half of whom were nondrinkers.

As well as investigating how aware people were of the alcohol-cancer link, the investigators looked at how prevalent public support might be for the following three communication-focused alcohol policies:

• Banning outdoor alcohol-related advertising
• Requiring health warnings on alcohol beverage containers
• Requiring recommended drinking guidelines on alcoholic beverage containers

“Awareness of the alcohol-cancer link was measured separately for wine, beer, and liquor by asking: In your opinion, how much does drinking the following types of alcohol affect the risk of getting cancer?” the authors explain.

“Awareness of the alcohol-cancer link was low,” the investigators comment; only about one-third (31.8%) of participants were aware that alcohol increases the risk of cancer. The figures were even lower for individual beverage type, at 20.3% for wine, 24.9% for beer, and 31.2% for liquor. Furthermore, approximately half of participants responded with “don’t know” to the three awareness items, investigators noted.

On the other hand, more than half of the Americans surveyed supported adding both health warning labels (65.1%) and information on recommended drinking guidelines (63.9%) to alcoholic beverage containers. Support was lower (34.4% of respondents) for banning outdoor alcohol advertising.

Among Americans who were aware that alcohol increased cancer risk, support was also higher for all three policies.

For example, about 75% of respondents who were aware that alcohol increases cancer risk supported adding health warnings and drinking guidelines to beverage containers, compared with about half of Americans who felt that alcohol consumption had either no effect on or decreased cancer risk.

Even among those who were aware of the alcohol-cancer link, public support for outdoor advertising was not high (37.8%), but it was even lower (23.6%) among respondents who felt alcohol had no effect on or decreased the risk of cancer.

“Policy support was highest among nondrinkers, followed by drinkers, and was lowest among heavier drinkers,” the authors report.

For example, almost 43% of nondrinkers supported restrictions on outdoor alcohol advertising, compared with only about 28.6% of drinkers and 22% of heavier drinkers. More respondents supported adding health warning labels on alcoholic beverages – 70% of nondrinkers, 65% of drinkers, and 57% of heavier drinkers, investigators observe.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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