Breast Cancer

Using the PARP inhibitor veliparib as a radiosensitizer for chest wall radiation in women with inflammatory or locally recurrent breast cancer was associated with a high rate of late grade 3 adverse events, results of a phase 1 study show.

Although the trial’s upper limit of dose-limiting toxicities during 6 weeks of treatment and 4 weeks of follow-up was not met, 46.7% of 30 patients treated with veliparib and radiation after complete surgical resection had at least one grade 3 adverse event by 3 years of follow-up, reported Reshma Jagsi, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“In this multicenter phase 1 trial, severe acute toxicity did not exceed the prespecified target of 30%, even at the highest tested dose of veliparib (200 mg twice a day), and we observed no grade 4 or 5 events. However, given observations of grade 3 late toxicity in nearly one-half of all patients evaluated at 3 years, we recommend a phase 2 dose of 50 mg twice a day if veliparib is investigated further for radiosensitization in patients with breast cancer at high risk of locoregional recurrence and in need of treatment intensification,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In preclinical studies, PARP (poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase) inhibitors have been shown to enhance radiosensitivty of breast malignancies when given concurrently with radiation.

In a phase 1 dosing and safety study, 30 women with inflammatory or locally recurrent breast cancer of the chest wall underwent complete surgical resection and were then assigned to radiation consisting of 50 Gy to the chest wall and regional lymph nodes, plus a 10 Gy boost. The patients also received oral veliparib at a dose of either 50, 100, 150, or 200 mg taken twice daily during the 6-week course of radiotherapy.

During the 6 weeks of therapy and 4 weeks of follow-up, there were five dose-limiting toxicities, including two cases each of confluent moist desquamation greater than 100 cm² in the 100- and 150-mg dose groups, and one case of neutropenia in a patient at the 200-mg dose level.

The respective rates of any grade 3 toxicity, treatment related or otherwise, at 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up were 10%, 16.7%, and 46.7%.

The investigators noted that, at year 3, severe fibrosis in the treatment field was seen in 6 of the 15 surviving patients. Of the six patients, two also had grade 3 skin induration, and two had grade 3 lymphedema.

“Although some of the late adverse events we observed might have occurred even in the absence of the investigational agent and with standard therapy, severe late toxicity is relatively uncommon with standard therapy alone, so we believe that a cautious approach is prudent,” Dr. Jagsi and associates wrote.

The study was supported by the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research. Dr. Jagsi reported institutional research support from AbbVie, which donated the veliparib used in the study.

SOURCE: Jagsi R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Mar 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.2665

Using the PARP inhibitor veliparib as a radiosensitizer for chest wall radiation in women with inflammatory or locally recurrent breast cancer was associated with a high rate of late grade 3 adverse events, results of a phase 1 study show.

Although the trial’s upper limit of dose-limiting toxicities during 6 weeks of treatment and 4 weeks of follow-up was not met, 46.7% of 30 patients treated with veliparib and radiation after complete surgical resection had at least one grade 3 adverse event by 3 years of follow-up, reported Reshma Jagsi, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“In this multicenter phase 1 trial, severe acute toxicity did not exceed the prespecified target of 30%, even at the highest tested dose of veliparib (200 mg twice a day), and we observed no grade 4 or 5 events. However, given observations of grade 3 late toxicity in nearly one-half of all patients evaluated at 3 years, we recommend a phase 2 dose of 50 mg twice a day if veliparib is investigated further for radiosensitization in patients with breast cancer at high risk of locoregional recurrence and in need of treatment intensification,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In preclinical studies, PARP (poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase) inhibitors have been shown to enhance radiosensitivty of breast malignancies when given concurrently with radiation.

In a phase 1 dosing and safety study, 30 women with inflammatory or locally recurrent breast cancer of the chest wall underwent complete surgical resection and were then assigned to radiation consisting of 50 Gy to the chest wall and regional lymph nodes, plus a 10 Gy boost. The patients also received oral veliparib at a dose of either 50, 100, 150, or 200 mg taken twice daily during the 6-week course of radiotherapy.

During the 6 weeks of therapy and 4 weeks of follow-up, there were five dose-limiting toxicities, including two cases each of confluent moist desquamation greater than 100 cm² in the 100- and 150-mg dose groups, and one case of neutropenia in a patient at the 200-mg dose level.

The respective rates of any grade 3 toxicity, treatment related or otherwise, at 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up were 10%, 16.7%, and 46.7%.

The investigators noted that, at year 3, severe fibrosis in the treatment field was seen in 6 of the 15 surviving patients. Of the six patients, two also had grade 3 skin induration, and two had grade 3 lymphedema.

“Although some of the late adverse events we observed might have occurred even in the absence of the investigational agent and with standard therapy, severe late toxicity is relatively uncommon with standard therapy alone, so we believe that a cautious approach is prudent,” Dr. Jagsi and associates wrote.

The study was supported by the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research. Dr. Jagsi reported institutional research support from AbbVie, which donated the veliparib used in the study.

SOURCE: Jagsi R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Mar 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.2665

Using the PARP inhibitor veliparib as a radiosensitizer for chest wall radiation in women with inflammatory or locally recurrent breast cancer was associated with a high rate of late grade 3 adverse events, results of a phase 1 study show.

Although the trial’s upper limit of dose-limiting toxicities during 6 weeks of treatment and 4 weeks of follow-up was not met, 46.7% of 30 patients treated with veliparib and radiation after complete surgical resection had at least one grade 3 adverse event by 3 years of follow-up, reported Reshma Jagsi, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“In this multicenter phase 1 trial, severe acute toxicity did not exceed the prespecified target of 30%, even at the highest tested dose of veliparib (200 mg twice a day), and we observed no grade 4 or 5 events. However, given observations of grade 3 late toxicity in nearly one-half of all patients evaluated at 3 years, we recommend a phase 2 dose of 50 mg twice a day if veliparib is investigated further for radiosensitization in patients with breast cancer at high risk of locoregional recurrence and in need of treatment intensification,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In preclinical studies, PARP (poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase) inhibitors have been shown to enhance radiosensitivty of breast malignancies when given concurrently with radiation.

In a phase 1 dosing and safety study, 30 women with inflammatory or locally recurrent breast cancer of the chest wall underwent complete surgical resection and were then assigned to radiation consisting of 50 Gy to the chest wall and regional lymph nodes, plus a 10 Gy boost. The patients also received oral veliparib at a dose of either 50, 100, 150, or 200 mg taken twice daily during the 6-week course of radiotherapy.

During the 6 weeks of therapy and 4 weeks of follow-up, there were five dose-limiting toxicities, including two cases each of confluent moist desquamation greater than 100 cm² in the 100- and 150-mg dose groups, and one case of neutropenia in a patient at the 200-mg dose level.

The respective rates of any grade 3 toxicity, treatment related or otherwise, at 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up were 10%, 16.7%, and 46.7%.

The investigators noted that, at year 3, severe fibrosis in the treatment field was seen in 6 of the 15 surviving patients. Of the six patients, two also had grade 3 skin induration, and two had grade 3 lymphedema.

“Although some of the late adverse events we observed might have occurred even in the absence of the investigational agent and with standard therapy, severe late toxicity is relatively uncommon with standard therapy alone, so we believe that a cautious approach is prudent,” Dr. Jagsi and associates wrote.

The study was supported by the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research. Dr. Jagsi reported institutional research support from AbbVie, which donated the veliparib used in the study.

SOURCE: Jagsi R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Mar 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.2665

Hypofractionation is the preferred means of giving whole breast irradiation to women with invasive breast cancer, according to updated guidance from the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

A dose of 4,000 cGy given in 15 fractions or 4,250 cGy in 16 fractions is recommended, with or without inclusion of the low axilla, and regardless of a variety of factors such as tumor grade, prior chemotherapy, and patient age.

“Previously, accelerated treatment was recommended only for certain patients, including older patients and those with less advanced disease,” Benjamin Smith, MD, one of the cochairs of the guideline task force, said in an ASTRO news release.

Dr. Smith, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, added that recent long-term ­data from several large trials “strongly support the safety and efficacy of accelerated treatment for most breast cancer patients.”

Treatment decisions and plans still need to be individualized, but the updated ASTRO guidance notes that whole breast irradiation (WBI) can be offered to most women with invasive breast cancer independent of breast size and whether or not the cancer is in the left or right breast, provided that homogeneous dosing can be achieved. Hormone receptor, HER2 status, and postsurgical margin status also appear not to matter.

Historically, conventional fractionation (CF) with or without a tumor bed boost was used for WBI, Dr. Smith and associates wrote in the guidelines, which were published online in Practical Radiation Oncology. This consisted of daily doses of 180-200 cGy for a total dose of 4,500-5,000 cGy.

“Recognizing the limitations of CF for convenience and cost, randomized trials in the 1990s and 2000s investigated if moderate hypofractionation [HF], defined as daily doses of 265-330 cGy, could yield oncologic and functional/cosmetic outcomes similar to CF-WBI,” they said.

Initial results of these trials “supported the safety and effectiveness of HF-WBI” and were then used to form ASTRO’s 2011 guideline on dose fractionation for WBI. With longer term data from these trials now available, it was time to review the evidence again. A systematic literature review was thus conducted to identify all relevant studies published during 2009-2016, and 100 articles met the task force criteria and were used to create the updated guideline.

Aside from the delivery and dosing of WBI, other key recommendations look at the use of a radiation boost to the tumor bed, and preferred techniques for treatment planning.

With regards to a radiation boost, this needs to be considered on an individual basis but can be independent of any previous WBI. A radiation boost is recommended if patients have any grade invasive cancer and are aged 50 years or younger, have a high-grade tumor and are aged 51-70 years, or if there is a positive margin following surgery. A radiation boost also is recommended in women with ductal carcinoma in situ if they are aged 50 years or younger, have a high-grade tumor, and positive or close postsurgical margins.

As for treatment planning, 3-dimensional conformal treatment planning with a “field-in-field” technique is recommended as the initial approach. This is to minimize the volume of breast tissue that receives more than 105% of the radiation dose. The guideline also covers optimal patient positioning and how to avoid nearby tissues and organs, such as the heart, lungs and contralateral breast.

ASTRO hopes that the updated guideline will increase the use of hypofractionation, which has been reportedly low in recent years, with as few as 35% of eligible patients received hypofractionation in one study (JAMA. 2014;312[23]:2542-50).

“We hope that this guideline encourages providers to counsel their patients on options including hypofractionation,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who cochaired the guideline task force with Dr. Smith.

“Hypofractionated radiation therapy offers patients a more convenient and lower cost option for their treatment without compromising the likelihood that their cancer will return or increasing their risk of side effects,” Dr. Jagsi noted. Furthermore, “a shorter course of radiation equates to more time with family, less time away from work and lower treatment costs.”

SOURCE: Smith BD et al. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2018 March 12. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.01.012.

Hypofractionation is the preferred means of giving whole breast irradiation to women with invasive breast cancer, according to updated guidance from the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

A dose of 4,000 cGy given in 15 fractions or 4,250 cGy in 16 fractions is recommended, with or without inclusion of the low axilla, and regardless of a variety of factors such as tumor grade, prior chemotherapy, and patient age.

“Previously, accelerated treatment was recommended only for certain patients, including older patients and those with less advanced disease,” Benjamin Smith, MD, one of the cochairs of the guideline task force, said in an ASTRO news release.

Dr. Smith, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, added that recent long-term ­data from several large trials “strongly support the safety and efficacy of accelerated treatment for most breast cancer patients.”

Treatment decisions and plans still need to be individualized, but the updated ASTRO guidance notes that whole breast irradiation (WBI) can be offered to most women with invasive breast cancer independent of breast size and whether or not the cancer is in the left or right breast, provided that homogeneous dosing can be achieved. Hormone receptor, HER2 status, and postsurgical margin status also appear not to matter.

Historically, conventional fractionation (CF) with or without a tumor bed boost was used for WBI, Dr. Smith and associates wrote in the guidelines, which were published online in Practical Radiation Oncology. This consisted of daily doses of 180-200 cGy for a total dose of 4,500-5,000 cGy.

“Recognizing the limitations of CF for convenience and cost, randomized trials in the 1990s and 2000s investigated if moderate hypofractionation [HF], defined as daily doses of 265-330 cGy, could yield oncologic and functional/cosmetic outcomes similar to CF-WBI,” they said.

Initial results of these trials “supported the safety and effectiveness of HF-WBI” and were then used to form ASTRO’s 2011 guideline on dose fractionation for WBI. With longer term data from these trials now available, it was time to review the evidence again. A systematic literature review was thus conducted to identify all relevant studies published during 2009-2016, and 100 articles met the task force criteria and were used to create the updated guideline.

Aside from the delivery and dosing of WBI, other key recommendations look at the use of a radiation boost to the tumor bed, and preferred techniques for treatment planning.

With regards to a radiation boost, this needs to be considered on an individual basis but can be independent of any previous WBI. A radiation boost is recommended if patients have any grade invasive cancer and are aged 50 years or younger, have a high-grade tumor and are aged 51-70 years, or if there is a positive margin following surgery. A radiation boost also is recommended in women with ductal carcinoma in situ if they are aged 50 years or younger, have a high-grade tumor, and positive or close postsurgical margins.

As for treatment planning, 3-dimensional conformal treatment planning with a “field-in-field” technique is recommended as the initial approach. This is to minimize the volume of breast tissue that receives more than 105% of the radiation dose. The guideline also covers optimal patient positioning and how to avoid nearby tissues and organs, such as the heart, lungs and contralateral breast.

ASTRO hopes that the updated guideline will increase the use of hypofractionation, which has been reportedly low in recent years, with as few as 35% of eligible patients received hypofractionation in one study (JAMA. 2014;312[23]:2542-50).

“We hope that this guideline encourages providers to counsel their patients on options including hypofractionation,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who cochaired the guideline task force with Dr. Smith.

“Hypofractionated radiation therapy offers patients a more convenient and lower cost option for their treatment without compromising the likelihood that their cancer will return or increasing their risk of side effects,” Dr. Jagsi noted. Furthermore, “a shorter course of radiation equates to more time with family, less time away from work and lower treatment costs.”

SOURCE: Smith BD et al. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2018 March 12. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.01.012.

Hypofractionation is the preferred means of giving whole breast irradiation to women with invasive breast cancer, according to updated guidance from the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

A dose of 4,000 cGy given in 15 fractions or 4,250 cGy in 16 fractions is recommended, with or without inclusion of the low axilla, and regardless of a variety of factors such as tumor grade, prior chemotherapy, and patient age.

“Previously, accelerated treatment was recommended only for certain patients, including older patients and those with less advanced disease,” Benjamin Smith, MD, one of the cochairs of the guideline task force, said in an ASTRO news release.

Dr. Smith, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, added that recent long-term ­data from several large trials “strongly support the safety and efficacy of accelerated treatment for most breast cancer patients.”

Treatment decisions and plans still need to be individualized, but the updated ASTRO guidance notes that whole breast irradiation (WBI) can be offered to most women with invasive breast cancer independent of breast size and whether or not the cancer is in the left or right breast, provided that homogeneous dosing can be achieved. Hormone receptor, HER2 status, and postsurgical margin status also appear not to matter.

Historically, conventional fractionation (CF) with or without a tumor bed boost was used for WBI, Dr. Smith and associates wrote in the guidelines, which were published online in Practical Radiation Oncology. This consisted of daily doses of 180-200 cGy for a total dose of 4,500-5,000 cGy.

“Recognizing the limitations of CF for convenience and cost, randomized trials in the 1990s and 2000s investigated if moderate hypofractionation [HF], defined as daily doses of 265-330 cGy, could yield oncologic and functional/cosmetic outcomes similar to CF-WBI,” they said.

Initial results of these trials “supported the safety and effectiveness of HF-WBI” and were then used to form ASTRO’s 2011 guideline on dose fractionation for WBI. With longer term data from these trials now available, it was time to review the evidence again. A systematic literature review was thus conducted to identify all relevant studies published during 2009-2016, and 100 articles met the task force criteria and were used to create the updated guideline.

Aside from the delivery and dosing of WBI, other key recommendations look at the use of a radiation boost to the tumor bed, and preferred techniques for treatment planning.

With regards to a radiation boost, this needs to be considered on an individual basis but can be independent of any previous WBI. A radiation boost is recommended if patients have any grade invasive cancer and are aged 50 years or younger, have a high-grade tumor and are aged 51-70 years, or if there is a positive margin following surgery. A radiation boost also is recommended in women with ductal carcinoma in situ if they are aged 50 years or younger, have a high-grade tumor, and positive or close postsurgical margins.

As for treatment planning, 3-dimensional conformal treatment planning with a “field-in-field” technique is recommended as the initial approach. This is to minimize the volume of breast tissue that receives more than 105% of the radiation dose. The guideline also covers optimal patient positioning and how to avoid nearby tissues and organs, such as the heart, lungs and contralateral breast.

ASTRO hopes that the updated guideline will increase the use of hypofractionation, which has been reportedly low in recent years, with as few as 35% of eligible patients received hypofractionation in one study (JAMA. 2014;312[23]:2542-50).

“We hope that this guideline encourages providers to counsel their patients on options including hypofractionation,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who cochaired the guideline task force with Dr. Smith.

“Hypofractionated radiation therapy offers patients a more convenient and lower cost option for their treatment without compromising the likelihood that their cancer will return or increasing their risk of side effects,” Dr. Jagsi noted. Furthermore, “a shorter course of radiation equates to more time with family, less time away from work and lower treatment costs.”

SOURCE: Smith BD et al. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2018 March 12. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.01.012.

Dual therapy with fulvestrant and the irreversible HER2 kinase inhibitor neratinib reversed treatment-acquired hormone resistance in metastatic estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer cells.

Elaine Mardis, PhD, a spokesperson for the American Association of Cancer Research, hailed the research by Utthara Nayar, PhD, and colleagues as “groundbreaking and unexpected” during a briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. The lab experiments were part of a whole-exome sequencing study of metastatic ER-positive tumor biopsies from 168 patients, 12 of whom had acquired the HER2 mutations, said Dr. Nayar of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The findings have prompted a phase 2 trial of the combination, which is now recruiting patients, Dr. Nayar said. The 5-year study seeks 152 women with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic ER-positive breast cancer with a confirmed HER2-positive mutation. Patients will be randomized to the combination of neratinib and fulvestrant or to neratinib alone. The primary outcome is progression-free survival.

“We also hope to be able to develop upfront combinations to preempt the resistance and lead to more durable responses,” Dr. Nayar said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nayer U et al. AACR 2018, Abstract 4952

Dual therapy with fulvestrant and the irreversible HER2 kinase inhibitor neratinib reversed treatment-acquired hormone resistance in metastatic estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer cells.

Elaine Mardis, PhD, a spokesperson for the American Association of Cancer Research, hailed the research by Utthara Nayar, PhD, and colleagues as “groundbreaking and unexpected” during a briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. The lab experiments were part of a whole-exome sequencing study of metastatic ER-positive tumor biopsies from 168 patients, 12 of whom had acquired the HER2 mutations, said Dr. Nayar of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The findings have prompted a phase 2 trial of the combination, which is now recruiting patients, Dr. Nayar said. The 5-year study seeks 152 women with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic ER-positive breast cancer with a confirmed HER2-positive mutation. Patients will be randomized to the combination of neratinib and fulvestrant or to neratinib alone. The primary outcome is progression-free survival.

“We also hope to be able to develop upfront combinations to preempt the resistance and lead to more durable responses,” Dr. Nayar said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nayer U et al. AACR 2018, Abstract 4952

Dual therapy with fulvestrant and the irreversible HER2 kinase inhibitor neratinib reversed treatment-acquired hormone resistance in metastatic estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer cells.

Elaine Mardis, PhD, a spokesperson for the American Association of Cancer Research, hailed the research by Utthara Nayar, PhD, and colleagues as “groundbreaking and unexpected” during a briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. The lab experiments were part of a whole-exome sequencing study of metastatic ER-positive tumor biopsies from 168 patients, 12 of whom had acquired the HER2 mutations, said Dr. Nayar of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The findings have prompted a phase 2 trial of the combination, which is now recruiting patients, Dr. Nayar said. The 5-year study seeks 152 women with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic ER-positive breast cancer with a confirmed HER2-positive mutation. Patients will be randomized to the combination of neratinib and fulvestrant or to neratinib alone. The primary outcome is progression-free survival.

“We also hope to be able to develop upfront combinations to preempt the resistance and lead to more durable responses,” Dr. Nayar said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nayer U et al. AACR 2018, Abstract 4952

A meta-analysis has found an increased risk of breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, but its authors noted significant diversity of results across the included studies.

In the meta-analysis, Chuanjun Zhuo, MD, PhD, and Patrick Todd Triplett, MD, presented the results of 12 cohort studies involving 125,760 women that showed the risk of breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, compared with the general population.

They found that women with schizophrenia had a 31% higher standardized incidence ratio of breast cancer (95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.50; P less than .001). However, significant heterogeneity was found between studies, with the prediction interval ranging from 0.81 to 2.10. The report was published in JAMA Psychiatry.

“Accordingly, it is possible that a future study will show a decreased breast cancer risk in women with schizophrenia compared with the general population,” said Dr. Zhuo of Tianjin Medical University, China, and Dr. Triplett, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhuo C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Mar 7. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4748.

A meta-analysis has found an increased risk of breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, but its authors noted significant diversity of results across the included studies.

In the meta-analysis, Chuanjun Zhuo, MD, PhD, and Patrick Todd Triplett, MD, presented the results of 12 cohort studies involving 125,760 women that showed the risk of breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, compared with the general population.

They found that women with schizophrenia had a 31% higher standardized incidence ratio of breast cancer (95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.50; P less than .001). However, significant heterogeneity was found between studies, with the prediction interval ranging from 0.81 to 2.10. The report was published in JAMA Psychiatry.

“Accordingly, it is possible that a future study will show a decreased breast cancer risk in women with schizophrenia compared with the general population,” said Dr. Zhuo of Tianjin Medical University, China, and Dr. Triplett, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhuo C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Mar 7. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4748.

A meta-analysis has found an increased risk of breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, but its authors noted significant diversity of results across the included studies.

In the meta-analysis, Chuanjun Zhuo, MD, PhD, and Patrick Todd Triplett, MD, presented the results of 12 cohort studies involving 125,760 women that showed the risk of breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, compared with the general population.

They found that women with schizophrenia had a 31% higher standardized incidence ratio of breast cancer (95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.50; P less than .001). However, significant heterogeneity was found between studies, with the prediction interval ranging from 0.81 to 2.10. The report was published in JAMA Psychiatry.

“Accordingly, it is possible that a future study will show a decreased breast cancer risk in women with schizophrenia compared with the general population,” said Dr. Zhuo of Tianjin Medical University, China, and Dr. Triplett, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhuo C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Mar 7. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4748.

A minority of patients (43.5%) with an indication for breast cancer genetic risk evaluation actually received formal genetic counseling in clinical practice, according to an analysis of NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data published in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

More expertise is required in genetic counseling, either formal counseling given by an expert, or by a cancer physician (physician-directed), wrote Steven J. Katz and his colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. With BRCA1/2-only testing, being replaced by multi-gene panel testing, further consideration and/or discussion of results and formulation of a management plan is required, they said.

In addition, younger women more often reported some type of counseling (odds ratio, 4.5;95% confidence interval, 2.6-8.0; 1.9;95% CI, 1.1-3.3; and 1.5;95% CI, 1.0-2.3 for women younger than 50 years of age, 50-59 years of age, and 60-69 years of age, respectively, versus those 70 years of age and older).

Patients’ assessment of the amount of information they received about whether to have testing was high, “whether they received formal genetic counseling or a physician-directed discussion only (80.8% v 79.4% stated information was ‘just right’; P = .58),” the researchers noted.

As high-throughput molecular testing becomes increasingly complex, personalizing and tailoring the information to a individual patients’ need is crucial, the authors said. They further suggest a multipronged strategy that will train oncologists to integrate genetic testing into clinical decision making; including timely testing of patients at an elevated risk.

The study was supported by Grant P01 CA163233 to the University of Michigan from the National Cancer Institute. Potential conflict of interests were reported by Lauren P. Wallner, PhD (GlaxoSmithKline); Monica Morrow, MD (Genomic Health); Reshma Jagsi, MD (Amgen and AbbVie); and Allison W. Kurian, MD (Myriad Genetics, Invitae, Ambry Genetics, Genomic Health, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech (a member of the Roche Group).

SOURCE: Katz SJ et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Mar 12. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.2369.

A minority of patients (43.5%) with an indication for breast cancer genetic risk evaluation actually received formal genetic counseling in clinical practice, according to an analysis of NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data published in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

More expertise is required in genetic counseling, either formal counseling given by an expert, or by a cancer physician (physician-directed), wrote Steven J. Katz and his colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. With BRCA1/2-only testing, being replaced by multi-gene panel testing, further consideration and/or discussion of results and formulation of a management plan is required, they said.

In addition, younger women more often reported some type of counseling (odds ratio, 4.5;95% confidence interval, 2.6-8.0; 1.9;95% CI, 1.1-3.3; and 1.5;95% CI, 1.0-2.3 for women younger than 50 years of age, 50-59 years of age, and 60-69 years of age, respectively, versus those 70 years of age and older).

Patients’ assessment of the amount of information they received about whether to have testing was high, “whether they received formal genetic counseling or a physician-directed discussion only (80.8% v 79.4% stated information was ‘just right’; P = .58),” the researchers noted.

As high-throughput molecular testing becomes increasingly complex, personalizing and tailoring the information to a individual patients’ need is crucial, the authors said. They further suggest a multipronged strategy that will train oncologists to integrate genetic testing into clinical decision making; including timely testing of patients at an elevated risk.

The study was supported by Grant P01 CA163233 to the University of Michigan from the National Cancer Institute. Potential conflict of interests were reported by Lauren P. Wallner, PhD (GlaxoSmithKline); Monica Morrow, MD (Genomic Health); Reshma Jagsi, MD (Amgen and AbbVie); and Allison W. Kurian, MD (Myriad Genetics, Invitae, Ambry Genetics, Genomic Health, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech (a member of the Roche Group).

SOURCE: Katz SJ et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Mar 12. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.2369.

A minority of patients (43.5%) with an indication for breast cancer genetic risk evaluation actually received formal genetic counseling in clinical practice, according to an analysis of NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data published in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

More expertise is required in genetic counseling, either formal counseling given by an expert, or by a cancer physician (physician-directed), wrote Steven J. Katz and his colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. With BRCA1/2-only testing, being replaced by multi-gene panel testing, further consideration and/or discussion of results and formulation of a management plan is required, they said.

In addition, younger women more often reported some type of counseling (odds ratio, 4.5;95% confidence interval, 2.6-8.0; 1.9;95% CI, 1.1-3.3; and 1.5;95% CI, 1.0-2.3 for women younger than 50 years of age, 50-59 years of age, and 60-69 years of age, respectively, versus those 70 years of age and older).

Patients’ assessment of the amount of information they received about whether to have testing was high, “whether they received formal genetic counseling or a physician-directed discussion only (80.8% v 79.4% stated information was ‘just right’; P = .58),” the researchers noted.

As high-throughput molecular testing becomes increasingly complex, personalizing and tailoring the information to a individual patients’ need is crucial, the authors said. They further suggest a multipronged strategy that will train oncologists to integrate genetic testing into clinical decision making; including timely testing of patients at an elevated risk.

The study was supported by Grant P01 CA163233 to the University of Michigan from the National Cancer Institute. Potential conflict of interests were reported by Lauren P. Wallner, PhD (GlaxoSmithKline); Monica Morrow, MD (Genomic Health); Reshma Jagsi, MD (Amgen and AbbVie); and Allison W. Kurian, MD (Myriad Genetics, Invitae, Ambry Genetics, Genomic Health, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech (a member of the Roche Group).

SOURCE: Katz SJ et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Mar 12. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.2369.

ORLANDO – Anthracycline chemotherapy was associated with a cardiotoxicity incidence of roughly 14% of breast cancer patients regardless of treatment with carvedilol, based on data from a randomized trial of 200 patients.

“Cardio-oncology has been neglected,” Monica Samuel Avila, MD, of Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade in São Paulo, Brazil, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “We have seen improvement of survival in patients with cancer, but with that comes complications related to treatment. I think that the interactions between cardiologists and oncologists are increasing in a more important way,” she said.

In the Carvedilol for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity (CECCY) Trial, Dr. Avila and colleagues evaluated primary prevention of cardiotoxicity in women with normal hearts who were undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer.

SOURCE: Avila, M. ACC 18

ORLANDO – Anthracycline chemotherapy was associated with a cardiotoxicity incidence of roughly 14% of breast cancer patients regardless of treatment with carvedilol, based on data from a randomized trial of 200 patients.

“Cardio-oncology has been neglected,” Monica Samuel Avila, MD, of Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade in São Paulo, Brazil, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “We have seen improvement of survival in patients with cancer, but with that comes complications related to treatment. I think that the interactions between cardiologists and oncologists are increasing in a more important way,” she said.

In the Carvedilol for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity (CECCY) Trial, Dr. Avila and colleagues evaluated primary prevention of cardiotoxicity in women with normal hearts who were undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer.

SOURCE: Avila, M. ACC 18

ORLANDO – Anthracycline chemotherapy was associated with a cardiotoxicity incidence of roughly 14% of breast cancer patients regardless of treatment with carvedilol, based on data from a randomized trial of 200 patients.

“Cardio-oncology has been neglected,” Monica Samuel Avila, MD, of Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade in São Paulo, Brazil, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “We have seen improvement of survival in patients with cancer, but with that comes complications related to treatment. I think that the interactions between cardiologists and oncologists are increasing in a more important way,” she said.

In the Carvedilol for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity (CECCY) Trial, Dr. Avila and colleagues evaluated primary prevention of cardiotoxicity in women with normal hearts who were undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer.

SOURCE: Avila, M. ACC 18

Nonwhite women are significantly more likely than white women to be diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 years, according to an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data for almost 750,000 women.

“Our finding challenges established norms with regard to screening practices and provides empirical evidence that race-based screening should be considered,” Sahael M. Stapleton, MD, and his associates at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in a research letter published online March 7 by JAMA Surgery.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stapleton SM et al. JAMA Surg. 2018 Mar 7. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.003.

Nonwhite women are significantly more likely than white women to be diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 years, according to an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data for almost 750,000 women.

“Our finding challenges established norms with regard to screening practices and provides empirical evidence that race-based screening should be considered,” Sahael M. Stapleton, MD, and his associates at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in a research letter published online March 7 by JAMA Surgery.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stapleton SM et al. JAMA Surg. 2018 Mar 7. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.003.

Nonwhite women are significantly more likely than white women to be diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 years, according to an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data for almost 750,000 women.

“Our finding challenges established norms with regard to screening practices and provides empirical evidence that race-based screening should be considered,” Sahael M. Stapleton, MD, and his associates at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in a research letter published online March 7 by JAMA Surgery.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stapleton SM et al. JAMA Surg. 2018 Mar 7. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.003.

High-deductible health insurance plans may be bad for women’s health, suggest results of a new study.

An analysis of data on women without evidence of breast cancer who were covered for at least 1 year in a low annual deductible plan and then switched by their employers to high annual deductible plans showed that when women were forced to shell out substantially more money before their insurance kicked in, they were significantly more likely to have delays in diagnostic breast imaging, breast biopsy, and initiation of chemotherapy.

“Such delays might lead to adverse long-term breast cancer outcomes. Policymakers, health insurers, and employers should consider designing or incentivizing health insurance benefits that facilitate transitions through key steps along the cancer care pathway,” wrote J. Frank Wharam, MB, and colleagues at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute in Boston. The report was published in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wharam et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.2501.

High-deductible health insurance plans may be bad for women’s health, suggest results of a new study.

An analysis of data on women without evidence of breast cancer who were covered for at least 1 year in a low annual deductible plan and then switched by their employers to high annual deductible plans showed that when women were forced to shell out substantially more money before their insurance kicked in, they were significantly more likely to have delays in diagnostic breast imaging, breast biopsy, and initiation of chemotherapy.

“Such delays might lead to adverse long-term breast cancer outcomes. Policymakers, health insurers, and employers should consider designing or incentivizing health insurance benefits that facilitate transitions through key steps along the cancer care pathway,” wrote J. Frank Wharam, MB, and colleagues at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute in Boston. The report was published in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wharam et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.2501.

High-deductible health insurance plans may be bad for women’s health, suggest results of a new study.

An analysis of data on women without evidence of breast cancer who were covered for at least 1 year in a low annual deductible plan and then switched by their employers to high annual deductible plans showed that when women were forced to shell out substantially more money before their insurance kicked in, they were significantly more likely to have delays in diagnostic breast imaging, breast biopsy, and initiation of chemotherapy.

“Such delays might lead to adverse long-term breast cancer outcomes. Policymakers, health insurers, and employers should consider designing or incentivizing health insurance benefits that facilitate transitions through key steps along the cancer care pathway,” wrote J. Frank Wharam, MB, and colleagues at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute in Boston. The report was published in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wharam et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.2501.

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized the first direct-to-consumer (DTC) test to report on three specific BRCA1/BRCA2 breast cancer gene mutations. 

Personal Genome Service Genetic Health Risk (GHR) Report for BRCA1/BRCA2 (Selected Variants) does not identify the most common BRCA1/2 mutations but rather the three most common in people of Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jewish descent, the FDA said in a press statement. 

The three mutations identified by the test are present in about 2% of Ashkenazi Jewish women, but rarely in other ethnic populations. Any individual who takes the test may have other mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, or other cancer-related gene mutations that are not detected by this test. 

“This test provides information to certain individuals who may be at increased breast, ovarian, or prostate cancer risk and who might not otherwise get genetic screening and is a step forward in the availability of DTC genetic tests. But it has a lot of caveats,” Donald St. Pierre, acting director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the press statement. “While the detection of a BRCA mutation on this test does indicate an increased risk, only a small percentage of Americans carry one of these three mutations and most BRCA mutations that increase an individual’s risk are not detected by this test. The test should not be used as a substitute for seeing your doctor for cancer screenings or counseling on genetic and lifestyle factors that can increase or decrease cancer risk.”

The authorization was based on data provided by the company to indicate the test correctly identifies the three genetic variants in saliva samples and is reproducible. In addition, the company submitted data to demonstrate that the instructions are comprehensible and easy to follow. 

The FDA cautions that consumers and health care professionals “should not use the test results to determine any treatments, including antihormone therapies and prophylactic removal of the breasts or ovaries.” Decisions should be made only after confirmatory testing and genetic counseling, they said. 

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized the first direct-to-consumer (DTC) test to report on three specific BRCA1/BRCA2 breast cancer gene mutations. 

Personal Genome Service Genetic Health Risk (GHR) Report for BRCA1/BRCA2 (Selected Variants) does not identify the most common BRCA1/2 mutations but rather the three most common in people of Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jewish descent, the FDA said in a press statement. 

The three mutations identified by the test are present in about 2% of Ashkenazi Jewish women, but rarely in other ethnic populations. Any individual who takes the test may have other mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, or other cancer-related gene mutations that are not detected by this test. 

“This test provides information to certain individuals who may be at increased breast, ovarian, or prostate cancer risk and who might not otherwise get genetic screening and is a step forward in the availability of DTC genetic tests. But it has a lot of caveats,” Donald St. Pierre, acting director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the press statement. “While the detection of a BRCA mutation on this test does indicate an increased risk, only a small percentage of Americans carry one of these three mutations and most BRCA mutations that increase an individual’s risk are not detected by this test. The test should not be used as a substitute for seeing your doctor for cancer screenings or counseling on genetic and lifestyle factors that can increase or decrease cancer risk.”

The authorization was based on data provided by the company to indicate the test correctly identifies the three genetic variants in saliva samples and is reproducible. In addition, the company submitted data to demonstrate that the instructions are comprehensible and easy to follow. 

The FDA cautions that consumers and health care professionals “should not use the test results to determine any treatments, including antihormone therapies and prophylactic removal of the breasts or ovaries.” Decisions should be made only after confirmatory testing and genetic counseling, they said. 

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized the first direct-to-consumer (DTC) test to report on three specific BRCA1/BRCA2 breast cancer gene mutations. 

Personal Genome Service Genetic Health Risk (GHR) Report for BRCA1/BRCA2 (Selected Variants) does not identify the most common BRCA1/2 mutations but rather the three most common in people of Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jewish descent, the FDA said in a press statement. 

The three mutations identified by the test are present in about 2% of Ashkenazi Jewish women, but rarely in other ethnic populations. Any individual who takes the test may have other mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, or other cancer-related gene mutations that are not detected by this test. 

“This test provides information to certain individuals who may be at increased breast, ovarian, or prostate cancer risk and who might not otherwise get genetic screening and is a step forward in the availability of DTC genetic tests. But it has a lot of caveats,” Donald St. Pierre, acting director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the press statement. “While the detection of a BRCA mutation on this test does indicate an increased risk, only a small percentage of Americans carry one of these three mutations and most BRCA mutations that increase an individual’s risk are not detected by this test. The test should not be used as a substitute for seeing your doctor for cancer screenings or counseling on genetic and lifestyle factors that can increase or decrease cancer risk.”

The authorization was based on data provided by the company to indicate the test correctly identifies the three genetic variants in saliva samples and is reproducible. In addition, the company submitted data to demonstrate that the instructions are comprehensible and easy to follow. 

The FDA cautions that consumers and health care professionals “should not use the test results to determine any treatments, including antihormone therapies and prophylactic removal of the breasts or ovaries.” Decisions should be made only after confirmatory testing and genetic counseling, they said. 

Abemaciclib (Verzenio) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor has been approved as initial endocrine-based therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, the US Food and Drug Administration announced in a press release.

Approval was based on the results of the MONARCH 3 study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial in postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. A total of 493 patients were randomized to receive either abemaciclib 150 mg or placebo orally twice daily, plus the treating physician’s choice of letrozole or anastrozole. The estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) (RECIST 1.1) was 28.2 months (95% CI: 23.5, not reached) for patients receiving abemaciclib and 14.8 months (95% CI: 11.2, 19.2) for those receiving placebo (HR 0.540; 95% CI: 0.418, 0.698; p<0.0001).

The most common adverse reactions that were seen in at least 20% of patients receiving abemaciclib in MONARCH 3 and were reported at a rate more than 2% higher than the rates seen in the placebo arm were diarrhea, neutropenia, fatigue, infections, nausea, abdominal pain, anemia, vomiting, alopecia, decreased appetite, and leukopenia.

The recommended starting dose of abemaciclib in combination with an aromatase inhibitor is 150 mg twice daily orally with or without food.

Abemaciclib (Verzenio) is manufactured by Eli Lilly.

Full prescribing information is available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/208855s000lbl.pdf.

Abemaciclib (Verzenio) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor has been approved as initial endocrine-based therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, the US Food and Drug Administration announced in a press release.

Approval was based on the results of the MONARCH 3 study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial in postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. A total of 493 patients were randomized to receive either abemaciclib 150 mg or placebo orally twice daily, plus the treating physician’s choice of letrozole or anastrozole. The estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) (RECIST 1.1) was 28.2 months (95% CI: 23.5, not reached) for patients receiving abemaciclib and 14.8 months (95% CI: 11.2, 19.2) for those receiving placebo (HR 0.540; 95% CI: 0.418, 0.698; p<0.0001).

The most common adverse reactions that were seen in at least 20% of patients receiving abemaciclib in MONARCH 3 and were reported at a rate more than 2% higher than the rates seen in the placebo arm were diarrhea, neutropenia, fatigue, infections, nausea, abdominal pain, anemia, vomiting, alopecia, decreased appetite, and leukopenia.

The recommended starting dose of abemaciclib in combination with an aromatase inhibitor is 150 mg twice daily orally with or without food.

Abemaciclib (Verzenio) is manufactured by Eli Lilly.

Full prescribing information is available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/208855s000lbl.pdf.

Abemaciclib (Verzenio) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor has been approved as initial endocrine-based therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, the US Food and Drug Administration announced in a press release.

Approval was based on the results of the MONARCH 3 study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial in postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. A total of 493 patients were randomized to receive either abemaciclib 150 mg or placebo orally twice daily, plus the treating physician’s choice of letrozole or anastrozole. The estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) (RECIST 1.1) was 28.2 months (95% CI: 23.5, not reached) for patients receiving abemaciclib and 14.8 months (95% CI: 11.2, 19.2) for those receiving placebo (HR 0.540; 95% CI: 0.418, 0.698; p<0.0001).

The most common adverse reactions that were seen in at least 20% of patients receiving abemaciclib in MONARCH 3 and were reported at a rate more than 2% higher than the rates seen in the placebo arm were diarrhea, neutropenia, fatigue, infections, nausea, abdominal pain, anemia, vomiting, alopecia, decreased appetite, and leukopenia.

The recommended starting dose of abemaciclib in combination with an aromatase inhibitor is 150 mg twice daily orally with or without food.

Abemaciclib (Verzenio) is manufactured by Eli Lilly.

Full prescribing information is available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/208855s000lbl.pdf.