Metastatic Breast Cancer

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database suggests an overall survival benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy among breast cancer patients with an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less. The findings reinforce the positive results from the RxPONDER study, which showed benefits to invasive disease–free and distant relapse–free survival.

OncotypeDX is a prognostic assay for hormone-receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative and axillary lymph-node–negative breast cancer. It measures expression of 21 different genes and assigns each patient a score between 0 and 100, with higher scores representing a greater risk of recurrence and a worse prognosis. The 2018 TAILORx study validated Oncotype DX and found no benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy added to endocrine therapy in women over 50 with an OncotypeDX score of 11-25, but it did find a benefit in women under 50 years old with a score of 16 or higher.

RxPONDER was a prospective study that randomized women with Oncotype DX scores of 25 or lower and 1-3 positive lymph nodes to adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without chemotherapy. Among premenopausal women, 5-year invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% with chemotherapy and 89.0% with endocrine therapy only (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .002), while distant relapse–free survival was 96.1% and 92.8%, respectively (HR, 0.58; P = .009).

Overall survival data from RxPONDER has yet to be reported. In the meantime, “We decided to use the National Cancer database to see if this group of patients have an overall survival benefit,” said Prashanth Ashok Kumar, MBBS, who presented the results of the new study at a poster session this month during the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Our research further supports the findings of the RxPONDER trial showing that this subgroup of patients may also have an overall survival benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy. We can give physicians a little bit more confidence to recommend the findings of the RxPONDER study to their patients and could recommend chemotherapy in this group,” said Dr. Kumar, who is a second-year oncology fellow at Upstate University Hospital. Syracuse, N.Y.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, but Dr. Kumar said that the researchers used propensity score matching to reduce confounding. “This would need to be confirmed with further prospective clinical trials and also the mature data from the RxPONDER trial is something that we have to look forward to,” he said.

Adjuvant therapy might be particularly beneficial to patients with more high-risk features, such as T4 or N2 or N3 disease. “We have to go with each individual patient’s features, and also the patient’s personal preference and what they want from their quality of life,” Dr. Kumar said.

The study included 8,628 patients from the 2004-2018 National Cancer Database participant user file. They were 18-50 years old with N1-N3 lymph node status, no metastasis, and any T stage. All had an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less and were hormone receptor–positive and HER2-negative while 40.8% underwent adjuvant chemotherapy.

Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier scores showed a slightly higher 10-year survival with adjuvant chemotherapy (93% versus 91%; HR, 0.602; 95% confidence interval, 0.482-0.751). Multivariate subanalyses showed that adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better survival among White patients (HR, 0.512; 95% CI, 0.348-0.752) between 18 and 40 years old (HR, 0.429; 95% CI, 0.217-0.847), and for patients between 40 and 50 years old (HR, 0.585; 95% CI, 0.394-0.869); among patients with poorly differentiated tumors (HR, 0.404; 95% CI, 0.186-0.874); among patients with well-differentiated tumors (HR, 0.386; 95% CI, 0.165-0.903); and for those with Oncotype DX scores between 12 and 25 (HR, 0.549; 95% CI, 0.379-0.795).

Dr. Kumar has no relevant financial disclosures.

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database suggests an overall survival benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy among breast cancer patients with an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less. The findings reinforce the positive results from the RxPONDER study, which showed benefits to invasive disease–free and distant relapse–free survival.

OncotypeDX is a prognostic assay for hormone-receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative and axillary lymph-node–negative breast cancer. It measures expression of 21 different genes and assigns each patient a score between 0 and 100, with higher scores representing a greater risk of recurrence and a worse prognosis. The 2018 TAILORx study validated Oncotype DX and found no benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy added to endocrine therapy in women over 50 with an OncotypeDX score of 11-25, but it did find a benefit in women under 50 years old with a score of 16 or higher.

RxPONDER was a prospective study that randomized women with Oncotype DX scores of 25 or lower and 1-3 positive lymph nodes to adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without chemotherapy. Among premenopausal women, 5-year invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% with chemotherapy and 89.0% with endocrine therapy only (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .002), while distant relapse–free survival was 96.1% and 92.8%, respectively (HR, 0.58; P = .009).

Overall survival data from RxPONDER has yet to be reported. In the meantime, “We decided to use the National Cancer database to see if this group of patients have an overall survival benefit,” said Prashanth Ashok Kumar, MBBS, who presented the results of the new study at a poster session this month during the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Our research further supports the findings of the RxPONDER trial showing that this subgroup of patients may also have an overall survival benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy. We can give physicians a little bit more confidence to recommend the findings of the RxPONDER study to their patients and could recommend chemotherapy in this group,” said Dr. Kumar, who is a second-year oncology fellow at Upstate University Hospital. Syracuse, N.Y.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, but Dr. Kumar said that the researchers used propensity score matching to reduce confounding. “This would need to be confirmed with further prospective clinical trials and also the mature data from the RxPONDER trial is something that we have to look forward to,” he said.

Adjuvant therapy might be particularly beneficial to patients with more high-risk features, such as T4 or N2 or N3 disease. “We have to go with each individual patient’s features, and also the patient’s personal preference and what they want from their quality of life,” Dr. Kumar said.

The study included 8,628 patients from the 2004-2018 National Cancer Database participant user file. They were 18-50 years old with N1-N3 lymph node status, no metastasis, and any T stage. All had an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less and were hormone receptor–positive and HER2-negative while 40.8% underwent adjuvant chemotherapy.

Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier scores showed a slightly higher 10-year survival with adjuvant chemotherapy (93% versus 91%; HR, 0.602; 95% confidence interval, 0.482-0.751). Multivariate subanalyses showed that adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better survival among White patients (HR, 0.512; 95% CI, 0.348-0.752) between 18 and 40 years old (HR, 0.429; 95% CI, 0.217-0.847), and for patients between 40 and 50 years old (HR, 0.585; 95% CI, 0.394-0.869); among patients with poorly differentiated tumors (HR, 0.404; 95% CI, 0.186-0.874); among patients with well-differentiated tumors (HR, 0.386; 95% CI, 0.165-0.903); and for those with Oncotype DX scores between 12 and 25 (HR, 0.549; 95% CI, 0.379-0.795).

Dr. Kumar has no relevant financial disclosures.

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database suggests an overall survival benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy among breast cancer patients with an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less. The findings reinforce the positive results from the RxPONDER study, which showed benefits to invasive disease–free and distant relapse–free survival.

OncotypeDX is a prognostic assay for hormone-receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative and axillary lymph-node–negative breast cancer. It measures expression of 21 different genes and assigns each patient a score between 0 and 100, with higher scores representing a greater risk of recurrence and a worse prognosis. The 2018 TAILORx study validated Oncotype DX and found no benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy added to endocrine therapy in women over 50 with an OncotypeDX score of 11-25, but it did find a benefit in women under 50 years old with a score of 16 or higher.

RxPONDER was a prospective study that randomized women with Oncotype DX scores of 25 or lower and 1-3 positive lymph nodes to adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without chemotherapy. Among premenopausal women, 5-year invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% with chemotherapy and 89.0% with endocrine therapy only (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .002), while distant relapse–free survival was 96.1% and 92.8%, respectively (HR, 0.58; P = .009).

Overall survival data from RxPONDER has yet to be reported. In the meantime, “We decided to use the National Cancer database to see if this group of patients have an overall survival benefit,” said Prashanth Ashok Kumar, MBBS, who presented the results of the new study at a poster session this month during the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Our research further supports the findings of the RxPONDER trial showing that this subgroup of patients may also have an overall survival benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy. We can give physicians a little bit more confidence to recommend the findings of the RxPONDER study to their patients and could recommend chemotherapy in this group,” said Dr. Kumar, who is a second-year oncology fellow at Upstate University Hospital. Syracuse, N.Y.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, but Dr. Kumar said that the researchers used propensity score matching to reduce confounding. “This would need to be confirmed with further prospective clinical trials and also the mature data from the RxPONDER trial is something that we have to look forward to,” he said.

Adjuvant therapy might be particularly beneficial to patients with more high-risk features, such as T4 or N2 or N3 disease. “We have to go with each individual patient’s features, and also the patient’s personal preference and what they want from their quality of life,” Dr. Kumar said.

The study included 8,628 patients from the 2004-2018 National Cancer Database participant user file. They were 18-50 years old with N1-N3 lymph node status, no metastasis, and any T stage. All had an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less and were hormone receptor–positive and HER2-negative while 40.8% underwent adjuvant chemotherapy.

Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier scores showed a slightly higher 10-year survival with adjuvant chemotherapy (93% versus 91%; HR, 0.602; 95% confidence interval, 0.482-0.751). Multivariate subanalyses showed that adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better survival among White patients (HR, 0.512; 95% CI, 0.348-0.752) between 18 and 40 years old (HR, 0.429; 95% CI, 0.217-0.847), and for patients between 40 and 50 years old (HR, 0.585; 95% CI, 0.394-0.869); among patients with poorly differentiated tumors (HR, 0.404; 95% CI, 0.186-0.874); among patients with well-differentiated tumors (HR, 0.386; 95% CI, 0.165-0.903); and for those with Oncotype DX scores between 12 and 25 (HR, 0.549; 95% CI, 0.379-0.795).

Dr. Kumar has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO – A wide range of research on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, about their top five picks on HR-positive disease – the research they were most excited about and what the findings could mean for clinical practice and patient outcomes.
 

1. Addressing an unmet need

Data from the phase 3 CAPItello-291 clinical trial showed that the addition of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among 708 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, compared with those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (GS3-04).

For patients treated with capivasertib plus fulvestrant, median PFS was 7.2 months, compared with 3.6 months for those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio, 0.60). Among patients assigned to the capivasertib group, 41% had tumors with AKT pathway mutations. In this group, the median PFS was 7.3 months vs. 3.1 months in the placebo cohort. The objective response rate among patients with measurable disease was 23% overall in the capivasertib group, compared with 12.2% in the placebo arm; it was 28.8% vs. 9.7% among the patients with AKT alterations.

Dr. Mouabbi noted that the study “met its primary endpoint” and that, importantly, it “addresses an area of unmet need.”

“The study’s treatment targets the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which is a very active pathway in hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer,” Dr. Mouabbi explained. He noted, “We’ve always wanted to tackle that pathway effectively, and it looks like this drug can do that.”
 

2. Next-generation SERD

Data from the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial offers evidence that camizestrant, a next-generation selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), improved PFS compared with fulvestrant for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (GS3-02).

Overall, 240 patients were randomly assigned to receive camizestrant monotherapy at various doses or fulvestrant at 500 mg. Among patients who received camizestrant 75 mg, median PFS was 7.2 months; among those who received camizestrant 150 mg, PFS was slightly longer, at 7.7 months vs. 3.7 months for patients treated with fulvestrant. Compared with fulvestrant, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% at 75 mg (HR, 0.58) and by 33% at 150 mg (HR, 0.67). In a subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 67% in the group that received 75 mg and by 45% in the group that received 150 mg, compared with fulvestrant (median PFS, 6.3, 9.2, and 2.2 months, respectively).

“In this trial, camizestrant looks like a more beneficial treatment in the target group,” said Dr. Kaklamani. “This is significant because it means that camizestrant could be used in the future in HR-positive metastatic breast cancer instead of fulvestrant.” In addition, “camizestrant is taken orally and is much more convenient for patients, unlike fulvestrant, which is taken intramuscularly.”
 

3. Pregnancy risks

Can endocrine therapy be safely interrupted for women with breast cancer who wish to become pregnant? That’s what researchers tried to glean in a recent prospective trial presented at the meeting (GS4-09).

The study enrolled over 500 women for whom endocrine therapy had been stopped in the hopes of their becoming pregnant. Almost all (93.4%) had stage I/II HR-positive breast cancer. The primary objective was to determine the risk of breast cancer relapse associated with interrupting therapy for about 2 years. The authors defined no more than 46 breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) events as the safety threshold. A BCFI event was defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence or a new invasive contralateral breast cancer.

Among 497 women, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth, for a total of 365 babies born. At a median follow-up of 41 months, 44 participants experienced a BCFI event, in line with the safety threshold. The 3-year BCFI failure rate was 8.9%, similar to the 9.2% rate in an external control cohort from the SOFT/TEXT trials. In addition, 76.3% of patients resumed endocrine therapy; 15.4% had not yet resumed therapy.

“This trial is more confirmatory but an extremely important step for young women who want to get pregnant after diagnosis and recovery from HR-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “It seems that stopping endocrine therapy to become pregnant did not cause any adverse outcomes or increase the risk of reoccurrence of cancer in the women in the study.”

Dr. Mouabbi agreed, noting, “Many of our patients are afraid that they will miss the window to get pregnant because they have to be on treatment for so long. This is the first study that let us know pregnancy and safety outcomes in patients who took a break from endocrine therapy to get pregnant. The results are promising and will be exciting for many of our patients.”
 

4. Assay identifies OFS benefit

A genomic assay was able to distinguish premenopausal patients with early-stage HR-positive breast cancer who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to adjuvant endocrine therapy, according to new data presented at the meeting (GS1-06).

In the study, investigators analyzed 1,717 patient tumor samples from the landmark Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trial. The Breast Cancer Index identified 58% of women who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen or exemestane therapy. They experienced an absolute benefit of 11.6% (42% did not benefit), compared with those with received tamoxifen alone. The predictive benefit was observed regardless of age, lymph node involvement, and receipt of chemotherapy.

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted this study’s importance, saying, “Ovarian suppression is associated with severe adverse events for patients. Obviously, the women who will get a benefit should continue, but this research is important because it will hopefully show us who to recommend ovarian suppression to while not exposing patients who are likely to get little benefit to unneeded toxicity.”
 

5. Optimizing elacestrant PFS

Last year, data from the Emerald trial showed that elacestrant is superior to standard-of-care therapy for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer. An update that Dr. Kaklamani presented at SABCS (GS3-01) explored whether the duration of a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor affects PFS.

The study was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which 478 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer received either elacestrant or standard of care. These patients had previously received one or two lines of endocrine therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and ≤ 1 line of chemotherapy.

Overall, the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting was positively associated with PFS – the longer the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, the longer the PFS with elacestrant. PFS outcomes were even stronger among patients with ESR1 mutations.

“What we found was that the women who benefit most from elacestrant had previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor for at least 6 months,” Dr. Kaklamani said. These data can help us determine who may do best on the drug, she added.

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

SAN ANTONIO – A wide range of research on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, about their top five picks on HR-positive disease – the research they were most excited about and what the findings could mean for clinical practice and patient outcomes.
 

1. Addressing an unmet need

Data from the phase 3 CAPItello-291 clinical trial showed that the addition of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among 708 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, compared with those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (GS3-04).

For patients treated with capivasertib plus fulvestrant, median PFS was 7.2 months, compared with 3.6 months for those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio, 0.60). Among patients assigned to the capivasertib group, 41% had tumors with AKT pathway mutations. In this group, the median PFS was 7.3 months vs. 3.1 months in the placebo cohort. The objective response rate among patients with measurable disease was 23% overall in the capivasertib group, compared with 12.2% in the placebo arm; it was 28.8% vs. 9.7% among the patients with AKT alterations.

Dr. Mouabbi noted that the study “met its primary endpoint” and that, importantly, it “addresses an area of unmet need.”

“The study’s treatment targets the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which is a very active pathway in hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer,” Dr. Mouabbi explained. He noted, “We’ve always wanted to tackle that pathway effectively, and it looks like this drug can do that.”
 

2. Next-generation SERD

Data from the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial offers evidence that camizestrant, a next-generation selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), improved PFS compared with fulvestrant for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (GS3-02).

Overall, 240 patients were randomly assigned to receive camizestrant monotherapy at various doses or fulvestrant at 500 mg. Among patients who received camizestrant 75 mg, median PFS was 7.2 months; among those who received camizestrant 150 mg, PFS was slightly longer, at 7.7 months vs. 3.7 months for patients treated with fulvestrant. Compared with fulvestrant, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% at 75 mg (HR, 0.58) and by 33% at 150 mg (HR, 0.67). In a subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 67% in the group that received 75 mg and by 45% in the group that received 150 mg, compared with fulvestrant (median PFS, 6.3, 9.2, and 2.2 months, respectively).

“In this trial, camizestrant looks like a more beneficial treatment in the target group,” said Dr. Kaklamani. “This is significant because it means that camizestrant could be used in the future in HR-positive metastatic breast cancer instead of fulvestrant.” In addition, “camizestrant is taken orally and is much more convenient for patients, unlike fulvestrant, which is taken intramuscularly.”
 

3. Pregnancy risks

Can endocrine therapy be safely interrupted for women with breast cancer who wish to become pregnant? That’s what researchers tried to glean in a recent prospective trial presented at the meeting (GS4-09).

The study enrolled over 500 women for whom endocrine therapy had been stopped in the hopes of their becoming pregnant. Almost all (93.4%) had stage I/II HR-positive breast cancer. The primary objective was to determine the risk of breast cancer relapse associated with interrupting therapy for about 2 years. The authors defined no more than 46 breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) events as the safety threshold. A BCFI event was defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence or a new invasive contralateral breast cancer.

Among 497 women, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth, for a total of 365 babies born. At a median follow-up of 41 months, 44 participants experienced a BCFI event, in line with the safety threshold. The 3-year BCFI failure rate was 8.9%, similar to the 9.2% rate in an external control cohort from the SOFT/TEXT trials. In addition, 76.3% of patients resumed endocrine therapy; 15.4% had not yet resumed therapy.

“This trial is more confirmatory but an extremely important step for young women who want to get pregnant after diagnosis and recovery from HR-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “It seems that stopping endocrine therapy to become pregnant did not cause any adverse outcomes or increase the risk of reoccurrence of cancer in the women in the study.”

Dr. Mouabbi agreed, noting, “Many of our patients are afraid that they will miss the window to get pregnant because they have to be on treatment for so long. This is the first study that let us know pregnancy and safety outcomes in patients who took a break from endocrine therapy to get pregnant. The results are promising and will be exciting for many of our patients.”
 

4. Assay identifies OFS benefit

A genomic assay was able to distinguish premenopausal patients with early-stage HR-positive breast cancer who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to adjuvant endocrine therapy, according to new data presented at the meeting (GS1-06).

In the study, investigators analyzed 1,717 patient tumor samples from the landmark Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trial. The Breast Cancer Index identified 58% of women who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen or exemestane therapy. They experienced an absolute benefit of 11.6% (42% did not benefit), compared with those with received tamoxifen alone. The predictive benefit was observed regardless of age, lymph node involvement, and receipt of chemotherapy.

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted this study’s importance, saying, “Ovarian suppression is associated with severe adverse events for patients. Obviously, the women who will get a benefit should continue, but this research is important because it will hopefully show us who to recommend ovarian suppression to while not exposing patients who are likely to get little benefit to unneeded toxicity.”
 

5. Optimizing elacestrant PFS

Last year, data from the Emerald trial showed that elacestrant is superior to standard-of-care therapy for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer. An update that Dr. Kaklamani presented at SABCS (GS3-01) explored whether the duration of a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor affects PFS.

The study was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which 478 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer received either elacestrant or standard of care. These patients had previously received one or two lines of endocrine therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and ≤ 1 line of chemotherapy.

Overall, the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting was positively associated with PFS – the longer the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, the longer the PFS with elacestrant. PFS outcomes were even stronger among patients with ESR1 mutations.

“What we found was that the women who benefit most from elacestrant had previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor for at least 6 months,” Dr. Kaklamani said. These data can help us determine who may do best on the drug, she added.

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

SAN ANTONIO – A wide range of research on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, about their top five picks on HR-positive disease – the research they were most excited about and what the findings could mean for clinical practice and patient outcomes.
 

1. Addressing an unmet need

Data from the phase 3 CAPItello-291 clinical trial showed that the addition of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among 708 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, compared with those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (GS3-04).

For patients treated with capivasertib plus fulvestrant, median PFS was 7.2 months, compared with 3.6 months for those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio, 0.60). Among patients assigned to the capivasertib group, 41% had tumors with AKT pathway mutations. In this group, the median PFS was 7.3 months vs. 3.1 months in the placebo cohort. The objective response rate among patients with measurable disease was 23% overall in the capivasertib group, compared with 12.2% in the placebo arm; it was 28.8% vs. 9.7% among the patients with AKT alterations.

Dr. Mouabbi noted that the study “met its primary endpoint” and that, importantly, it “addresses an area of unmet need.”

“The study’s treatment targets the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which is a very active pathway in hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer,” Dr. Mouabbi explained. He noted, “We’ve always wanted to tackle that pathway effectively, and it looks like this drug can do that.”
 

2. Next-generation SERD

Data from the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial offers evidence that camizestrant, a next-generation selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), improved PFS compared with fulvestrant for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (GS3-02).

Overall, 240 patients were randomly assigned to receive camizestrant monotherapy at various doses or fulvestrant at 500 mg. Among patients who received camizestrant 75 mg, median PFS was 7.2 months; among those who received camizestrant 150 mg, PFS was slightly longer, at 7.7 months vs. 3.7 months for patients treated with fulvestrant. Compared with fulvestrant, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% at 75 mg (HR, 0.58) and by 33% at 150 mg (HR, 0.67). In a subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 67% in the group that received 75 mg and by 45% in the group that received 150 mg, compared with fulvestrant (median PFS, 6.3, 9.2, and 2.2 months, respectively).

“In this trial, camizestrant looks like a more beneficial treatment in the target group,” said Dr. Kaklamani. “This is significant because it means that camizestrant could be used in the future in HR-positive metastatic breast cancer instead of fulvestrant.” In addition, “camizestrant is taken orally and is much more convenient for patients, unlike fulvestrant, which is taken intramuscularly.”
 

3. Pregnancy risks

Can endocrine therapy be safely interrupted for women with breast cancer who wish to become pregnant? That’s what researchers tried to glean in a recent prospective trial presented at the meeting (GS4-09).

The study enrolled over 500 women for whom endocrine therapy had been stopped in the hopes of their becoming pregnant. Almost all (93.4%) had stage I/II HR-positive breast cancer. The primary objective was to determine the risk of breast cancer relapse associated with interrupting therapy for about 2 years. The authors defined no more than 46 breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) events as the safety threshold. A BCFI event was defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence or a new invasive contralateral breast cancer.

Among 497 women, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth, for a total of 365 babies born. At a median follow-up of 41 months, 44 participants experienced a BCFI event, in line with the safety threshold. The 3-year BCFI failure rate was 8.9%, similar to the 9.2% rate in an external control cohort from the SOFT/TEXT trials. In addition, 76.3% of patients resumed endocrine therapy; 15.4% had not yet resumed therapy.

“This trial is more confirmatory but an extremely important step for young women who want to get pregnant after diagnosis and recovery from HR-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “It seems that stopping endocrine therapy to become pregnant did not cause any adverse outcomes or increase the risk of reoccurrence of cancer in the women in the study.”

Dr. Mouabbi agreed, noting, “Many of our patients are afraid that they will miss the window to get pregnant because they have to be on treatment for so long. This is the first study that let us know pregnancy and safety outcomes in patients who took a break from endocrine therapy to get pregnant. The results are promising and will be exciting for many of our patients.”
 

4. Assay identifies OFS benefit

A genomic assay was able to distinguish premenopausal patients with early-stage HR-positive breast cancer who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to adjuvant endocrine therapy, according to new data presented at the meeting (GS1-06).

In the study, investigators analyzed 1,717 patient tumor samples from the landmark Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trial. The Breast Cancer Index identified 58% of women who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen or exemestane therapy. They experienced an absolute benefit of 11.6% (42% did not benefit), compared with those with received tamoxifen alone. The predictive benefit was observed regardless of age, lymph node involvement, and receipt of chemotherapy.

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted this study’s importance, saying, “Ovarian suppression is associated with severe adverse events for patients. Obviously, the women who will get a benefit should continue, but this research is important because it will hopefully show us who to recommend ovarian suppression to while not exposing patients who are likely to get little benefit to unneeded toxicity.”
 

5. Optimizing elacestrant PFS

Last year, data from the Emerald trial showed that elacestrant is superior to standard-of-care therapy for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer. An update that Dr. Kaklamani presented at SABCS (GS3-01) explored whether the duration of a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor affects PFS.

The study was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which 478 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer received either elacestrant or standard of care. These patients had previously received one or two lines of endocrine therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and ≤ 1 line of chemotherapy.

Overall, the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting was positively associated with PFS – the longer the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, the longer the PFS with elacestrant. PFS outcomes were even stronger among patients with ESR1 mutations.

“What we found was that the women who benefit most from elacestrant had previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor for at least 6 months,” Dr. Kaklamani said. These data can help us determine who may do best on the drug, she added.

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

SAN ANTONIO – Women with breast cancer at more than one site can undergo breast-conserving therapy and still have local recurrence rates well under the acceptable threshold of risk, suggest the results of first prospective study of this issue.

The ACOSOG-Z11102 trial involved more than 200 women with primarily endocrine receptor–positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer and up to three disease foci, all of whom underwent lumpectomy with nodal staging followed by whole-breast irradiation, then systemic therapy at the oncologist’s discretion.

After 5 years of follow-up, just 3% of women experienced a local recurrence, with none having a local or distant recurrence and one dying of the disease.

Although the numbers were small, the data indicated that preoperative MRI to evaluate disease extent, and adjuvant endocrine therapy in women with ER+ disease, were associated with lower recurrence rates.

The new findings were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 9.

“This study provides important information for clinicians to discuss with patients who have two or three foci of breast cancer in one breast, as it may allow more patients to consider breast-conserving therapy as an option,” said study presenter Judy C. Boughey, MD, chair of the division of breast and melanoma surgical oncology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“Lumpectomy with radiation therapy is often preferred to mastectomy, as it is a smaller operation with quicker recovery, resulting in better patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes,” Dr. Boughey said in a statement.

“We’ve all been anxiously awaiting the results of this trial,” Andrea V. Barrio, MD, associate attending surgeon, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, told this news organization. “We knew that in patients who have a single site tumor in the breast, that outcomes between lumpectomy and mastectomy are the same ... But none of those trials have enrolled women with multiple sites.”

“There were no prospective data out there telling us that doing two lumpectomies in the breast was safe, so a lot of times, women were getting mastectomy for these multiple tumors, even if women had two small tumors in the breast and could easily undergo a lumpectomy with a good cosmetic result,” she said.

“So this data provides very strong evidence that we can begin treating women with small tumors in the breast who can undergo lumpectomy with a good cosmetic results without needing a mastectomy,” Dr. Barrio continued. “From a long-term quality of life standpoint, this is a big deal for women moving forward who really want to keep their breasts.”

Dr. Barrio did highlight, however, that “not everybody routinely does MRI” in women with breast cancer, including her institution, although generally she feels that “our standard imaging has gotten better,” with screening ultrasound identifying more lesions than previously.

She also believes that the numbers of women in the study who did not receive MRI are too small to “draw any definitive conclusions.

“Personally, when I have a patient with multisite disease and I’m going to keep their breasts, that to me is one indication that I would consider an MRI, to make sure that I wasn’t missing intervening disease between the two sites – that there wasn’t something else that would change my mind about doing a two-site lumpectomy,” Dr. Barrio said.

Linda M. Pak, MD, a breast cancer surgeon and surgical oncologist at NYU Langone’s Breast Cancer Center, New York, who was not involved in the study, said that the new study provides “importation information regarding the oncologic safety” of lumpectomy.

These results are “exciting to see, as they provide important information that breast-conserving surgery is safe in these patients, and that we can now share the results of this study with patients when we discuss with them their surgical options.

“I hope this will make more breast surgeons and patients comfortable with this approach and that it will increase the use of breast conservation among these patients,” Dr. Pak said.
 

Study details

In recent years, there has been increased diagnosis of multiple foci of ipsilateral breast cancer, Dr. Boughey said in her presentation. “This is both as a result of improvements in screening imaging, as well as diagnostic imaging and an increased use of preoperative breast MRI.”

Although historical, retrospective studies have shown high rates of local regional recurrences with breast-conserving therapy in women with more than one foci of breast cancer, more recent analyses have indicated that the approach is associated with “acceptable” recurrence rates.

This, Dr. Boughey explained, is due not only to improvements in breast imaging but also to better pathologic margin assessment, and improved systematic and radiation therapy.

Nevertheless, “most patients who present with two or three sites of cancer in one breast are recommended to undergo a mastectomy,” she noted.

To examine the safety of breast-conserving therapy in such patients, the team conducted a single-arm, phase 2 trial in women at least 40 years of age who had two or three foci of breast cancer, of which at least one site was invasive disease.

“While a randomized trial design would have provided stronger data, we felt that accrual to such a design would be problematic, as many patients and surgeons would not be willing to randomize,” Dr. Boughey explained.

Participants were required to have at least 2 cm of normal tissue between the lesions and disease in no more than two quadrants of the breast. They could have node-negative or N1 disease.

Women were excluded if they had foci > 5 cm on imaging; had bilateral breast cancer; had known BRCA1/2 mutations; had had prior ipsilateral breast cancer; or had received neoadjuvant therapy.

All women in the trial underwent lumpectomy with nodal staging, with adjuvant chemotherapy at the physician’s discretion, followed by whole-breast irradiation, with regional nodal irradiation again at the physician’s discretion. This was followed by systemic therapy, at the discretion of the medical oncologist.

The women were then followed up every 6 months until 5 years after the completion of whole-breast irradiation.
 

Details of the results

Dr. Boughey said that previously presented data from this study revealed that 67.6% of women achieved a margin-negative excision in a single operation, whereas 7.1% converted to mastectomy. The cosmetic outcome was rated as good or excellent at 2 years by 70.6% of women.

For the current analysis, a total of 204 women were evaluable, who had a median age of 61.1 years. Just over half (59.3%) had T1 stage disease, and 95.6% were node-negative. The majority (83.5%) had ER+/HER2- breast cancer, whereas 5.0% had ER-/HER2- disease and 11.5% had HER2+ positive tumors.

Adjuvant chemotherapy was given to 28.9% of women, whereas 89.7% of those with ER+ disease received adjuvant endocrine therapy.

The primary outcome was local recurrence rate at 5 years, which had a prespecified acceptable rate of less than 8%.

Dr. Boughey showed that, in their series, the 5-year recurrence rate was just 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-6.4%), which was “well below” the predefined “clinically significantly threshold.” This involved four cases in the ipsilateral breast, one in the skin, and one in the chest wall.

In addition to the six women with local regional recurrence, six developed contralateral breast cancer and four patients developed distant disease. There were no cases of local and distant recurrence. There were three non–breast cancer primary cancers: one gastric, one lung, and one ovarian.

Eight women died during follow-up; only one of the deaths was related to breast cancer.

Dr. Boughey explained that the small number of local recurrences was too small to identify predictive factors via multivariate analysis.

However, univariate analysis indicated that there were numerical but nonsignificant associations between local recurrence and pathologic stage T2-3 disease, pathologic nodal involvement, and surgical margins just under the negative threshold.

Among the 10 cases of ER–/HER2– breast cancer, there was one local recurrence, giving a 5-year rate of 10.0% vs. 2.6% for women with ER+/HER2– disease.

To examine the role of MRI, Dr. Boughey highlighted that although the imaging modality was initially a requirement for study entry, an amendment to the protocol in 2015 allowed 15 women who had not had MRI to take part.

The local recurrence rate in women who had undergone MRI was 1.7% vs. 22.6% in those who had not, for a hazard ratio of 13.5 (P = .002).

“While this was statistically significant, we need to bear in mind that this was a secondary unplanned analysis,” Dr. Boughey underlined.

Next, the team analyzed the impact of adjuvant endocrine therapy in the 195 women with at least one ER+ lesion, finding that it was associated with a 5-year recurrence rate of 1.9% vs. 12.5% in those who did not receive endocrine therapy, for a hazard ratio of 7.7 (P = .025).

Dr. Boughey highlighted that the study is limited by being single-arm and having only a small subset of patients without preoperative MRI, with HER2+ or ER–/HER2– disease, and with three foci of disease.

She also emphasized that “there is concern that the 5-year follow up on this protocol may be shorter than needed,” especially in women with ER+ disease.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Boughey declared relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Symbiosis Pharma, CairnSurgical, UpToDate, and PeerView.

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

SAN ANTONIO – Women with breast cancer at more than one site can undergo breast-conserving therapy and still have local recurrence rates well under the acceptable threshold of risk, suggest the results of first prospective study of this issue.

The ACOSOG-Z11102 trial involved more than 200 women with primarily endocrine receptor–positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer and up to three disease foci, all of whom underwent lumpectomy with nodal staging followed by whole-breast irradiation, then systemic therapy at the oncologist’s discretion.

After 5 years of follow-up, just 3% of women experienced a local recurrence, with none having a local or distant recurrence and one dying of the disease.

Although the numbers were small, the data indicated that preoperative MRI to evaluate disease extent, and adjuvant endocrine therapy in women with ER+ disease, were associated with lower recurrence rates.

The new findings were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 9.

“This study provides important information for clinicians to discuss with patients who have two or three foci of breast cancer in one breast, as it may allow more patients to consider breast-conserving therapy as an option,” said study presenter Judy C. Boughey, MD, chair of the division of breast and melanoma surgical oncology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“Lumpectomy with radiation therapy is often preferred to mastectomy, as it is a smaller operation with quicker recovery, resulting in better patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes,” Dr. Boughey said in a statement.

“We’ve all been anxiously awaiting the results of this trial,” Andrea V. Barrio, MD, associate attending surgeon, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, told this news organization. “We knew that in patients who have a single site tumor in the breast, that outcomes between lumpectomy and mastectomy are the same ... But none of those trials have enrolled women with multiple sites.”

“There were no prospective data out there telling us that doing two lumpectomies in the breast was safe, so a lot of times, women were getting mastectomy for these multiple tumors, even if women had two small tumors in the breast and could easily undergo a lumpectomy with a good cosmetic result,” she said.

“So this data provides very strong evidence that we can begin treating women with small tumors in the breast who can undergo lumpectomy with a good cosmetic results without needing a mastectomy,” Dr. Barrio continued. “From a long-term quality of life standpoint, this is a big deal for women moving forward who really want to keep their breasts.”

Dr. Barrio did highlight, however, that “not everybody routinely does MRI” in women with breast cancer, including her institution, although generally she feels that “our standard imaging has gotten better,” with screening ultrasound identifying more lesions than previously.

She also believes that the numbers of women in the study who did not receive MRI are too small to “draw any definitive conclusions.

“Personally, when I have a patient with multisite disease and I’m going to keep their breasts, that to me is one indication that I would consider an MRI, to make sure that I wasn’t missing intervening disease between the two sites – that there wasn’t something else that would change my mind about doing a two-site lumpectomy,” Dr. Barrio said.

Linda M. Pak, MD, a breast cancer surgeon and surgical oncologist at NYU Langone’s Breast Cancer Center, New York, who was not involved in the study, said that the new study provides “importation information regarding the oncologic safety” of lumpectomy.

These results are “exciting to see, as they provide important information that breast-conserving surgery is safe in these patients, and that we can now share the results of this study with patients when we discuss with them their surgical options.

“I hope this will make more breast surgeons and patients comfortable with this approach and that it will increase the use of breast conservation among these patients,” Dr. Pak said.
 

Study details

In recent years, there has been increased diagnosis of multiple foci of ipsilateral breast cancer, Dr. Boughey said in her presentation. “This is both as a result of improvements in screening imaging, as well as diagnostic imaging and an increased use of preoperative breast MRI.”

Although historical, retrospective studies have shown high rates of local regional recurrences with breast-conserving therapy in women with more than one foci of breast cancer, more recent analyses have indicated that the approach is associated with “acceptable” recurrence rates.

This, Dr. Boughey explained, is due not only to improvements in breast imaging but also to better pathologic margin assessment, and improved systematic and radiation therapy.

Nevertheless, “most patients who present with two or three sites of cancer in one breast are recommended to undergo a mastectomy,” she noted.

To examine the safety of breast-conserving therapy in such patients, the team conducted a single-arm, phase 2 trial in women at least 40 years of age who had two or three foci of breast cancer, of which at least one site was invasive disease.

“While a randomized trial design would have provided stronger data, we felt that accrual to such a design would be problematic, as many patients and surgeons would not be willing to randomize,” Dr. Boughey explained.

Participants were required to have at least 2 cm of normal tissue between the lesions and disease in no more than two quadrants of the breast. They could have node-negative or N1 disease.

Women were excluded if they had foci > 5 cm on imaging; had bilateral breast cancer; had known BRCA1/2 mutations; had had prior ipsilateral breast cancer; or had received neoadjuvant therapy.

All women in the trial underwent lumpectomy with nodal staging, with adjuvant chemotherapy at the physician’s discretion, followed by whole-breast irradiation, with regional nodal irradiation again at the physician’s discretion. This was followed by systemic therapy, at the discretion of the medical oncologist.

The women were then followed up every 6 months until 5 years after the completion of whole-breast irradiation.
 

Details of the results

Dr. Boughey said that previously presented data from this study revealed that 67.6% of women achieved a margin-negative excision in a single operation, whereas 7.1% converted to mastectomy. The cosmetic outcome was rated as good or excellent at 2 years by 70.6% of women.

For the current analysis, a total of 204 women were evaluable, who had a median age of 61.1 years. Just over half (59.3%) had T1 stage disease, and 95.6% were node-negative. The majority (83.5%) had ER+/HER2- breast cancer, whereas 5.0% had ER-/HER2- disease and 11.5% had HER2+ positive tumors.

Adjuvant chemotherapy was given to 28.9% of women, whereas 89.7% of those with ER+ disease received adjuvant endocrine therapy.

The primary outcome was local recurrence rate at 5 years, which had a prespecified acceptable rate of less than 8%.

Dr. Boughey showed that, in their series, the 5-year recurrence rate was just 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-6.4%), which was “well below” the predefined “clinically significantly threshold.” This involved four cases in the ipsilateral breast, one in the skin, and one in the chest wall.

In addition to the six women with local regional recurrence, six developed contralateral breast cancer and four patients developed distant disease. There were no cases of local and distant recurrence. There were three non–breast cancer primary cancers: one gastric, one lung, and one ovarian.

Eight women died during follow-up; only one of the deaths was related to breast cancer.

Dr. Boughey explained that the small number of local recurrences was too small to identify predictive factors via multivariate analysis.

However, univariate analysis indicated that there were numerical but nonsignificant associations between local recurrence and pathologic stage T2-3 disease, pathologic nodal involvement, and surgical margins just under the negative threshold.

Among the 10 cases of ER–/HER2– breast cancer, there was one local recurrence, giving a 5-year rate of 10.0% vs. 2.6% for women with ER+/HER2– disease.

To examine the role of MRI, Dr. Boughey highlighted that although the imaging modality was initially a requirement for study entry, an amendment to the protocol in 2015 allowed 15 women who had not had MRI to take part.

The local recurrence rate in women who had undergone MRI was 1.7% vs. 22.6% in those who had not, for a hazard ratio of 13.5 (P = .002).

“While this was statistically significant, we need to bear in mind that this was a secondary unplanned analysis,” Dr. Boughey underlined.

Next, the team analyzed the impact of adjuvant endocrine therapy in the 195 women with at least one ER+ lesion, finding that it was associated with a 5-year recurrence rate of 1.9% vs. 12.5% in those who did not receive endocrine therapy, for a hazard ratio of 7.7 (P = .025).

Dr. Boughey highlighted that the study is limited by being single-arm and having only a small subset of patients without preoperative MRI, with HER2+ or ER–/HER2– disease, and with three foci of disease.

She also emphasized that “there is concern that the 5-year follow up on this protocol may be shorter than needed,” especially in women with ER+ disease.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Boughey declared relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Symbiosis Pharma, CairnSurgical, UpToDate, and PeerView.

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

SAN ANTONIO – Women with breast cancer at more than one site can undergo breast-conserving therapy and still have local recurrence rates well under the acceptable threshold of risk, suggest the results of first prospective study of this issue.

The ACOSOG-Z11102 trial involved more than 200 women with primarily endocrine receptor–positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer and up to three disease foci, all of whom underwent lumpectomy with nodal staging followed by whole-breast irradiation, then systemic therapy at the oncologist’s discretion.

After 5 years of follow-up, just 3% of women experienced a local recurrence, with none having a local or distant recurrence and one dying of the disease.

Although the numbers were small, the data indicated that preoperative MRI to evaluate disease extent, and adjuvant endocrine therapy in women with ER+ disease, were associated with lower recurrence rates.

The new findings were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 9.

“This study provides important information for clinicians to discuss with patients who have two or three foci of breast cancer in one breast, as it may allow more patients to consider breast-conserving therapy as an option,” said study presenter Judy C. Boughey, MD, chair of the division of breast and melanoma surgical oncology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“Lumpectomy with radiation therapy is often preferred to mastectomy, as it is a smaller operation with quicker recovery, resulting in better patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes,” Dr. Boughey said in a statement.

“We’ve all been anxiously awaiting the results of this trial,” Andrea V. Barrio, MD, associate attending surgeon, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, told this news organization. “We knew that in patients who have a single site tumor in the breast, that outcomes between lumpectomy and mastectomy are the same ... But none of those trials have enrolled women with multiple sites.”

“There were no prospective data out there telling us that doing two lumpectomies in the breast was safe, so a lot of times, women were getting mastectomy for these multiple tumors, even if women had two small tumors in the breast and could easily undergo a lumpectomy with a good cosmetic result,” she said.

“So this data provides very strong evidence that we can begin treating women with small tumors in the breast who can undergo lumpectomy with a good cosmetic results without needing a mastectomy,” Dr. Barrio continued. “From a long-term quality of life standpoint, this is a big deal for women moving forward who really want to keep their breasts.”

Dr. Barrio did highlight, however, that “not everybody routinely does MRI” in women with breast cancer, including her institution, although generally she feels that “our standard imaging has gotten better,” with screening ultrasound identifying more lesions than previously.

She also believes that the numbers of women in the study who did not receive MRI are too small to “draw any definitive conclusions.

“Personally, when I have a patient with multisite disease and I’m going to keep their breasts, that to me is one indication that I would consider an MRI, to make sure that I wasn’t missing intervening disease between the two sites – that there wasn’t something else that would change my mind about doing a two-site lumpectomy,” Dr. Barrio said.

Linda M. Pak, MD, a breast cancer surgeon and surgical oncologist at NYU Langone’s Breast Cancer Center, New York, who was not involved in the study, said that the new study provides “importation information regarding the oncologic safety” of lumpectomy.

These results are “exciting to see, as they provide important information that breast-conserving surgery is safe in these patients, and that we can now share the results of this study with patients when we discuss with them their surgical options.

“I hope this will make more breast surgeons and patients comfortable with this approach and that it will increase the use of breast conservation among these patients,” Dr. Pak said.
 

Study details

In recent years, there has been increased diagnosis of multiple foci of ipsilateral breast cancer, Dr. Boughey said in her presentation. “This is both as a result of improvements in screening imaging, as well as diagnostic imaging and an increased use of preoperative breast MRI.”

Although historical, retrospective studies have shown high rates of local regional recurrences with breast-conserving therapy in women with more than one foci of breast cancer, more recent analyses have indicated that the approach is associated with “acceptable” recurrence rates.

This, Dr. Boughey explained, is due not only to improvements in breast imaging but also to better pathologic margin assessment, and improved systematic and radiation therapy.

Nevertheless, “most patients who present with two or three sites of cancer in one breast are recommended to undergo a mastectomy,” she noted.

To examine the safety of breast-conserving therapy in such patients, the team conducted a single-arm, phase 2 trial in women at least 40 years of age who had two or three foci of breast cancer, of which at least one site was invasive disease.

“While a randomized trial design would have provided stronger data, we felt that accrual to such a design would be problematic, as many patients and surgeons would not be willing to randomize,” Dr. Boughey explained.

Participants were required to have at least 2 cm of normal tissue between the lesions and disease in no more than two quadrants of the breast. They could have node-negative or N1 disease.

Women were excluded if they had foci > 5 cm on imaging; had bilateral breast cancer; had known BRCA1/2 mutations; had had prior ipsilateral breast cancer; or had received neoadjuvant therapy.

All women in the trial underwent lumpectomy with nodal staging, with adjuvant chemotherapy at the physician’s discretion, followed by whole-breast irradiation, with regional nodal irradiation again at the physician’s discretion. This was followed by systemic therapy, at the discretion of the medical oncologist.

The women were then followed up every 6 months until 5 years after the completion of whole-breast irradiation.
 

Details of the results

Dr. Boughey said that previously presented data from this study revealed that 67.6% of women achieved a margin-negative excision in a single operation, whereas 7.1% converted to mastectomy. The cosmetic outcome was rated as good or excellent at 2 years by 70.6% of women.

For the current analysis, a total of 204 women were evaluable, who had a median age of 61.1 years. Just over half (59.3%) had T1 stage disease, and 95.6% were node-negative. The majority (83.5%) had ER+/HER2- breast cancer, whereas 5.0% had ER-/HER2- disease and 11.5% had HER2+ positive tumors.

Adjuvant chemotherapy was given to 28.9% of women, whereas 89.7% of those with ER+ disease received adjuvant endocrine therapy.

The primary outcome was local recurrence rate at 5 years, which had a prespecified acceptable rate of less than 8%.

Dr. Boughey showed that, in their series, the 5-year recurrence rate was just 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-6.4%), which was “well below” the predefined “clinically significantly threshold.” This involved four cases in the ipsilateral breast, one in the skin, and one in the chest wall.

In addition to the six women with local regional recurrence, six developed contralateral breast cancer and four patients developed distant disease. There were no cases of local and distant recurrence. There were three non–breast cancer primary cancers: one gastric, one lung, and one ovarian.

Eight women died during follow-up; only one of the deaths was related to breast cancer.

Dr. Boughey explained that the small number of local recurrences was too small to identify predictive factors via multivariate analysis.

However, univariate analysis indicated that there were numerical but nonsignificant associations between local recurrence and pathologic stage T2-3 disease, pathologic nodal involvement, and surgical margins just under the negative threshold.

Among the 10 cases of ER–/HER2– breast cancer, there was one local recurrence, giving a 5-year rate of 10.0% vs. 2.6% for women with ER+/HER2– disease.

To examine the role of MRI, Dr. Boughey highlighted that although the imaging modality was initially a requirement for study entry, an amendment to the protocol in 2015 allowed 15 women who had not had MRI to take part.

The local recurrence rate in women who had undergone MRI was 1.7% vs. 22.6% in those who had not, for a hazard ratio of 13.5 (P = .002).

“While this was statistically significant, we need to bear in mind that this was a secondary unplanned analysis,” Dr. Boughey underlined.

Next, the team analyzed the impact of adjuvant endocrine therapy in the 195 women with at least one ER+ lesion, finding that it was associated with a 5-year recurrence rate of 1.9% vs. 12.5% in those who did not receive endocrine therapy, for a hazard ratio of 7.7 (P = .025).

Dr. Boughey highlighted that the study is limited by being single-arm and having only a small subset of patients without preoperative MRI, with HER2+ or ER–/HER2– disease, and with three foci of disease.

She also emphasized that “there is concern that the 5-year follow up on this protocol may be shorter than needed,” especially in women with ER+ disease.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Boughey declared relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Symbiosis Pharma, CairnSurgical, UpToDate, and PeerView.

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

SAN ANTONIO – When choosing between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, allowing the results from a blood test that measures circulating tumor cell (CTC) count to overrule physician’s choice of therapy can significantly improve overall survival.

But are these results enough to change clinical practice? One expert reacting to the findings says probably not, and another pointed out that the CTC count test used in the trial (CellSearch), although approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is not widely used in clinical practice.

The findings comes from updated results from the STIC CTC study.

“When the trial was designed, the question related to the choice between single-agent endocrine therapy and chemotherapy [in] first-line therapy,” explained study presenter François-Clément Bidard, MD, PhD, professor of medical oncology at Institut Curie and Versailles Saint-Quentin University, Paris.

Since then, the first-line treatment has changed and can now can also include cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors, but Dr. Bidard said the results are still clinically relevant.

Nowadays, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitors is the “preferred option for treatment-naive patients, but the dilemma between endocrine therapy and chemotherapy remains after disease progression on adjuvant or first-line therapy with CDK4/6 inhibitors, where current guidelines advocate in favor of endocrine therapy, despite its short-lived efficacy.”

“In that scenario, based on the STIC CTC trial results, the CTC count in combination with predictive biomarkers, whenever available, may help customize the early use of chemotherapy or antibody-drug conjugates, which are becoming more and more attractive,” Dr. Bidard said.

The research was presented here at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS).

The study involved more than 750 patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer randomly assigned to physician choice or CTC-guided therapy, although the physician decision and the recommendation based on the CTC count was recorded in both groups.

Using the CellSearch (Menarini Silicon Biosystems) to perform the CTC count at baseline only, the team defined patients as low or high risk, with low-risk patients deemed to need only endocrine therapy and high-risk patients recommended chemotherapy.

Physicians based their decisions on current guidelines and their clinical experience.

In the 25% of cases where CTC count would recommend chemotherapy while the physician would recommend endocrine therapy, following the CTC count–based choice resulted in a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and a 47% increase in overall survival.

In all other situations, including those when the CTC count recommended endocrine therapy in contrast to the physicians, or the approximately 60% of cases in which the two were in agreement, there was no difference in survival outcomes between the approaches.

Reacting to the findings, Nancy Chan, MD, medical oncologist and the director of breast cancer clinical research at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, said that the “goal is really to understand how we can personalize treatment options for patients.”

Another aim is to avoid performing a tumor biopsy, if possible, “as that has increased morbidity for patients.”

She noted also that choosing between endocrine therapy and chemotherapy is a “big decision.” These researchers “really wanted to help some patients get less chemotherapy,” as they felt that “some patients are getting too much” as they are not really that high risk and should get endocrine therapy instead.

However, Dr. Chan said that the CTC count is a “complicated concept” and is “not something we’re all using in our clinical practice yet.”

With regard to the approximately 40% discordance between the CTC- and physician-guided choices, Dr. Chan said that clinicians are perhaps not as accurate as they believed in predicting risk when relying on the clinical or pathological features of the tumor.

On Twitter, Guilherme Nader-Marta, MD, Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, commented that the question behind the study was whether CTC measurement is a “clinically useful strategy for first-line treatment decision-making.”

“Amazingly,” he continued, the trial went “straight to the point” to answer the question and showed that CTC-based decisions can offer a survival benefit.

Daniel F. Hayes, MD, co-director of the Breast Oncology Program at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, echoed these thoughts, saying that the goals of therapy are to make patients live longer and “better.”

He said that the point of any clinical biomarker is not only to show that testing for it offers “analytical validity” but that it also provides “clinical utility” in that it can guide treatment decisions to improve outcomes.

Dr. Hayes, who was not involved in the study but has worked for many years on the development of CellSearch, said that the results do not make it clear whether measuring CTC counts meets the definition of clinical utility, but it’s “very close.”

On the other hand, the analytical validity of the test is “excellent,” and, in that context, was well-chosen, he said, adding that the endpoint of the trial “is the one most important to us: improvement in overall survival.”

Dr. Hayes noted that the magnitude of benefit from CTC-guided therapy was “moderate,” although that is a “matter of perception,” and the “level of evidence is probably 2 or 3.” Although the trial was prospective, he said, the key results were in a “relatively small” subgroup.

The question is, Dr. Hayes continued: “Is this enough to change practice? My conclusions are: probably not.”

Although patients rated as low risk based on their low CTC count avoided chemotherapy, “it’s not clear to me that this whole thing is sufficient for clinical utility in context of what we know today.” The key issue, however, is who decides whether CTC counts are measured and whether they will be used to guide therapy decisions – will it be the patient, the caregiver, an expert guidelines panel, or third party payers/society?
 

Study details

In his presentation, Dr. Bidard explained that CTC count is an FDA-approved standardized liquid biopsy biomarker, with a count of greater than or equal to 5 cells per 7.5 mL of blood deemed an adverse prognostic marker, regardless of the line of therapy, with a grade 1 level of evidence.

Previous studies have indicated that a high CTC count is strongly associated with overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 2.78.

Crucially, the CTC count “complements” and does not duplicate standard clinicopathological prognostic factors, Dr. Bidard said.

To determine the potential of the CTC count as an aid to treatment decisions, Dr. Bidard and colleagues conducted a trial in pre- and postmenopausal women with untreated HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer who were able to receive either endocrine therapy or chemotherapy.

They were randomly assigned to either a standard group, in which the treatment decision followed the physician’s choice, regardless of their CTC count, or to a CTC group, in which the physicians made a treatment recommendation but the choice was driven by the CTC count.

Dr. Bidard reminded the audience that the primary endpoint of PFS to demonstrate the non-inferiority of CTC versus physician treatment decisions has already been met, with the results published in 2020. Those results came from an analysis of 788 patients enrolled between February 2012 and July 2016 at 17 sites in France and showed after 42 months of follow-up that the median PFS in the CTC arm was 15.6 months versus 14 months in the physician choice arm, at a hazard ratio of 0.92.

The current pre-planned analysis involved 755 patients who were followed up for a median of 57 months by the time the trial was stopped in 2021.

In the standard treatment arm, endocrine therapy was favored by physicians in 72.7% of cases (Clin-low), while 27.3% were given chemotherapy (Clin-high).

In the CTC group, 73.5% of patients were recommended to have endocrine therapy by their physician based on their clinical characteristics (Clin-low), whereas 26.5% were suggested to have chemotherapy (Clin-high).

In contrast, 60.1% of patients in the standard arm would have received endocrine therapy based on their CTC count (CTC-low), and 39.9% chemotherapy (CTC-high), while 63.4% of those in the CTC arm were given endocrine therapy based on their CTC count (CTC-low), and 36.6% were assigned to chemotherapy (CTC-high).

Once the allocated treatment was known in both treatment groups, the physicians were free to choose between endocrine therapy (mostly a single-agent aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant) and chemotherapy (mostly paclitaxel or capecitabine).

Although CDK4/6 inhibitors were not approved at the time of enrollment, 42.2% of patients across both treatment groups received one of these drugs as a second-line or later therapy.
 

Guiding treatment decisions

Dr. Bidard said that, overall, more patients in the CTC arm were assigned to chemotherapy, at a difference of 9.7%. There was approximately 60% concordance between physician- and CTC-guided treatment choices; in other words, patients were recommended the same treatment by the two approaches in both treatment groups.

In these patients, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the physician choice and CTC groups, at a median of 45.5 months versus 51.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11).

The updated PFS data revealed a median PFS of 15.7 months in the CTC group versus 13.8 months, again at a nonsignificant HR of 0.94.

These results, Dr. Bidard said, indicate that CTC-based treatment choices are “safe.”

However, there was discordance between physician and CTC-based treatment choices in around 40% of cases, meaning that the two approaches recommended different therapies.

The physician recommended endocrine therapy, in contrast to the CTC count indicating chemotherapy, in 25% of patients (Clin-low/CTC-high), whereas 13.6% of cases were recommended chemotherapy while their CTC count indicated otherwise (Clin-high/CTC-low).

In Clin-low/CTC-high patients, this resulted in 26.1% of patients in the standard group receiving endocrine therapy when their CTC count indicated chemotherapy, while 23.9% of patients in the CTC group received chemotherapy even though their physician did not recommended it.

Comparing these two groups, the researchers found that patients in the CTC group had a significantly longer PFS, at 15.7 months versus 10 months (HR, 0.65; P = .005). They also had a significantly longer median overall survival, at a median of 51.8 months versus 35.4 months with physician choice (HR, 0.53; P = .001).

Among Clin-high/CTC-low, there was no benefit from physician’s choice of chemotherapy over the CTC-guided recommendation of endocrine therapy, at an HR for PFS of 1.14 for CTC- versus physician-guided therapy (P = .54), and an HR for overall survival of 0.88 (P = .64).

Dr. Bidard highlighted that the treatment effects were seen across prespecified subgroups.

The study was funded by the Institut National du Cancer, the Institut Curie SIRIC2 program, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems. Dr. Chan reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hayes and Dr. Bidard reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

SAN ANTONIO – When choosing between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, allowing the results from a blood test that measures circulating tumor cell (CTC) count to overrule physician’s choice of therapy can significantly improve overall survival.

But are these results enough to change clinical practice? One expert reacting to the findings says probably not, and another pointed out that the CTC count test used in the trial (CellSearch), although approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is not widely used in clinical practice.

The findings comes from updated results from the STIC CTC study.

“When the trial was designed, the question related to the choice between single-agent endocrine therapy and chemotherapy [in] first-line therapy,” explained study presenter François-Clément Bidard, MD, PhD, professor of medical oncology at Institut Curie and Versailles Saint-Quentin University, Paris.

Since then, the first-line treatment has changed and can now can also include cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors, but Dr. Bidard said the results are still clinically relevant.

Nowadays, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitors is the “preferred option for treatment-naive patients, but the dilemma between endocrine therapy and chemotherapy remains after disease progression on adjuvant or first-line therapy with CDK4/6 inhibitors, where current guidelines advocate in favor of endocrine therapy, despite its short-lived efficacy.”

“In that scenario, based on the STIC CTC trial results, the CTC count in combination with predictive biomarkers, whenever available, may help customize the early use of chemotherapy or antibody-drug conjugates, which are becoming more and more attractive,” Dr. Bidard said.

The research was presented here at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS).

The study involved more than 750 patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer randomly assigned to physician choice or CTC-guided therapy, although the physician decision and the recommendation based on the CTC count was recorded in both groups.

Using the CellSearch (Menarini Silicon Biosystems) to perform the CTC count at baseline only, the team defined patients as low or high risk, with low-risk patients deemed to need only endocrine therapy and high-risk patients recommended chemotherapy.

Physicians based their decisions on current guidelines and their clinical experience.

In the 25% of cases where CTC count would recommend chemotherapy while the physician would recommend endocrine therapy, following the CTC count–based choice resulted in a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and a 47% increase in overall survival.

In all other situations, including those when the CTC count recommended endocrine therapy in contrast to the physicians, or the approximately 60% of cases in which the two were in agreement, there was no difference in survival outcomes between the approaches.

Reacting to the findings, Nancy Chan, MD, medical oncologist and the director of breast cancer clinical research at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, said that the “goal is really to understand how we can personalize treatment options for patients.”

Another aim is to avoid performing a tumor biopsy, if possible, “as that has increased morbidity for patients.”

She noted also that choosing between endocrine therapy and chemotherapy is a “big decision.” These researchers “really wanted to help some patients get less chemotherapy,” as they felt that “some patients are getting too much” as they are not really that high risk and should get endocrine therapy instead.

However, Dr. Chan said that the CTC count is a “complicated concept” and is “not something we’re all using in our clinical practice yet.”

With regard to the approximately 40% discordance between the CTC- and physician-guided choices, Dr. Chan said that clinicians are perhaps not as accurate as they believed in predicting risk when relying on the clinical or pathological features of the tumor.

On Twitter, Guilherme Nader-Marta, MD, Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, commented that the question behind the study was whether CTC measurement is a “clinically useful strategy for first-line treatment decision-making.”

“Amazingly,” he continued, the trial went “straight to the point” to answer the question and showed that CTC-based decisions can offer a survival benefit.

Daniel F. Hayes, MD, co-director of the Breast Oncology Program at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, echoed these thoughts, saying that the goals of therapy are to make patients live longer and “better.”

He said that the point of any clinical biomarker is not only to show that testing for it offers “analytical validity” but that it also provides “clinical utility” in that it can guide treatment decisions to improve outcomes.

Dr. Hayes, who was not involved in the study but has worked for many years on the development of CellSearch, said that the results do not make it clear whether measuring CTC counts meets the definition of clinical utility, but it’s “very close.”

On the other hand, the analytical validity of the test is “excellent,” and, in that context, was well-chosen, he said, adding that the endpoint of the trial “is the one most important to us: improvement in overall survival.”

Dr. Hayes noted that the magnitude of benefit from CTC-guided therapy was “moderate,” although that is a “matter of perception,” and the “level of evidence is probably 2 or 3.” Although the trial was prospective, he said, the key results were in a “relatively small” subgroup.

The question is, Dr. Hayes continued: “Is this enough to change practice? My conclusions are: probably not.”

Although patients rated as low risk based on their low CTC count avoided chemotherapy, “it’s not clear to me that this whole thing is sufficient for clinical utility in context of what we know today.” The key issue, however, is who decides whether CTC counts are measured and whether they will be used to guide therapy decisions – will it be the patient, the caregiver, an expert guidelines panel, or third party payers/society?
 

Study details

In his presentation, Dr. Bidard explained that CTC count is an FDA-approved standardized liquid biopsy biomarker, with a count of greater than or equal to 5 cells per 7.5 mL of blood deemed an adverse prognostic marker, regardless of the line of therapy, with a grade 1 level of evidence.

Previous studies have indicated that a high CTC count is strongly associated with overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 2.78.

Crucially, the CTC count “complements” and does not duplicate standard clinicopathological prognostic factors, Dr. Bidard said.

To determine the potential of the CTC count as an aid to treatment decisions, Dr. Bidard and colleagues conducted a trial in pre- and postmenopausal women with untreated HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer who were able to receive either endocrine therapy or chemotherapy.

They were randomly assigned to either a standard group, in which the treatment decision followed the physician’s choice, regardless of their CTC count, or to a CTC group, in which the physicians made a treatment recommendation but the choice was driven by the CTC count.

Dr. Bidard reminded the audience that the primary endpoint of PFS to demonstrate the non-inferiority of CTC versus physician treatment decisions has already been met, with the results published in 2020. Those results came from an analysis of 788 patients enrolled between February 2012 and July 2016 at 17 sites in France and showed after 42 months of follow-up that the median PFS in the CTC arm was 15.6 months versus 14 months in the physician choice arm, at a hazard ratio of 0.92.

The current pre-planned analysis involved 755 patients who were followed up for a median of 57 months by the time the trial was stopped in 2021.

In the standard treatment arm, endocrine therapy was favored by physicians in 72.7% of cases (Clin-low), while 27.3% were given chemotherapy (Clin-high).

In the CTC group, 73.5% of patients were recommended to have endocrine therapy by their physician based on their clinical characteristics (Clin-low), whereas 26.5% were suggested to have chemotherapy (Clin-high).

In contrast, 60.1% of patients in the standard arm would have received endocrine therapy based on their CTC count (CTC-low), and 39.9% chemotherapy (CTC-high), while 63.4% of those in the CTC arm were given endocrine therapy based on their CTC count (CTC-low), and 36.6% were assigned to chemotherapy (CTC-high).

Once the allocated treatment was known in both treatment groups, the physicians were free to choose between endocrine therapy (mostly a single-agent aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant) and chemotherapy (mostly paclitaxel or capecitabine).

Although CDK4/6 inhibitors were not approved at the time of enrollment, 42.2% of patients across both treatment groups received one of these drugs as a second-line or later therapy.
 

Guiding treatment decisions

Dr. Bidard said that, overall, more patients in the CTC arm were assigned to chemotherapy, at a difference of 9.7%. There was approximately 60% concordance between physician- and CTC-guided treatment choices; in other words, patients were recommended the same treatment by the two approaches in both treatment groups.

In these patients, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the physician choice and CTC groups, at a median of 45.5 months versus 51.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11).

The updated PFS data revealed a median PFS of 15.7 months in the CTC group versus 13.8 months, again at a nonsignificant HR of 0.94.

These results, Dr. Bidard said, indicate that CTC-based treatment choices are “safe.”

However, there was discordance between physician and CTC-based treatment choices in around 40% of cases, meaning that the two approaches recommended different therapies.

The physician recommended endocrine therapy, in contrast to the CTC count indicating chemotherapy, in 25% of patients (Clin-low/CTC-high), whereas 13.6% of cases were recommended chemotherapy while their CTC count indicated otherwise (Clin-high/CTC-low).

In Clin-low/CTC-high patients, this resulted in 26.1% of patients in the standard group receiving endocrine therapy when their CTC count indicated chemotherapy, while 23.9% of patients in the CTC group received chemotherapy even though their physician did not recommended it.

Comparing these two groups, the researchers found that patients in the CTC group had a significantly longer PFS, at 15.7 months versus 10 months (HR, 0.65; P = .005). They also had a significantly longer median overall survival, at a median of 51.8 months versus 35.4 months with physician choice (HR, 0.53; P = .001).

Among Clin-high/CTC-low, there was no benefit from physician’s choice of chemotherapy over the CTC-guided recommendation of endocrine therapy, at an HR for PFS of 1.14 for CTC- versus physician-guided therapy (P = .54), and an HR for overall survival of 0.88 (P = .64).

Dr. Bidard highlighted that the treatment effects were seen across prespecified subgroups.

The study was funded by the Institut National du Cancer, the Institut Curie SIRIC2 program, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems. Dr. Chan reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hayes and Dr. Bidard reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

SAN ANTONIO – When choosing between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, allowing the results from a blood test that measures circulating tumor cell (CTC) count to overrule physician’s choice of therapy can significantly improve overall survival.

But are these results enough to change clinical practice? One expert reacting to the findings says probably not, and another pointed out that the CTC count test used in the trial (CellSearch), although approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is not widely used in clinical practice.

The findings comes from updated results from the STIC CTC study.

“When the trial was designed, the question related to the choice between single-agent endocrine therapy and chemotherapy [in] first-line therapy,” explained study presenter François-Clément Bidard, MD, PhD, professor of medical oncology at Institut Curie and Versailles Saint-Quentin University, Paris.

Since then, the first-line treatment has changed and can now can also include cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors, but Dr. Bidard said the results are still clinically relevant.

Nowadays, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitors is the “preferred option for treatment-naive patients, but the dilemma between endocrine therapy and chemotherapy remains after disease progression on adjuvant or first-line therapy with CDK4/6 inhibitors, where current guidelines advocate in favor of endocrine therapy, despite its short-lived efficacy.”

“In that scenario, based on the STIC CTC trial results, the CTC count in combination with predictive biomarkers, whenever available, may help customize the early use of chemotherapy or antibody-drug conjugates, which are becoming more and more attractive,” Dr. Bidard said.

The research was presented here at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS).

The study involved more than 750 patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer randomly assigned to physician choice or CTC-guided therapy, although the physician decision and the recommendation based on the CTC count was recorded in both groups.

Using the CellSearch (Menarini Silicon Biosystems) to perform the CTC count at baseline only, the team defined patients as low or high risk, with low-risk patients deemed to need only endocrine therapy and high-risk patients recommended chemotherapy.

Physicians based their decisions on current guidelines and their clinical experience.

In the 25% of cases where CTC count would recommend chemotherapy while the physician would recommend endocrine therapy, following the CTC count–based choice resulted in a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and a 47% increase in overall survival.

In all other situations, including those when the CTC count recommended endocrine therapy in contrast to the physicians, or the approximately 60% of cases in which the two were in agreement, there was no difference in survival outcomes between the approaches.

Reacting to the findings, Nancy Chan, MD, medical oncologist and the director of breast cancer clinical research at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, said that the “goal is really to understand how we can personalize treatment options for patients.”

Another aim is to avoid performing a tumor biopsy, if possible, “as that has increased morbidity for patients.”

She noted also that choosing between endocrine therapy and chemotherapy is a “big decision.” These researchers “really wanted to help some patients get less chemotherapy,” as they felt that “some patients are getting too much” as they are not really that high risk and should get endocrine therapy instead.

However, Dr. Chan said that the CTC count is a “complicated concept” and is “not something we’re all using in our clinical practice yet.”

With regard to the approximately 40% discordance between the CTC- and physician-guided choices, Dr. Chan said that clinicians are perhaps not as accurate as they believed in predicting risk when relying on the clinical or pathological features of the tumor.

On Twitter, Guilherme Nader-Marta, MD, Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, commented that the question behind the study was whether CTC measurement is a “clinically useful strategy for first-line treatment decision-making.”

“Amazingly,” he continued, the trial went “straight to the point” to answer the question and showed that CTC-based decisions can offer a survival benefit.

Daniel F. Hayes, MD, co-director of the Breast Oncology Program at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, echoed these thoughts, saying that the goals of therapy are to make patients live longer and “better.”

He said that the point of any clinical biomarker is not only to show that testing for it offers “analytical validity” but that it also provides “clinical utility” in that it can guide treatment decisions to improve outcomes.

Dr. Hayes, who was not involved in the study but has worked for many years on the development of CellSearch, said that the results do not make it clear whether measuring CTC counts meets the definition of clinical utility, but it’s “very close.”

On the other hand, the analytical validity of the test is “excellent,” and, in that context, was well-chosen, he said, adding that the endpoint of the trial “is the one most important to us: improvement in overall survival.”

Dr. Hayes noted that the magnitude of benefit from CTC-guided therapy was “moderate,” although that is a “matter of perception,” and the “level of evidence is probably 2 or 3.” Although the trial was prospective, he said, the key results were in a “relatively small” subgroup.

The question is, Dr. Hayes continued: “Is this enough to change practice? My conclusions are: probably not.”

Although patients rated as low risk based on their low CTC count avoided chemotherapy, “it’s not clear to me that this whole thing is sufficient for clinical utility in context of what we know today.” The key issue, however, is who decides whether CTC counts are measured and whether they will be used to guide therapy decisions – will it be the patient, the caregiver, an expert guidelines panel, or third party payers/society?
 

Study details

In his presentation, Dr. Bidard explained that CTC count is an FDA-approved standardized liquid biopsy biomarker, with a count of greater than or equal to 5 cells per 7.5 mL of blood deemed an adverse prognostic marker, regardless of the line of therapy, with a grade 1 level of evidence.

Previous studies have indicated that a high CTC count is strongly associated with overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 2.78.

Crucially, the CTC count “complements” and does not duplicate standard clinicopathological prognostic factors, Dr. Bidard said.

To determine the potential of the CTC count as an aid to treatment decisions, Dr. Bidard and colleagues conducted a trial in pre- and postmenopausal women with untreated HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer who were able to receive either endocrine therapy or chemotherapy.

They were randomly assigned to either a standard group, in which the treatment decision followed the physician’s choice, regardless of their CTC count, or to a CTC group, in which the physicians made a treatment recommendation but the choice was driven by the CTC count.

Dr. Bidard reminded the audience that the primary endpoint of PFS to demonstrate the non-inferiority of CTC versus physician treatment decisions has already been met, with the results published in 2020. Those results came from an analysis of 788 patients enrolled between February 2012 and July 2016 at 17 sites in France and showed after 42 months of follow-up that the median PFS in the CTC arm was 15.6 months versus 14 months in the physician choice arm, at a hazard ratio of 0.92.

The current pre-planned analysis involved 755 patients who were followed up for a median of 57 months by the time the trial was stopped in 2021.

In the standard treatment arm, endocrine therapy was favored by physicians in 72.7% of cases (Clin-low), while 27.3% were given chemotherapy (Clin-high).

In the CTC group, 73.5% of patients were recommended to have endocrine therapy by their physician based on their clinical characteristics (Clin-low), whereas 26.5% were suggested to have chemotherapy (Clin-high).

In contrast, 60.1% of patients in the standard arm would have received endocrine therapy based on their CTC count (CTC-low), and 39.9% chemotherapy (CTC-high), while 63.4% of those in the CTC arm were given endocrine therapy based on their CTC count (CTC-low), and 36.6% were assigned to chemotherapy (CTC-high).

Once the allocated treatment was known in both treatment groups, the physicians were free to choose between endocrine therapy (mostly a single-agent aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant) and chemotherapy (mostly paclitaxel or capecitabine).

Although CDK4/6 inhibitors were not approved at the time of enrollment, 42.2% of patients across both treatment groups received one of these drugs as a second-line or later therapy.
 

Guiding treatment decisions

Dr. Bidard said that, overall, more patients in the CTC arm were assigned to chemotherapy, at a difference of 9.7%. There was approximately 60% concordance between physician- and CTC-guided treatment choices; in other words, patients were recommended the same treatment by the two approaches in both treatment groups.

In these patients, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the physician choice and CTC groups, at a median of 45.5 months versus 51.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11).

The updated PFS data revealed a median PFS of 15.7 months in the CTC group versus 13.8 months, again at a nonsignificant HR of 0.94.

These results, Dr. Bidard said, indicate that CTC-based treatment choices are “safe.”

However, there was discordance between physician and CTC-based treatment choices in around 40% of cases, meaning that the two approaches recommended different therapies.

The physician recommended endocrine therapy, in contrast to the CTC count indicating chemotherapy, in 25% of patients (Clin-low/CTC-high), whereas 13.6% of cases were recommended chemotherapy while their CTC count indicated otherwise (Clin-high/CTC-low).

In Clin-low/CTC-high patients, this resulted in 26.1% of patients in the standard group receiving endocrine therapy when their CTC count indicated chemotherapy, while 23.9% of patients in the CTC group received chemotherapy even though their physician did not recommended it.

Comparing these two groups, the researchers found that patients in the CTC group had a significantly longer PFS, at 15.7 months versus 10 months (HR, 0.65; P = .005). They also had a significantly longer median overall survival, at a median of 51.8 months versus 35.4 months with physician choice (HR, 0.53; P = .001).

Among Clin-high/CTC-low, there was no benefit from physician’s choice of chemotherapy over the CTC-guided recommendation of endocrine therapy, at an HR for PFS of 1.14 for CTC- versus physician-guided therapy (P = .54), and an HR for overall survival of 0.88 (P = .64).

Dr. Bidard highlighted that the treatment effects were seen across prespecified subgroups.

The study was funded by the Institut National du Cancer, the Institut Curie SIRIC2 program, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems. Dr. Chan reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hayes and Dr. Bidard reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

Women who have survived hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer can interrupt their endocrine therapy for up to 2 years to pursue pregnancy without affecting their short-term disease outcomes, suggest results from the prospective POSITIVE trial.

The study involved more than 500 premenopausal women from 20 countries who had received at least 18 months of endocrine therapy for HR+ breast cancer. After a 3-month washout, they were given 2 years to conceive, deliver, and breastfeed a baby before resuming treatment.

Crucially, taking a treatment break had no impact on recurrence rates, with the 3-year breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) failure rate of nearly 9% comparing favorably with historical controls.

Moreover, almost three-quarters of women achieved at least one pregnancy, the majority within 2 years, and the vast majority had resumed endocrine therapy by the end of the study period.

The research was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“These data stress the need to incorporate patient-centered reproductive health care, treatments, and choices in the treatment and follow-up of our young women with breast cancer so that they can not only survive, but thrive in their survivorship,” said study presenter Ann Partridge, MD, MPH, vice chair of medical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

She noted, however, that the results so far are from a 3-year follow-up. The team now plans on following the women for “at least a decade ... to monitor for independent therapy resumption, and disease outcomes, because of course there is great concern about the late return” of HR+ breast cancer.

This point was also raised by Marleen I. Meyers, MD, a medical oncologist New York University Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who was not involved in the study. While she praised the study as offering the “first real evidence” that treatment can be interrupted safely, she said she would be “cautious, as the follow-up is short and we know that hormone positive breast cancer can recur within 10 years of diagnosis and beyond.”

Meyer also emphasized that “the potential loss of fertility and ability to have biologic children ... [is] one of the most devastating results for young women with breast cancer.”

“We have come a long way with fertility preservation,” Dr. Meyers continued, but waiting to complete the recommended 5-10 years of endocrine therapy “makes the possibility of carrying a child less realistic.”

“This study offers hope for some women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer to be able to interrupt cancer treatment and still have good outcomes,” she said.

Dr. Partridge said that “women are often discouraged” from becoming pregnant, in addition to which giving adjuvant endocrine therapy for the standard 5-10 years “compromises conception” in women with HR+ disease.

POSITIVE was a single-arm trial involving premenopausal women aged up to 42 years at study entry. They were required to have undergone at least 18 months and no more than 30 months of adjuvant endocrine therapy for stage I-III HR+ breast cancer, with no clinical evidence of recurrence. The women could also have undergone prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without fertility preservation.

Women halted endocrine therapy within 1 month of trial enrollment and then underwent a 3-month washout period before having up to 2 years to attempt pregnancy, and to conceive, give birth to, and breastfeed a baby. They were then “strongly recommended” to resume endocrine therapy to complete the planned 5-10 years of treatment, with follow-up planned for up to 10 years.

In all, 518 women were enrolled at 116 centers in 20 countries on four continents, of whom 516 were available for the primary efficacy analysis. The median time from breast cancer diagnosis to enrollment was 29 months.

The median age of the participants at enrollment was 37 years, and 75% had no prior births. Stage I or II disease was diagnosed in 93%. The median duration of endocrine therapy prior to enrollment was 23.4 months.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators were given alone in 42% of patients, while 36% had a SERM plus ovarian function suppression. A further 16% of women received an aromatase inhibitor alongside ovarian function suppression. The majority (62%) of women had received prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

The primary endpoint of 3-year BCFI was measured after a median follow-up of 41 months. There were 44 events, with a 3-year BCFI failure rate of 8.9%. The 3-year distant recurrence–free interval (DRFI) failure rate was calculated at 4.5%, with 22 events.

To provide an external control, the researchers examined data from the SOFT and TEXT trials to assemble a cohort of 1,499 women balanced for patient, disease, and treatment characteristics.

This revealed no significant differences in BCFI between the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-1.15) and a difference in BCFI rates at 3 years of 0.2% between the SOFT, TEXT, and POSITIVE trials.

There was also no significant difference in DRFI rates (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44-1.12), with a 3-year rate difference of 1.4%.

For the secondary endpoint analysis, the team included 497 women from the POSITIVE cohort, of whom 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy, giving a total of 507 pregnancies. At least one live birth was recorded in 64% of the women, or 86% of those who became pregnant.

Dr. Partridge noted that around 43% of women used some form of assisted reproductive technology at some point during the study period.

Pregnancy complications were observed in 11% of pregnancies, the most common of which were hypertension/preeclampsia in 3%, and diabetes in 2%.

There were a total of 350 live births in 317 women, including 335 singleton births and 15 sets of twins. Only 8% of the offspring had a low birth weight, and 2% had a birth defect. Breastfeeding was reported by 62% of women.

Conducting an 18-month landmark analysis, the team found that pregnancy did not increase BCFI rates, at an HR versus nonpregnant women of 0.53 after controlling for age, body mass index, lymph node status, prior chemotherapy, and prior aromatase inhibitor therapy.

At 48 months of follow-up, 76% of women had resumed endocrine therapy. A further 8% of women had cancer recurrence or death before they could restart therapy, while 15% had not yet resumed treatment for other reasons.

Among disease-free women who had not resumed endocrine therapy, 79% reported at their most recent follow-up continuing to pursue pregnancy, having an active or recent pregnancy, or continuing to breastfeed as the reason.

Commenting on the study, Jennifer K. Litton, MD, vice president of clinical research at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that this was a “challenging study to design and execute.”

“It gives us really a first look into the safety of a practice that was already happening,” she commented, and emphasized that the interruption of treatment to pursue pregnancy remains “an exceptionally individual decision.”

Dr. Litton also underlined that these results apply only to endocrine therapy and not to women on other therapies such as abemaciclib, for example, for which the course should be “fully completed” before considering any treatment interruptions.

She added more generally that “we need to continue to improve discussing fertility concerns with our breast cancer patients who want future pregnancies.”

The study was sponsored and conducted by the International Breast Cancer Study Group, a division of ETOP IBCSG Partners Foundation, and by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology in North America, in collaboration with the Breast International Group. Dr. Partridge and Dr. Litton reported no relevant relationships.

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

Women who have survived hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer can interrupt their endocrine therapy for up to 2 years to pursue pregnancy without affecting their short-term disease outcomes, suggest results from the prospective POSITIVE trial.

The study involved more than 500 premenopausal women from 20 countries who had received at least 18 months of endocrine therapy for HR+ breast cancer. After a 3-month washout, they were given 2 years to conceive, deliver, and breastfeed a baby before resuming treatment.

Crucially, taking a treatment break had no impact on recurrence rates, with the 3-year breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) failure rate of nearly 9% comparing favorably with historical controls.

Moreover, almost three-quarters of women achieved at least one pregnancy, the majority within 2 years, and the vast majority had resumed endocrine therapy by the end of the study period.

The research was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“These data stress the need to incorporate patient-centered reproductive health care, treatments, and choices in the treatment and follow-up of our young women with breast cancer so that they can not only survive, but thrive in their survivorship,” said study presenter Ann Partridge, MD, MPH, vice chair of medical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

She noted, however, that the results so far are from a 3-year follow-up. The team now plans on following the women for “at least a decade ... to monitor for independent therapy resumption, and disease outcomes, because of course there is great concern about the late return” of HR+ breast cancer.

This point was also raised by Marleen I. Meyers, MD, a medical oncologist New York University Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who was not involved in the study. While she praised the study as offering the “first real evidence” that treatment can be interrupted safely, she said she would be “cautious, as the follow-up is short and we know that hormone positive breast cancer can recur within 10 years of diagnosis and beyond.”

Meyer also emphasized that “the potential loss of fertility and ability to have biologic children ... [is] one of the most devastating results for young women with breast cancer.”

“We have come a long way with fertility preservation,” Dr. Meyers continued, but waiting to complete the recommended 5-10 years of endocrine therapy “makes the possibility of carrying a child less realistic.”

“This study offers hope for some women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer to be able to interrupt cancer treatment and still have good outcomes,” she said.

Dr. Partridge said that “women are often discouraged” from becoming pregnant, in addition to which giving adjuvant endocrine therapy for the standard 5-10 years “compromises conception” in women with HR+ disease.

POSITIVE was a single-arm trial involving premenopausal women aged up to 42 years at study entry. They were required to have undergone at least 18 months and no more than 30 months of adjuvant endocrine therapy for stage I-III HR+ breast cancer, with no clinical evidence of recurrence. The women could also have undergone prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without fertility preservation.

Women halted endocrine therapy within 1 month of trial enrollment and then underwent a 3-month washout period before having up to 2 years to attempt pregnancy, and to conceive, give birth to, and breastfeed a baby. They were then “strongly recommended” to resume endocrine therapy to complete the planned 5-10 years of treatment, with follow-up planned for up to 10 years.

In all, 518 women were enrolled at 116 centers in 20 countries on four continents, of whom 516 were available for the primary efficacy analysis. The median time from breast cancer diagnosis to enrollment was 29 months.

The median age of the participants at enrollment was 37 years, and 75% had no prior births. Stage I or II disease was diagnosed in 93%. The median duration of endocrine therapy prior to enrollment was 23.4 months.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators were given alone in 42% of patients, while 36% had a SERM plus ovarian function suppression. A further 16% of women received an aromatase inhibitor alongside ovarian function suppression. The majority (62%) of women had received prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

The primary endpoint of 3-year BCFI was measured after a median follow-up of 41 months. There were 44 events, with a 3-year BCFI failure rate of 8.9%. The 3-year distant recurrence–free interval (DRFI) failure rate was calculated at 4.5%, with 22 events.

To provide an external control, the researchers examined data from the SOFT and TEXT trials to assemble a cohort of 1,499 women balanced for patient, disease, and treatment characteristics.

This revealed no significant differences in BCFI between the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-1.15) and a difference in BCFI rates at 3 years of 0.2% between the SOFT, TEXT, and POSITIVE trials.

There was also no significant difference in DRFI rates (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44-1.12), with a 3-year rate difference of 1.4%.

For the secondary endpoint analysis, the team included 497 women from the POSITIVE cohort, of whom 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy, giving a total of 507 pregnancies. At least one live birth was recorded in 64% of the women, or 86% of those who became pregnant.

Dr. Partridge noted that around 43% of women used some form of assisted reproductive technology at some point during the study period.

Pregnancy complications were observed in 11% of pregnancies, the most common of which were hypertension/preeclampsia in 3%, and diabetes in 2%.

There were a total of 350 live births in 317 women, including 335 singleton births and 15 sets of twins. Only 8% of the offspring had a low birth weight, and 2% had a birth defect. Breastfeeding was reported by 62% of women.

Conducting an 18-month landmark analysis, the team found that pregnancy did not increase BCFI rates, at an HR versus nonpregnant women of 0.53 after controlling for age, body mass index, lymph node status, prior chemotherapy, and prior aromatase inhibitor therapy.

At 48 months of follow-up, 76% of women had resumed endocrine therapy. A further 8% of women had cancer recurrence or death before they could restart therapy, while 15% had not yet resumed treatment for other reasons.

Among disease-free women who had not resumed endocrine therapy, 79% reported at their most recent follow-up continuing to pursue pregnancy, having an active or recent pregnancy, or continuing to breastfeed as the reason.

Commenting on the study, Jennifer K. Litton, MD, vice president of clinical research at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that this was a “challenging study to design and execute.”

“It gives us really a first look into the safety of a practice that was already happening,” she commented, and emphasized that the interruption of treatment to pursue pregnancy remains “an exceptionally individual decision.”

Dr. Litton also underlined that these results apply only to endocrine therapy and not to women on other therapies such as abemaciclib, for example, for which the course should be “fully completed” before considering any treatment interruptions.

She added more generally that “we need to continue to improve discussing fertility concerns with our breast cancer patients who want future pregnancies.”

The study was sponsored and conducted by the International Breast Cancer Study Group, a division of ETOP IBCSG Partners Foundation, and by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology in North America, in collaboration with the Breast International Group. Dr. Partridge and Dr. Litton reported no relevant relationships.

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

Women who have survived hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer can interrupt their endocrine therapy for up to 2 years to pursue pregnancy without affecting their short-term disease outcomes, suggest results from the prospective POSITIVE trial.

The study involved more than 500 premenopausal women from 20 countries who had received at least 18 months of endocrine therapy for HR+ breast cancer. After a 3-month washout, they were given 2 years to conceive, deliver, and breastfeed a baby before resuming treatment.

Crucially, taking a treatment break had no impact on recurrence rates, with the 3-year breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) failure rate of nearly 9% comparing favorably with historical controls.

Moreover, almost three-quarters of women achieved at least one pregnancy, the majority within 2 years, and the vast majority had resumed endocrine therapy by the end of the study period.

The research was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“These data stress the need to incorporate patient-centered reproductive health care, treatments, and choices in the treatment and follow-up of our young women with breast cancer so that they can not only survive, but thrive in their survivorship,” said study presenter Ann Partridge, MD, MPH, vice chair of medical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

She noted, however, that the results so far are from a 3-year follow-up. The team now plans on following the women for “at least a decade ... to monitor for independent therapy resumption, and disease outcomes, because of course there is great concern about the late return” of HR+ breast cancer.

This point was also raised by Marleen I. Meyers, MD, a medical oncologist New York University Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who was not involved in the study. While she praised the study as offering the “first real evidence” that treatment can be interrupted safely, she said she would be “cautious, as the follow-up is short and we know that hormone positive breast cancer can recur within 10 years of diagnosis and beyond.”

Meyer also emphasized that “the potential loss of fertility and ability to have biologic children ... [is] one of the most devastating results for young women with breast cancer.”

“We have come a long way with fertility preservation,” Dr. Meyers continued, but waiting to complete the recommended 5-10 years of endocrine therapy “makes the possibility of carrying a child less realistic.”

“This study offers hope for some women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer to be able to interrupt cancer treatment and still have good outcomes,” she said.

Dr. Partridge said that “women are often discouraged” from becoming pregnant, in addition to which giving adjuvant endocrine therapy for the standard 5-10 years “compromises conception” in women with HR+ disease.

POSITIVE was a single-arm trial involving premenopausal women aged up to 42 years at study entry. They were required to have undergone at least 18 months and no more than 30 months of adjuvant endocrine therapy for stage I-III HR+ breast cancer, with no clinical evidence of recurrence. The women could also have undergone prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without fertility preservation.

Women halted endocrine therapy within 1 month of trial enrollment and then underwent a 3-month washout period before having up to 2 years to attempt pregnancy, and to conceive, give birth to, and breastfeed a baby. They were then “strongly recommended” to resume endocrine therapy to complete the planned 5-10 years of treatment, with follow-up planned for up to 10 years.

In all, 518 women were enrolled at 116 centers in 20 countries on four continents, of whom 516 were available for the primary efficacy analysis. The median time from breast cancer diagnosis to enrollment was 29 months.

The median age of the participants at enrollment was 37 years, and 75% had no prior births. Stage I or II disease was diagnosed in 93%. The median duration of endocrine therapy prior to enrollment was 23.4 months.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators were given alone in 42% of patients, while 36% had a SERM plus ovarian function suppression. A further 16% of women received an aromatase inhibitor alongside ovarian function suppression. The majority (62%) of women had received prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

The primary endpoint of 3-year BCFI was measured after a median follow-up of 41 months. There were 44 events, with a 3-year BCFI failure rate of 8.9%. The 3-year distant recurrence–free interval (DRFI) failure rate was calculated at 4.5%, with 22 events.

To provide an external control, the researchers examined data from the SOFT and TEXT trials to assemble a cohort of 1,499 women balanced for patient, disease, and treatment characteristics.

This revealed no significant differences in BCFI between the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-1.15) and a difference in BCFI rates at 3 years of 0.2% between the SOFT, TEXT, and POSITIVE trials.

There was also no significant difference in DRFI rates (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44-1.12), with a 3-year rate difference of 1.4%.

For the secondary endpoint analysis, the team included 497 women from the POSITIVE cohort, of whom 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy, giving a total of 507 pregnancies. At least one live birth was recorded in 64% of the women, or 86% of those who became pregnant.

Dr. Partridge noted that around 43% of women used some form of assisted reproductive technology at some point during the study period.

Pregnancy complications were observed in 11% of pregnancies, the most common of which were hypertension/preeclampsia in 3%, and diabetes in 2%.

There were a total of 350 live births in 317 women, including 335 singleton births and 15 sets of twins. Only 8% of the offspring had a low birth weight, and 2% had a birth defect. Breastfeeding was reported by 62% of women.

Conducting an 18-month landmark analysis, the team found that pregnancy did not increase BCFI rates, at an HR versus nonpregnant women of 0.53 after controlling for age, body mass index, lymph node status, prior chemotherapy, and prior aromatase inhibitor therapy.

At 48 months of follow-up, 76% of women had resumed endocrine therapy. A further 8% of women had cancer recurrence or death before they could restart therapy, while 15% had not yet resumed treatment for other reasons.

Among disease-free women who had not resumed endocrine therapy, 79% reported at their most recent follow-up continuing to pursue pregnancy, having an active or recent pregnancy, or continuing to breastfeed as the reason.

Commenting on the study, Jennifer K. Litton, MD, vice president of clinical research at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that this was a “challenging study to design and execute.”

“It gives us really a first look into the safety of a practice that was already happening,” she commented, and emphasized that the interruption of treatment to pursue pregnancy remains “an exceptionally individual decision.”

Dr. Litton also underlined that these results apply only to endocrine therapy and not to women on other therapies such as abemaciclib, for example, for which the course should be “fully completed” before considering any treatment interruptions.

She added more generally that “we need to continue to improve discussing fertility concerns with our breast cancer patients who want future pregnancies.”

The study was sponsored and conducted by the International Breast Cancer Study Group, a division of ETOP IBCSG Partners Foundation, and by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology in North America, in collaboration with the Breast International Group. Dr. Partridge and Dr. Litton reported no relevant relationships.

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

SAN ANTONIO – While major reports on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer took center stage at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, research highlighting new findings in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) stood out as well.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Kevin Kalinsky, MD, a medical oncologist and director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University in Atlanta, about the TNBC data that caught their eye and what the findings could mean for clinical practice.
 

1. Carboplatin for TNBC

Dr. Kalinsky’s first pick was a study on the impact of platinum therapy on long-term TNBC outcomes.

The phase 3 randomized controlled trial, presented in general session (GS) 5-01, explored whether adding carboplatin to sequential taxane-anthracycline neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with TNBC improved disease-free survival, pathologic complete response, or overall survival.

Overall, 365 patients received carboplatin, and 355 did not. At a median follow-up of 67.6 months, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 70.6% in the carboplatin group vs. 64.5% in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.79); the 5-year overall survival was also higher in the carboplatin group (74.0% vs. 66.7%; HR, 0.75). Pathologic complete response occurred in 55.2% of carboplatin patients, vs. 41.5% of control patients.

“These results are important,” Dr. Kalinsky said. “The results of this study suggest that there is a benefit to the TNBC population from being treated with carboplatin.”

Dr. Kalinsky cautioned, however, that despite the encouraging results, it remains unclear whether there is a specific biomarker for selecting patients who may derive the most benefit from treatment with carboplatin. “This remains an outstanding question,” he said.
 

2. Risk of contralateral breast cancer

Women with breast cancer who have germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, or PALB2 had nearly double the risk of contralateral breast cancer in comparison with patients without those variants, according to recent data presented at the meeting (GS4-04).

Researchers estimated the risk of contralateral breast cancer in women with pathogenic variants in comparison with control patients. They found that having ATM does not increase this risk.

“The reason this study is important is that many women with these mutations want to have a bilateral mastectomy, but thus far, the data have been unclear, and the question is, are they going to benefit from having a bilateral mastectomy?” said Dr. Kaklamani. “The results of this study help shine a light on what mutations might warrant a bilateral mastectomy. Most of these patients are going to be triple negative.”

Hal Burstein, MD, also weighed in, saying the “data should allow many to avoid prophylactic mastectomy.”
 

3. Cemiplimab plus LAG-3 inhibitor in TNBC

Another session that caught Dr. Kalinsky’s attention explored results from the I-SPY2 trial (GS5-03), which evaluated the use of the checkpoint inhibitior cemiplimab in combination with LAG-3 inhibitor REGN3767 for patients with early-stage, high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Among the 73 patients with HER2-negative disease who received cemiplimab plus REGN3767, 33 had TNBC. The control group included 357 patients with HER2-negative tumors, of whom 156 had TNBC. Overall, the combination of a LAG-3 and anti-PD1 inhibitor resulted in a pathologic complete response rate of 60% for patients with TNBC and 37% for patients with HR-positive disease.

“We know that checkpoint inhibitors benefit patients with TNBC, and there has been a lot of interest in looking beyond checkpoint inhibition,” said Dr. Kalinsky, who is a coinvestigator on the I-SPY trial. “LAG-3 has been a target of interest, and this is the first study looking in the neoadjuvant setting of giving a LAG-3 inhibitor along with a checkpoint inhibitor.”
 

4. Efficacy vs. side effect profile of cemiplimab

Taking adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors into account is also important. Dr. Kalinsky and colleagues presented research on the efficacy as well as the side-effect profile associated with cemiplimab (PD11-01) among patients in the I-SPY trial.

Overall, cemiplimab was associated with a higher pathologic complete response rate for patients with TNBC (55%), compared with control patients who received paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (29%). The rate of immune-related adverse events was higher in the cemiplimab group: hypothyroidism, 3% vs. 0%; adrenal insufficiency, 6% vs. 0%; hyperthyroid, 8% vs. 0%; and thyroiditis, 3% vs. 0%. However, only one case of grade 3 adrenal insufficiency occurred in the cemiplimab arm.

“I really think the key takeaway is not just the efficacy that is seen in the HER2-negative population but also what the side-effect profile is going to be,” Dr. Kalinsky said.
 

5. Olaparib or carboplatinum?

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted data from the GeparOLA study (GS5-02), which evaluated the efficacy and safety of using olaparib instead of carboplatinum along with paclitaxel as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage HER2-negative breast cancer.

The results of the study indicate that among patients in the cohort with HER2-negative homologous recombination deficiency tumors – those with a g/tBRCA mutation – the two groups had similar pathologic complete responses. Overall, patients in the olaparib group had more invasive disease-free survival events (15 vs. 3), more distant disease-free survival events (11 vs. 2), and more deaths (6 vs. 1). However, when comparing patients with a g/tBRCA mutation, outcomes were comparable in both arms.

“The majority of these patients were triple negative, and I think the importance here is that this [study] shows us whether we should be adding olaparib in some patients who have a homologous recombination deficiency,” Dr. Kaklamani said.

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

SAN ANTONIO – While major reports on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer took center stage at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, research highlighting new findings in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) stood out as well.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Kevin Kalinsky, MD, a medical oncologist and director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University in Atlanta, about the TNBC data that caught their eye and what the findings could mean for clinical practice.
 

1. Carboplatin for TNBC

Dr. Kalinsky’s first pick was a study on the impact of platinum therapy on long-term TNBC outcomes.

The phase 3 randomized controlled trial, presented in general session (GS) 5-01, explored whether adding carboplatin to sequential taxane-anthracycline neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with TNBC improved disease-free survival, pathologic complete response, or overall survival.

Overall, 365 patients received carboplatin, and 355 did not. At a median follow-up of 67.6 months, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 70.6% in the carboplatin group vs. 64.5% in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.79); the 5-year overall survival was also higher in the carboplatin group (74.0% vs. 66.7%; HR, 0.75). Pathologic complete response occurred in 55.2% of carboplatin patients, vs. 41.5% of control patients.

“These results are important,” Dr. Kalinsky said. “The results of this study suggest that there is a benefit to the TNBC population from being treated with carboplatin.”

Dr. Kalinsky cautioned, however, that despite the encouraging results, it remains unclear whether there is a specific biomarker for selecting patients who may derive the most benefit from treatment with carboplatin. “This remains an outstanding question,” he said.
 

2. Risk of contralateral breast cancer

Women with breast cancer who have germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, or PALB2 had nearly double the risk of contralateral breast cancer in comparison with patients without those variants, according to recent data presented at the meeting (GS4-04).

Researchers estimated the risk of contralateral breast cancer in women with pathogenic variants in comparison with control patients. They found that having ATM does not increase this risk.

“The reason this study is important is that many women with these mutations want to have a bilateral mastectomy, but thus far, the data have been unclear, and the question is, are they going to benefit from having a bilateral mastectomy?” said Dr. Kaklamani. “The results of this study help shine a light on what mutations might warrant a bilateral mastectomy. Most of these patients are going to be triple negative.”

Hal Burstein, MD, also weighed in, saying the “data should allow many to avoid prophylactic mastectomy.”
 

3. Cemiplimab plus LAG-3 inhibitor in TNBC

Another session that caught Dr. Kalinsky’s attention explored results from the I-SPY2 trial (GS5-03), which evaluated the use of the checkpoint inhibitior cemiplimab in combination with LAG-3 inhibitor REGN3767 for patients with early-stage, high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Among the 73 patients with HER2-negative disease who received cemiplimab plus REGN3767, 33 had TNBC. The control group included 357 patients with HER2-negative tumors, of whom 156 had TNBC. Overall, the combination of a LAG-3 and anti-PD1 inhibitor resulted in a pathologic complete response rate of 60% for patients with TNBC and 37% for patients with HR-positive disease.

“We know that checkpoint inhibitors benefit patients with TNBC, and there has been a lot of interest in looking beyond checkpoint inhibition,” said Dr. Kalinsky, who is a coinvestigator on the I-SPY trial. “LAG-3 has been a target of interest, and this is the first study looking in the neoadjuvant setting of giving a LAG-3 inhibitor along with a checkpoint inhibitor.”
 

4. Efficacy vs. side effect profile of cemiplimab

Taking adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors into account is also important. Dr. Kalinsky and colleagues presented research on the efficacy as well as the side-effect profile associated with cemiplimab (PD11-01) among patients in the I-SPY trial.

Overall, cemiplimab was associated with a higher pathologic complete response rate for patients with TNBC (55%), compared with control patients who received paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (29%). The rate of immune-related adverse events was higher in the cemiplimab group: hypothyroidism, 3% vs. 0%; adrenal insufficiency, 6% vs. 0%; hyperthyroid, 8% vs. 0%; and thyroiditis, 3% vs. 0%. However, only one case of grade 3 adrenal insufficiency occurred in the cemiplimab arm.

“I really think the key takeaway is not just the efficacy that is seen in the HER2-negative population but also what the side-effect profile is going to be,” Dr. Kalinsky said.
 

5. Olaparib or carboplatinum?

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted data from the GeparOLA study (GS5-02), which evaluated the efficacy and safety of using olaparib instead of carboplatinum along with paclitaxel as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage HER2-negative breast cancer.

The results of the study indicate that among patients in the cohort with HER2-negative homologous recombination deficiency tumors – those with a g/tBRCA mutation – the two groups had similar pathologic complete responses. Overall, patients in the olaparib group had more invasive disease-free survival events (15 vs. 3), more distant disease-free survival events (11 vs. 2), and more deaths (6 vs. 1). However, when comparing patients with a g/tBRCA mutation, outcomes were comparable in both arms.

“The majority of these patients were triple negative, and I think the importance here is that this [study] shows us whether we should be adding olaparib in some patients who have a homologous recombination deficiency,” Dr. Kaklamani said.

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

SAN ANTONIO – While major reports on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer took center stage at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, research highlighting new findings in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) stood out as well.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Kevin Kalinsky, MD, a medical oncologist and director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University in Atlanta, about the TNBC data that caught their eye and what the findings could mean for clinical practice.
 

1. Carboplatin for TNBC

Dr. Kalinsky’s first pick was a study on the impact of platinum therapy on long-term TNBC outcomes.

The phase 3 randomized controlled trial, presented in general session (GS) 5-01, explored whether adding carboplatin to sequential taxane-anthracycline neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with TNBC improved disease-free survival, pathologic complete response, or overall survival.

Overall, 365 patients received carboplatin, and 355 did not. At a median follow-up of 67.6 months, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 70.6% in the carboplatin group vs. 64.5% in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.79); the 5-year overall survival was also higher in the carboplatin group (74.0% vs. 66.7%; HR, 0.75). Pathologic complete response occurred in 55.2% of carboplatin patients, vs. 41.5% of control patients.

“These results are important,” Dr. Kalinsky said. “The results of this study suggest that there is a benefit to the TNBC population from being treated with carboplatin.”

Dr. Kalinsky cautioned, however, that despite the encouraging results, it remains unclear whether there is a specific biomarker for selecting patients who may derive the most benefit from treatment with carboplatin. “This remains an outstanding question,” he said.
 

2. Risk of contralateral breast cancer

Women with breast cancer who have germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, or PALB2 had nearly double the risk of contralateral breast cancer in comparison with patients without those variants, according to recent data presented at the meeting (GS4-04).

Researchers estimated the risk of contralateral breast cancer in women with pathogenic variants in comparison with control patients. They found that having ATM does not increase this risk.

“The reason this study is important is that many women with these mutations want to have a bilateral mastectomy, but thus far, the data have been unclear, and the question is, are they going to benefit from having a bilateral mastectomy?” said Dr. Kaklamani. “The results of this study help shine a light on what mutations might warrant a bilateral mastectomy. Most of these patients are going to be triple negative.”

Hal Burstein, MD, also weighed in, saying the “data should allow many to avoid prophylactic mastectomy.”
 

3. Cemiplimab plus LAG-3 inhibitor in TNBC

Another session that caught Dr. Kalinsky’s attention explored results from the I-SPY2 trial (GS5-03), which evaluated the use of the checkpoint inhibitior cemiplimab in combination with LAG-3 inhibitor REGN3767 for patients with early-stage, high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Among the 73 patients with HER2-negative disease who received cemiplimab plus REGN3767, 33 had TNBC. The control group included 357 patients with HER2-negative tumors, of whom 156 had TNBC. Overall, the combination of a LAG-3 and anti-PD1 inhibitor resulted in a pathologic complete response rate of 60% for patients with TNBC and 37% for patients with HR-positive disease.

“We know that checkpoint inhibitors benefit patients with TNBC, and there has been a lot of interest in looking beyond checkpoint inhibition,” said Dr. Kalinsky, who is a coinvestigator on the I-SPY trial. “LAG-3 has been a target of interest, and this is the first study looking in the neoadjuvant setting of giving a LAG-3 inhibitor along with a checkpoint inhibitor.”
 

4. Efficacy vs. side effect profile of cemiplimab

Taking adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors into account is also important. Dr. Kalinsky and colleagues presented research on the efficacy as well as the side-effect profile associated with cemiplimab (PD11-01) among patients in the I-SPY trial.

Overall, cemiplimab was associated with a higher pathologic complete response rate for patients with TNBC (55%), compared with control patients who received paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (29%). The rate of immune-related adverse events was higher in the cemiplimab group: hypothyroidism, 3% vs. 0%; adrenal insufficiency, 6% vs. 0%; hyperthyroid, 8% vs. 0%; and thyroiditis, 3% vs. 0%. However, only one case of grade 3 adrenal insufficiency occurred in the cemiplimab arm.

“I really think the key takeaway is not just the efficacy that is seen in the HER2-negative population but also what the side-effect profile is going to be,” Dr. Kalinsky said.
 

5. Olaparib or carboplatinum?

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted data from the GeparOLA study (GS5-02), which evaluated the efficacy and safety of using olaparib instead of carboplatinum along with paclitaxel as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage HER2-negative breast cancer.

The results of the study indicate that among patients in the cohort with HER2-negative homologous recombination deficiency tumors – those with a g/tBRCA mutation – the two groups had similar pathologic complete responses. Overall, patients in the olaparib group had more invasive disease-free survival events (15 vs. 3), more distant disease-free survival events (11 vs. 2), and more deaths (6 vs. 1). However, when comparing patients with a g/tBRCA mutation, outcomes were comparable in both arms.

“The majority of these patients were triple negative, and I think the importance here is that this [study] shows us whether we should be adding olaparib in some patients who have a homologous recombination deficiency,” Dr. Kaklamani said.

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

In March 2020, when the world was struck by the news of the COVID-19 pandemic, Erinn Baldeschwiler received her own gut punch. She was diagnosed with stage IV metastatic breast cancer and was given about 2 years to live.

Then 48, the mother of two teenagers had just started a new chapter in her life. She’d gotten divorced, moved to a new home, and left a small business she had spent 18 years cultivating. The prospect that her life story might soon be ending, that she wouldn’t see her children grow up, was a twist of fate almost too devastating to bear.

“Are you kidding me that this is happening?” she thought.

But she also wanted to keep learning and growing in her remaining years, to devote them to creating meaningful memories, contemplating her mortality, and trying to find inner peace.

“The last 2 years have kind of been this dance with Lady Death,” she said.

They have also been a dance with Lady Justice.

In March 2021, Ms. Baldeschwiler, along with Michal Bloom, who also has terminal cancer, and their palliative care physician, Sunil Aggarwal, MD, PhD, decided to sue the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the right to access psilocybin, the psychoactive ingredient in “magic” mushrooms.

Psilocybin-assisted therapy has been shown to help terminally ill people overcome their fear, anxiety, and despair about death and to experience the kind of peace Ms. Baldeschwiler is seeking.

Psilocybin is illegal in the United States, but the plaintiffs argue they should be able to take the substance through the Right to Try Act. The 2018 federal law says that people with life-threatening conditions who have exhausted all approved treatment options can access drugs that have not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration but have passed phase 1 clinical trials.

This case marks the first time patients have fought to use a Schedule I drug under the Right to Try Act.

The push to expand access to psilocybin is picking up steam in the United States. In 2023, facilitated use of psilocybin will become legal in Oregon and Colorado. Recent proposals from the Biden administration and members of Congress could make psilocybin more widely accessible in the next few years.

It is also gaining momentum outside the United States. In Canada, patients are suing the government to help patients obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy for medical purposes.

“I think what we have here is a confluence of events that are driving toward the mandatory opening of a path to access psilocybin for therapeutic use sooner rather than later,” said Kathryn Tucker, lead counsel in the case against the DEA.
 

Reverberations of Right to Try

The story of Right to Try began with Abigail Burroughs, who was diagnosed with head and neck cancer at age 19.

After conventional therapies failed, Ms. Burroughs’ oncologist recommended cetuximab, a drug targeting EGFR that was experimental at the time. Because the drug was available only through colon cancer trials, she was denied access.

She died in 2001 at age 21.

Ms. Burroughs’ father, Frank Burroughs, formed an organization that in 2003 sued the FDA to provide terminally ill patients access to unapproved drugs. In 2005, they lost, and subsequent attempts to appeal the decision failed.

Still, the case sparked a Right to Try movement.

“Right to Try laws swept the U.S. in a firestorm,” Ms. Tucker said.

Along with the federal law, which passed in 2018, 41 states have enacted Right to Try laws.

The movement intrigued Dr. Aggarwal, codirector of the Advanced Integrative Medical Science (AIMS) Institute in Seattle. Dr. Aggarwal had been treating patients with cannabis, and after taking psilocybin himself and finding it therapeutic, he thought Ms. Baldeschwiler could benefit.

“I always knew that the powerful medicines within Schedule I had a significant role to play in healing,” he said. “That was baked into my decision to become a doctor, to research, and to innovate.”

He applied for the right to cultivate psilocybin mushrooms, but the fungus doesn’t meet Right to Try requirements. He then found a manufacturer willing to supply synthesized psilocybin, but because it’s a Schedule I drug, the manufacturer needed an okay from the DEA.

Dr. Aggarwal joined forces with Ms. Tucker, who has spent 35 years protecting the rights of terminally ill patients. In January 2021, Ms. Tucker contacted the DEA about allowing dying patients, including Ms. Baldeschwiler and Mr. Bloom, to access psilocybin-assisted therapy.

The response, she said, was predictable.

“The DEA’s knee always jerks in the direction of no access,” Ms. Tucker said. “So it said ‘no access.’ “

The reason: In a letter dated February 2021, the DEA said it “has no authority to waive” any requirements of the Controlled Substances Act under Right to Try laws.
 

Suing the DEA

Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker did not accept the DEA’s “no access” answer.

They decided to sue.

Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker took the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court in March 2021. In January 2022, the court dismissed the case after the DEA claimed its initial denial was not final.

The following month, the plaintiffs petitioned the DEA to deliver a concrete answer.

In May, while waiting for a response, demonstrators gathered at the DEA’s headquarters to call for legal access to psilocybin. One of the protesters was Ms. Baldeschwiler, who choked back tears as she told the crowd she was likely missing her last Mother’s Day with her children to attend the event. She was arrested, along with 16 other people.

In late June, the DEA provided its final answer: No access.

In a letter addressed to Ms. Tucker, Thomas W. Prevoznik, the DEA’s deputy assistant administrator, said it “finds no basis” to reconsider its initial denial in February 2021 “because the legal and factual considerations remain unchanged.”

In an appeal, Ms. Tucker wrote: “In denying Petitioners’ requested accommodation in the Final Agency Action, DEA hides behind a smokescreen, neglecting its duty to implement the federal [Right to Try Act] and violating the state [Right to Try law].”

The government’s response is due in January 2023.

Ms. Tucker and her legal team also petitioned the DEA on behalf of Dr. Aggarwal to reschedule psilocybin from Schedule I to Schedule II.

The DEA defines Schedule I substances as “drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” But the FDA has designated psilocybin as a breakthrough therapy for depression, which, Ms. Tucker noted, “reflects that there is a currently accepted medical use.”

Nevertheless, in September, the DEA denied Ms. Tucker’s petition to reschedule psilocybin, and her team is now petitioning the Ninth Circuit Court for a review of that decision.

Despite the setbacks, actions from the Biden administration and members of Congress could help improve access.

In July, Senators Cory Booker and Rand Paul introduced the Right to Try Clarification Act to clarify that the federal law includes Schedule I substances. If passed, Ms. Tucker said, it would negate the DEA’s “no access” argument.

And earlier this year, the Biden administration announced plans to establish a federal task force to address the “myriad of complex issues” associated with the anticipated FDA approval of psilocybin to treat depression. The task force will explore “the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies” to tackle the mental health crisis as well as any “risks to public health” that “may require harm reduction, risk mitigation, and safety monitoring.”
 

The fight north of the border

In 2016, Canadian resident Thomas Hartle, then 48, awoke from surgery for a bowel obstruction to learn he had stage IV colon cancer.

After another surgery, his doctors believed the tumors were gone. But in 2019, the cancer came back, along with extreme anxiety and distress over his impending death and how his two special-needs children would cope.

Mr. Hartle wanted to try magic mushroom–assisted psychotherapy. The Saskatoon resident sought help from TheraPsil, a Canadian nonprofit organization that advocates for therapeutic psilocybin. They applied for access under Section 56, which allows health officials to exempt patients from certain provisions of drug law.

In 2020, Hartle became the first Canadian to legally obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy.

“It has been nothing short of life changing for me,” Mr. Hartle said at a palliative care conference in Saskatoon this past June. “I am now no longer actively dying. I feel like I am genuinely actively living.”

TheraPsil has obtained Section 56 exemptions for around 60 patients to access psilocybin-assisted therapy as well as 19 health care professionals who are training to become psilocybin-assisted therapists.

But then an election ushered in new health ministers, and in early 2022, the exemptions evaporated. Thousands of patients and health care practitioners on TheraPsil’s waiting list were left in limbo.

Health Canada told CBC News that the rule change came about because “while psilocybin has shown promise in clinical trials for the treatment of some indications, further research is still needed to determine its safety and efficacy.”

As an alternative, TheraPsil began applying for access under Canada’s Special Access Program, which is similar to Right to Try laws in the United States. But Canada’s program doesn’t apply to therapists in training, and the petition process is so slow that many patients die before requests can be approved.

“People like to pretend that the Special Access Program is not political, but it is very political,” said TheraPsil’s CEO, Spencer Hawkswell. “It means a patient and a doctor are asking a politician for access to their medicine, which is absolutely unacceptable.”

Now, TheraPsil is helping patients take the Canadian government to court. In July, Mr. Hartle and seven others with conditions ranging from cancer to chronic pain filed a lawsuit against Canada’s health ministry that challenges the limited legal pathways to the use of psilocybin. The lawsuit argues that patients have a “constitutional right to access psilocybin for medicinal purposes,” and it advocates for access to regulated psilocybin products from licensed dealers, much like Canada’s medical marijuana program already does.

In the filing, TheraPsil said that as of February 2022, it has a wait-list of more than 800 patients who are requesting help in obtaining psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy.
 

An uncertain future

Despite the groundswell of support, many unknowns remain about the safety of expanding access to psilocybin-assisted therapy.

When Oregon and Colorado launch their psilocybin programs in 2023, the licensed centers will provide testing grounds for the safety and efficacy of broader access to psilocybin for people with depression or terminal cancer as well as those looking to grow spiritually.

Although in clinical trials psilocybin has been found to ease symptoms of depression and end-of-life demoralization for people with life-threatening conditions, it has not been adequately tested in people with a range of mental health problems, traumas, and racial backgrounds.

That uncertainty has given some people pause. In recent months, some researchers and journalists have pushed back against the frenzy over the promise of psychedelics.

In September, David Yaden, PhD, a psychedelics researcher at Johns Hopkins, spoke at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Psychedelic Research in the Netherlands. He encouraged people to pay more attention to potential adverse effects of psychedelics, which could include anything from headaches to lingering dysphoria.

“Oftentimes, we hear only the positive anecdotes,” Dr. Yaden said. “We don’t hear ... neutral or negative ones. So, I think all of those anecdotes need to be part of the picture.”

A recent piece in Wired noted that mentioning the potential harms of psychedelics amid its renaissance has been “taboo,” but the authors cautioned that as clinical trials involving psychedelics grow larger and the drugs become commercialized, “more negative outcomes are likely to transpire.”

But Ms. Baldeschwiler remains steadfast in her pursuit. While it’s important to approach broader access to psychedelics with caution, “end-of-life patients don’t have time to wait,” she said.

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

In March 2020, when the world was struck by the news of the COVID-19 pandemic, Erinn Baldeschwiler received her own gut punch. She was diagnosed with stage IV metastatic breast cancer and was given about 2 years to live.

Then 48, the mother of two teenagers had just started a new chapter in her life. She’d gotten divorced, moved to a new home, and left a small business she had spent 18 years cultivating. The prospect that her life story might soon be ending, that she wouldn’t see her children grow up, was a twist of fate almost too devastating to bear.

“Are you kidding me that this is happening?” she thought.

But she also wanted to keep learning and growing in her remaining years, to devote them to creating meaningful memories, contemplating her mortality, and trying to find inner peace.

“The last 2 years have kind of been this dance with Lady Death,” she said.

They have also been a dance with Lady Justice.

In March 2021, Ms. Baldeschwiler, along with Michal Bloom, who also has terminal cancer, and their palliative care physician, Sunil Aggarwal, MD, PhD, decided to sue the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the right to access psilocybin, the psychoactive ingredient in “magic” mushrooms.

Psilocybin-assisted therapy has been shown to help terminally ill people overcome their fear, anxiety, and despair about death and to experience the kind of peace Ms. Baldeschwiler is seeking.

Psilocybin is illegal in the United States, but the plaintiffs argue they should be able to take the substance through the Right to Try Act. The 2018 federal law says that people with life-threatening conditions who have exhausted all approved treatment options can access drugs that have not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration but have passed phase 1 clinical trials.

This case marks the first time patients have fought to use a Schedule I drug under the Right to Try Act.

The push to expand access to psilocybin is picking up steam in the United States. In 2023, facilitated use of psilocybin will become legal in Oregon and Colorado. Recent proposals from the Biden administration and members of Congress could make psilocybin more widely accessible in the next few years.

It is also gaining momentum outside the United States. In Canada, patients are suing the government to help patients obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy for medical purposes.

“I think what we have here is a confluence of events that are driving toward the mandatory opening of a path to access psilocybin for therapeutic use sooner rather than later,” said Kathryn Tucker, lead counsel in the case against the DEA.
 

Reverberations of Right to Try

The story of Right to Try began with Abigail Burroughs, who was diagnosed with head and neck cancer at age 19.

After conventional therapies failed, Ms. Burroughs’ oncologist recommended cetuximab, a drug targeting EGFR that was experimental at the time. Because the drug was available only through colon cancer trials, she was denied access.

She died in 2001 at age 21.

Ms. Burroughs’ father, Frank Burroughs, formed an organization that in 2003 sued the FDA to provide terminally ill patients access to unapproved drugs. In 2005, they lost, and subsequent attempts to appeal the decision failed.

Still, the case sparked a Right to Try movement.

“Right to Try laws swept the U.S. in a firestorm,” Ms. Tucker said.

Along with the federal law, which passed in 2018, 41 states have enacted Right to Try laws.

The movement intrigued Dr. Aggarwal, codirector of the Advanced Integrative Medical Science (AIMS) Institute in Seattle. Dr. Aggarwal had been treating patients with cannabis, and after taking psilocybin himself and finding it therapeutic, he thought Ms. Baldeschwiler could benefit.

“I always knew that the powerful medicines within Schedule I had a significant role to play in healing,” he said. “That was baked into my decision to become a doctor, to research, and to innovate.”

He applied for the right to cultivate psilocybin mushrooms, but the fungus doesn’t meet Right to Try requirements. He then found a manufacturer willing to supply synthesized psilocybin, but because it’s a Schedule I drug, the manufacturer needed an okay from the DEA.

Dr. Aggarwal joined forces with Ms. Tucker, who has spent 35 years protecting the rights of terminally ill patients. In January 2021, Ms. Tucker contacted the DEA about allowing dying patients, including Ms. Baldeschwiler and Mr. Bloom, to access psilocybin-assisted therapy.

The response, she said, was predictable.

“The DEA’s knee always jerks in the direction of no access,” Ms. Tucker said. “So it said ‘no access.’ “

The reason: In a letter dated February 2021, the DEA said it “has no authority to waive” any requirements of the Controlled Substances Act under Right to Try laws.
 

Suing the DEA

Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker did not accept the DEA’s “no access” answer.

They decided to sue.

Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker took the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court in March 2021. In January 2022, the court dismissed the case after the DEA claimed its initial denial was not final.

The following month, the plaintiffs petitioned the DEA to deliver a concrete answer.

In May, while waiting for a response, demonstrators gathered at the DEA’s headquarters to call for legal access to psilocybin. One of the protesters was Ms. Baldeschwiler, who choked back tears as she told the crowd she was likely missing her last Mother’s Day with her children to attend the event. She was arrested, along with 16 other people.

In late June, the DEA provided its final answer: No access.

In a letter addressed to Ms. Tucker, Thomas W. Prevoznik, the DEA’s deputy assistant administrator, said it “finds no basis” to reconsider its initial denial in February 2021 “because the legal and factual considerations remain unchanged.”

In an appeal, Ms. Tucker wrote: “In denying Petitioners’ requested accommodation in the Final Agency Action, DEA hides behind a smokescreen, neglecting its duty to implement the federal [Right to Try Act] and violating the state [Right to Try law].”

The government’s response is due in January 2023.

Ms. Tucker and her legal team also petitioned the DEA on behalf of Dr. Aggarwal to reschedule psilocybin from Schedule I to Schedule II.

The DEA defines Schedule I substances as “drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” But the FDA has designated psilocybin as a breakthrough therapy for depression, which, Ms. Tucker noted, “reflects that there is a currently accepted medical use.”

Nevertheless, in September, the DEA denied Ms. Tucker’s petition to reschedule psilocybin, and her team is now petitioning the Ninth Circuit Court for a review of that decision.

Despite the setbacks, actions from the Biden administration and members of Congress could help improve access.

In July, Senators Cory Booker and Rand Paul introduced the Right to Try Clarification Act to clarify that the federal law includes Schedule I substances. If passed, Ms. Tucker said, it would negate the DEA’s “no access” argument.

And earlier this year, the Biden administration announced plans to establish a federal task force to address the “myriad of complex issues” associated with the anticipated FDA approval of psilocybin to treat depression. The task force will explore “the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies” to tackle the mental health crisis as well as any “risks to public health” that “may require harm reduction, risk mitigation, and safety monitoring.”
 

The fight north of the border

In 2016, Canadian resident Thomas Hartle, then 48, awoke from surgery for a bowel obstruction to learn he had stage IV colon cancer.

After another surgery, his doctors believed the tumors were gone. But in 2019, the cancer came back, along with extreme anxiety and distress over his impending death and how his two special-needs children would cope.

Mr. Hartle wanted to try magic mushroom–assisted psychotherapy. The Saskatoon resident sought help from TheraPsil, a Canadian nonprofit organization that advocates for therapeutic psilocybin. They applied for access under Section 56, which allows health officials to exempt patients from certain provisions of drug law.

In 2020, Hartle became the first Canadian to legally obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy.

“It has been nothing short of life changing for me,” Mr. Hartle said at a palliative care conference in Saskatoon this past June. “I am now no longer actively dying. I feel like I am genuinely actively living.”

TheraPsil has obtained Section 56 exemptions for around 60 patients to access psilocybin-assisted therapy as well as 19 health care professionals who are training to become psilocybin-assisted therapists.

But then an election ushered in new health ministers, and in early 2022, the exemptions evaporated. Thousands of patients and health care practitioners on TheraPsil’s waiting list were left in limbo.

Health Canada told CBC News that the rule change came about because “while psilocybin has shown promise in clinical trials for the treatment of some indications, further research is still needed to determine its safety and efficacy.”

As an alternative, TheraPsil began applying for access under Canada’s Special Access Program, which is similar to Right to Try laws in the United States. But Canada’s program doesn’t apply to therapists in training, and the petition process is so slow that many patients die before requests can be approved.

“People like to pretend that the Special Access Program is not political, but it is very political,” said TheraPsil’s CEO, Spencer Hawkswell. “It means a patient and a doctor are asking a politician for access to their medicine, which is absolutely unacceptable.”

Now, TheraPsil is helping patients take the Canadian government to court. In July, Mr. Hartle and seven others with conditions ranging from cancer to chronic pain filed a lawsuit against Canada’s health ministry that challenges the limited legal pathways to the use of psilocybin. The lawsuit argues that patients have a “constitutional right to access psilocybin for medicinal purposes,” and it advocates for access to regulated psilocybin products from licensed dealers, much like Canada’s medical marijuana program already does.

In the filing, TheraPsil said that as of February 2022, it has a wait-list of more than 800 patients who are requesting help in obtaining psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy.
 

An uncertain future

Despite the groundswell of support, many unknowns remain about the safety of expanding access to psilocybin-assisted therapy.

When Oregon and Colorado launch their psilocybin programs in 2023, the licensed centers will provide testing grounds for the safety and efficacy of broader access to psilocybin for people with depression or terminal cancer as well as those looking to grow spiritually.

Although in clinical trials psilocybin has been found to ease symptoms of depression and end-of-life demoralization for people with life-threatening conditions, it has not been adequately tested in people with a range of mental health problems, traumas, and racial backgrounds.

That uncertainty has given some people pause. In recent months, some researchers and journalists have pushed back against the frenzy over the promise of psychedelics.

In September, David Yaden, PhD, a psychedelics researcher at Johns Hopkins, spoke at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Psychedelic Research in the Netherlands. He encouraged people to pay more attention to potential adverse effects of psychedelics, which could include anything from headaches to lingering dysphoria.

“Oftentimes, we hear only the positive anecdotes,” Dr. Yaden said. “We don’t hear ... neutral or negative ones. So, I think all of those anecdotes need to be part of the picture.”

A recent piece in Wired noted that mentioning the potential harms of psychedelics amid its renaissance has been “taboo,” but the authors cautioned that as clinical trials involving psychedelics grow larger and the drugs become commercialized, “more negative outcomes are likely to transpire.”

But Ms. Baldeschwiler remains steadfast in her pursuit. While it’s important to approach broader access to psychedelics with caution, “end-of-life patients don’t have time to wait,” she said.

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

In March 2020, when the world was struck by the news of the COVID-19 pandemic, Erinn Baldeschwiler received her own gut punch. She was diagnosed with stage IV metastatic breast cancer and was given about 2 years to live.

Then 48, the mother of two teenagers had just started a new chapter in her life. She’d gotten divorced, moved to a new home, and left a small business she had spent 18 years cultivating. The prospect that her life story might soon be ending, that she wouldn’t see her children grow up, was a twist of fate almost too devastating to bear.

“Are you kidding me that this is happening?” she thought.

But she also wanted to keep learning and growing in her remaining years, to devote them to creating meaningful memories, contemplating her mortality, and trying to find inner peace.

“The last 2 years have kind of been this dance with Lady Death,” she said.

They have also been a dance with Lady Justice.

In March 2021, Ms. Baldeschwiler, along with Michal Bloom, who also has terminal cancer, and their palliative care physician, Sunil Aggarwal, MD, PhD, decided to sue the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the right to access psilocybin, the psychoactive ingredient in “magic” mushrooms.

Psilocybin-assisted therapy has been shown to help terminally ill people overcome their fear, anxiety, and despair about death and to experience the kind of peace Ms. Baldeschwiler is seeking.

Psilocybin is illegal in the United States, but the plaintiffs argue they should be able to take the substance through the Right to Try Act. The 2018 federal law says that people with life-threatening conditions who have exhausted all approved treatment options can access drugs that have not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration but have passed phase 1 clinical trials.

This case marks the first time patients have fought to use a Schedule I drug under the Right to Try Act.

The push to expand access to psilocybin is picking up steam in the United States. In 2023, facilitated use of psilocybin will become legal in Oregon and Colorado. Recent proposals from the Biden administration and members of Congress could make psilocybin more widely accessible in the next few years.

It is also gaining momentum outside the United States. In Canada, patients are suing the government to help patients obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy for medical purposes.

“I think what we have here is a confluence of events that are driving toward the mandatory opening of a path to access psilocybin for therapeutic use sooner rather than later,” said Kathryn Tucker, lead counsel in the case against the DEA.
 

Reverberations of Right to Try

The story of Right to Try began with Abigail Burroughs, who was diagnosed with head and neck cancer at age 19.

After conventional therapies failed, Ms. Burroughs’ oncologist recommended cetuximab, a drug targeting EGFR that was experimental at the time. Because the drug was available only through colon cancer trials, she was denied access.

She died in 2001 at age 21.

Ms. Burroughs’ father, Frank Burroughs, formed an organization that in 2003 sued the FDA to provide terminally ill patients access to unapproved drugs. In 2005, they lost, and subsequent attempts to appeal the decision failed.

Still, the case sparked a Right to Try movement.

“Right to Try laws swept the U.S. in a firestorm,” Ms. Tucker said.

Along with the federal law, which passed in 2018, 41 states have enacted Right to Try laws.

The movement intrigued Dr. Aggarwal, codirector of the Advanced Integrative Medical Science (AIMS) Institute in Seattle. Dr. Aggarwal had been treating patients with cannabis, and after taking psilocybin himself and finding it therapeutic, he thought Ms. Baldeschwiler could benefit.

“I always knew that the powerful medicines within Schedule I had a significant role to play in healing,” he said. “That was baked into my decision to become a doctor, to research, and to innovate.”

He applied for the right to cultivate psilocybin mushrooms, but the fungus doesn’t meet Right to Try requirements. He then found a manufacturer willing to supply synthesized psilocybin, but because it’s a Schedule I drug, the manufacturer needed an okay from the DEA.

Dr. Aggarwal joined forces with Ms. Tucker, who has spent 35 years protecting the rights of terminally ill patients. In January 2021, Ms. Tucker contacted the DEA about allowing dying patients, including Ms. Baldeschwiler and Mr. Bloom, to access psilocybin-assisted therapy.

The response, she said, was predictable.

“The DEA’s knee always jerks in the direction of no access,” Ms. Tucker said. “So it said ‘no access.’ “

The reason: In a letter dated February 2021, the DEA said it “has no authority to waive” any requirements of the Controlled Substances Act under Right to Try laws.
 

Suing the DEA

Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker did not accept the DEA’s “no access” answer.

They decided to sue.

Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker took the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court in March 2021. In January 2022, the court dismissed the case after the DEA claimed its initial denial was not final.

The following month, the plaintiffs petitioned the DEA to deliver a concrete answer.

In May, while waiting for a response, demonstrators gathered at the DEA’s headquarters to call for legal access to psilocybin. One of the protesters was Ms. Baldeschwiler, who choked back tears as she told the crowd she was likely missing her last Mother’s Day with her children to attend the event. She was arrested, along with 16 other people.

In late June, the DEA provided its final answer: No access.

In a letter addressed to Ms. Tucker, Thomas W. Prevoznik, the DEA’s deputy assistant administrator, said it “finds no basis” to reconsider its initial denial in February 2021 “because the legal and factual considerations remain unchanged.”

In an appeal, Ms. Tucker wrote: “In denying Petitioners’ requested accommodation in the Final Agency Action, DEA hides behind a smokescreen, neglecting its duty to implement the federal [Right to Try Act] and violating the state [Right to Try law].”

The government’s response is due in January 2023.

Ms. Tucker and her legal team also petitioned the DEA on behalf of Dr. Aggarwal to reschedule psilocybin from Schedule I to Schedule II.

The DEA defines Schedule I substances as “drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” But the FDA has designated psilocybin as a breakthrough therapy for depression, which, Ms. Tucker noted, “reflects that there is a currently accepted medical use.”

Nevertheless, in September, the DEA denied Ms. Tucker’s petition to reschedule psilocybin, and her team is now petitioning the Ninth Circuit Court for a review of that decision.

Despite the setbacks, actions from the Biden administration and members of Congress could help improve access.

In July, Senators Cory Booker and Rand Paul introduced the Right to Try Clarification Act to clarify that the federal law includes Schedule I substances. If passed, Ms. Tucker said, it would negate the DEA’s “no access” argument.

And earlier this year, the Biden administration announced plans to establish a federal task force to address the “myriad of complex issues” associated with the anticipated FDA approval of psilocybin to treat depression. The task force will explore “the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies” to tackle the mental health crisis as well as any “risks to public health” that “may require harm reduction, risk mitigation, and safety monitoring.”
 

The fight north of the border

In 2016, Canadian resident Thomas Hartle, then 48, awoke from surgery for a bowel obstruction to learn he had stage IV colon cancer.

After another surgery, his doctors believed the tumors were gone. But in 2019, the cancer came back, along with extreme anxiety and distress over his impending death and how his two special-needs children would cope.

Mr. Hartle wanted to try magic mushroom–assisted psychotherapy. The Saskatoon resident sought help from TheraPsil, a Canadian nonprofit organization that advocates for therapeutic psilocybin. They applied for access under Section 56, which allows health officials to exempt patients from certain provisions of drug law.

In 2020, Hartle became the first Canadian to legally obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy.

“It has been nothing short of life changing for me,” Mr. Hartle said at a palliative care conference in Saskatoon this past June. “I am now no longer actively dying. I feel like I am genuinely actively living.”

TheraPsil has obtained Section 56 exemptions for around 60 patients to access psilocybin-assisted therapy as well as 19 health care professionals who are training to become psilocybin-assisted therapists.

But then an election ushered in new health ministers, and in early 2022, the exemptions evaporated. Thousands of patients and health care practitioners on TheraPsil’s waiting list were left in limbo.

Health Canada told CBC News that the rule change came about because “while psilocybin has shown promise in clinical trials for the treatment of some indications, further research is still needed to determine its safety and efficacy.”

As an alternative, TheraPsil began applying for access under Canada’s Special Access Program, which is similar to Right to Try laws in the United States. But Canada’s program doesn’t apply to therapists in training, and the petition process is so slow that many patients die before requests can be approved.

“People like to pretend that the Special Access Program is not political, but it is very political,” said TheraPsil’s CEO, Spencer Hawkswell. “It means a patient and a doctor are asking a politician for access to their medicine, which is absolutely unacceptable.”

Now, TheraPsil is helping patients take the Canadian government to court. In July, Mr. Hartle and seven others with conditions ranging from cancer to chronic pain filed a lawsuit against Canada’s health ministry that challenges the limited legal pathways to the use of psilocybin. The lawsuit argues that patients have a “constitutional right to access psilocybin for medicinal purposes,” and it advocates for access to regulated psilocybin products from licensed dealers, much like Canada’s medical marijuana program already does.

In the filing, TheraPsil said that as of February 2022, it has a wait-list of more than 800 patients who are requesting help in obtaining psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy.
 

An uncertain future

Despite the groundswell of support, many unknowns remain about the safety of expanding access to psilocybin-assisted therapy.

When Oregon and Colorado launch their psilocybin programs in 2023, the licensed centers will provide testing grounds for the safety and efficacy of broader access to psilocybin for people with depression or terminal cancer as well as those looking to grow spiritually.

Although in clinical trials psilocybin has been found to ease symptoms of depression and end-of-life demoralization for people with life-threatening conditions, it has not been adequately tested in people with a range of mental health problems, traumas, and racial backgrounds.

That uncertainty has given some people pause. In recent months, some researchers and journalists have pushed back against the frenzy over the promise of psychedelics.

In September, David Yaden, PhD, a psychedelics researcher at Johns Hopkins, spoke at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Psychedelic Research in the Netherlands. He encouraged people to pay more attention to potential adverse effects of psychedelics, which could include anything from headaches to lingering dysphoria.

“Oftentimes, we hear only the positive anecdotes,” Dr. Yaden said. “We don’t hear ... neutral or negative ones. So, I think all of those anecdotes need to be part of the picture.”

A recent piece in Wired noted that mentioning the potential harms of psychedelics amid its renaissance has been “taboo,” but the authors cautioned that as clinical trials involving psychedelics grow larger and the drugs become commercialized, “more negative outcomes are likely to transpire.”

But Ms. Baldeschwiler remains steadfast in her pursuit. While it’s important to approach broader access to psychedelics with caution, “end-of-life patients don’t have time to wait,” she said.

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

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancers resistant to aromatase inhibitors, the combination of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib with the selective estrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant alone in the CAPItelllo-291 study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The benefit of adding capivasertib to fulvestrant was also seen in patients with previous exposure to cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and in patients with liver metastases, reported Nicholas Turner, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust in London.

“Capivasertib plus fulvestrant has the potential to be a future treatment option for patients with hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer who have progressed on an endocrine-based regimen,” he said.
 

AKT alterations

Many HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancers have activation of the AKT pathway through alteration in PIK3CA, AKT1, and PTEN, but this activation can also occur in the absence of genetic alterations. AKT signaling is also a mechanism of resistance to endocrine therapy, Dr. Turner said.

Capivasertib, a select inhibitor of the AKT isoforms 1, 2, and 3, was combined with fulvestrant in the phase 2 FAKTION trial. The combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with fulvestrant plus placebo in CDK4/6-naive postmenopausal women with aromatase inhibitor–resistant HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer. The clinical benefit in this trial was more pronounced among patients with tumors bearing AKT pathway alterations, he said.

In the phase 3 CAPItello study, Dr. Turner and colleagues enrolled men and both pre- and postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer who experienced recurrence either during therapy with adjuvant aromatase inhibitor or within 12 months of the end of therapy, or who had disease progression while on prior aromatase inhibitor therapy for advanced breast cancer.

The patients could have no more than two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one prior line of chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer, and no prior selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), mTOR inhibitor, PI3K inhibitor, or AKT inhibitor. Patients with hemoglobin A1c below 8% and with diabetes not requiring insulin were eligible for the study. After stratification for liver metastases, prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, and geographic region, 708 patients were randomized to either capivasertib 400 mg twice daily 4 days on and 3 days off plus fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and then every 4 weeks, or to fulvestrant in the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
 

Results

The dual primary endpoint was investigator assessed PFS in both the overall population and in those with AKT pathway alterations. The median PFS in the overall population was 7.2 months with the combination, compared with 3.6 months for fulvestrant alone, translating into an adjusted hazard ratio for progression of 0.60 (P < .001).

In the pathway-altered population, the median PFS was 7.3 months with capivasertib/fulvestrant vs. 3.1 months with fulvestrant placebo, which translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for progression on the combination of 0.50 (P < .001).

An exploratory analysis of PFS among patients either without pathway alterations or unknown AKT status showed median PFS of 7.2 months and 3.7 months, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 0.70.

An analysis of benefit by subgroups in the overall population showed that the balance tipped in favor of the combination in nearly all categories, including among patients with or without liver metastases and with or without prior CDK4/6 inhibitor use.

Among patients with measurable disease at baseline the combination was associated with objective response rates (ORR) of 22.9% in the overall population and 28.8% in the pathway-altered population. The respective ORR for fulvestrant/placebo were 12.2% and 9.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff, but showed trends favoring capivasertib plus fulvestrant in both the overall and AKT-pathway-altered population.

There were four fatal adverse events in the combination arm (acute myocardial infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, pneumonia aspiration, and sepsis), and one in the fulvestrant alone arm (COVID-19).

The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events among patients treated with the combination were rash (12.1%), diarrhea (9.3 %), and hyperglycemia (2.3%). In all, 13% of patients randomized to capivasertib/fulvestrant discontinued therapy due to adverse events, compared with 2.3% of patients assigned to fulvestrant/placebo.

Dr. Turner said that the overall adverse event profile with the combination was manageable and consistent with data from previous studies.
 

‘Clinically relevant benefit’

Invited discussant Fabrice André, MD, PhD, of Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Villejuif, France, noted that the CAPItello-291 study is one of the first randomized trials enriched with patients whose tumors are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors.

“What are the take-home messages? First, there is a clinically relevant benefit in the overall population and in the PIK3CA mutant/AKT/PTEN altered population,” he said.

He noted that the exploratory analysis showed a small clinical benefit with an impressive hazard ratio but broad confidence interval in patients with biomarker-negative tumors, and noted that the study lacked either circulating tumor DNA analysis or exploration of other mechanisms of AKT pathway alteration.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Turner has served on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, and his institution has received research funding from the company. Dr. Andre disclosed fees to his hospital on his behalf from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly, and Roche.

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancers resistant to aromatase inhibitors, the combination of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib with the selective estrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant alone in the CAPItelllo-291 study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The benefit of adding capivasertib to fulvestrant was also seen in patients with previous exposure to cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and in patients with liver metastases, reported Nicholas Turner, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust in London.

“Capivasertib plus fulvestrant has the potential to be a future treatment option for patients with hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer who have progressed on an endocrine-based regimen,” he said.
 

AKT alterations

Many HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancers have activation of the AKT pathway through alteration in PIK3CA, AKT1, and PTEN, but this activation can also occur in the absence of genetic alterations. AKT signaling is also a mechanism of resistance to endocrine therapy, Dr. Turner said.

Capivasertib, a select inhibitor of the AKT isoforms 1, 2, and 3, was combined with fulvestrant in the phase 2 FAKTION trial. The combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with fulvestrant plus placebo in CDK4/6-naive postmenopausal women with aromatase inhibitor–resistant HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer. The clinical benefit in this trial was more pronounced among patients with tumors bearing AKT pathway alterations, he said.

In the phase 3 CAPItello study, Dr. Turner and colleagues enrolled men and both pre- and postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer who experienced recurrence either during therapy with adjuvant aromatase inhibitor or within 12 months of the end of therapy, or who had disease progression while on prior aromatase inhibitor therapy for advanced breast cancer.

The patients could have no more than two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one prior line of chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer, and no prior selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), mTOR inhibitor, PI3K inhibitor, or AKT inhibitor. Patients with hemoglobin A1c below 8% and with diabetes not requiring insulin were eligible for the study. After stratification for liver metastases, prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, and geographic region, 708 patients were randomized to either capivasertib 400 mg twice daily 4 days on and 3 days off plus fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and then every 4 weeks, or to fulvestrant in the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
 

Results

The dual primary endpoint was investigator assessed PFS in both the overall population and in those with AKT pathway alterations. The median PFS in the overall population was 7.2 months with the combination, compared with 3.6 months for fulvestrant alone, translating into an adjusted hazard ratio for progression of 0.60 (P < .001).

In the pathway-altered population, the median PFS was 7.3 months with capivasertib/fulvestrant vs. 3.1 months with fulvestrant placebo, which translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for progression on the combination of 0.50 (P < .001).

An exploratory analysis of PFS among patients either without pathway alterations or unknown AKT status showed median PFS of 7.2 months and 3.7 months, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 0.70.

An analysis of benefit by subgroups in the overall population showed that the balance tipped in favor of the combination in nearly all categories, including among patients with or without liver metastases and with or without prior CDK4/6 inhibitor use.

Among patients with measurable disease at baseline the combination was associated with objective response rates (ORR) of 22.9% in the overall population and 28.8% in the pathway-altered population. The respective ORR for fulvestrant/placebo were 12.2% and 9.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff, but showed trends favoring capivasertib plus fulvestrant in both the overall and AKT-pathway-altered population.

There were four fatal adverse events in the combination arm (acute myocardial infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, pneumonia aspiration, and sepsis), and one in the fulvestrant alone arm (COVID-19).

The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events among patients treated with the combination were rash (12.1%), diarrhea (9.3 %), and hyperglycemia (2.3%). In all, 13% of patients randomized to capivasertib/fulvestrant discontinued therapy due to adverse events, compared with 2.3% of patients assigned to fulvestrant/placebo.

Dr. Turner said that the overall adverse event profile with the combination was manageable and consistent with data from previous studies.
 

‘Clinically relevant benefit’

Invited discussant Fabrice André, MD, PhD, of Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Villejuif, France, noted that the CAPItello-291 study is one of the first randomized trials enriched with patients whose tumors are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors.

“What are the take-home messages? First, there is a clinically relevant benefit in the overall population and in the PIK3CA mutant/AKT/PTEN altered population,” he said.

He noted that the exploratory analysis showed a small clinical benefit with an impressive hazard ratio but broad confidence interval in patients with biomarker-negative tumors, and noted that the study lacked either circulating tumor DNA analysis or exploration of other mechanisms of AKT pathway alteration.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Turner has served on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, and his institution has received research funding from the company. Dr. Andre disclosed fees to his hospital on his behalf from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly, and Roche.

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancers resistant to aromatase inhibitors, the combination of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib with the selective estrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant alone in the CAPItelllo-291 study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The benefit of adding capivasertib to fulvestrant was also seen in patients with previous exposure to cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and in patients with liver metastases, reported Nicholas Turner, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust in London.

“Capivasertib plus fulvestrant has the potential to be a future treatment option for patients with hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer who have progressed on an endocrine-based regimen,” he said.
 

AKT alterations

Many HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancers have activation of the AKT pathway through alteration in PIK3CA, AKT1, and PTEN, but this activation can also occur in the absence of genetic alterations. AKT signaling is also a mechanism of resistance to endocrine therapy, Dr. Turner said.

Capivasertib, a select inhibitor of the AKT isoforms 1, 2, and 3, was combined with fulvestrant in the phase 2 FAKTION trial. The combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with fulvestrant plus placebo in CDK4/6-naive postmenopausal women with aromatase inhibitor–resistant HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer. The clinical benefit in this trial was more pronounced among patients with tumors bearing AKT pathway alterations, he said.

In the phase 3 CAPItello study, Dr. Turner and colleagues enrolled men and both pre- and postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer who experienced recurrence either during therapy with adjuvant aromatase inhibitor or within 12 months of the end of therapy, or who had disease progression while on prior aromatase inhibitor therapy for advanced breast cancer.

The patients could have no more than two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one prior line of chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer, and no prior selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), mTOR inhibitor, PI3K inhibitor, or AKT inhibitor. Patients with hemoglobin A1c below 8% and with diabetes not requiring insulin were eligible for the study. After stratification for liver metastases, prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, and geographic region, 708 patients were randomized to either capivasertib 400 mg twice daily 4 days on and 3 days off plus fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and then every 4 weeks, or to fulvestrant in the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
 

Results

The dual primary endpoint was investigator assessed PFS in both the overall population and in those with AKT pathway alterations. The median PFS in the overall population was 7.2 months with the combination, compared with 3.6 months for fulvestrant alone, translating into an adjusted hazard ratio for progression of 0.60 (P < .001).

In the pathway-altered population, the median PFS was 7.3 months with capivasertib/fulvestrant vs. 3.1 months with fulvestrant placebo, which translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for progression on the combination of 0.50 (P < .001).

An exploratory analysis of PFS among patients either without pathway alterations or unknown AKT status showed median PFS of 7.2 months and 3.7 months, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 0.70.

An analysis of benefit by subgroups in the overall population showed that the balance tipped in favor of the combination in nearly all categories, including among patients with or without liver metastases and with or without prior CDK4/6 inhibitor use.

Among patients with measurable disease at baseline the combination was associated with objective response rates (ORR) of 22.9% in the overall population and 28.8% in the pathway-altered population. The respective ORR for fulvestrant/placebo were 12.2% and 9.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff, but showed trends favoring capivasertib plus fulvestrant in both the overall and AKT-pathway-altered population.

There were four fatal adverse events in the combination arm (acute myocardial infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, pneumonia aspiration, and sepsis), and one in the fulvestrant alone arm (COVID-19).

The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events among patients treated with the combination were rash (12.1%), diarrhea (9.3 %), and hyperglycemia (2.3%). In all, 13% of patients randomized to capivasertib/fulvestrant discontinued therapy due to adverse events, compared with 2.3% of patients assigned to fulvestrant/placebo.

Dr. Turner said that the overall adverse event profile with the combination was manageable and consistent with data from previous studies.
 

‘Clinically relevant benefit’

Invited discussant Fabrice André, MD, PhD, of Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Villejuif, France, noted that the CAPItello-291 study is one of the first randomized trials enriched with patients whose tumors are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors.

“What are the take-home messages? First, there is a clinically relevant benefit in the overall population and in the PIK3CA mutant/AKT/PTEN altered population,” he said.

He noted that the exploratory analysis showed a small clinical benefit with an impressive hazard ratio but broad confidence interval in patients with biomarker-negative tumors, and noted that the study lacked either circulating tumor DNA analysis or exploration of other mechanisms of AKT pathway alteration.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Turner has served on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, and his institution has received research funding from the company. Dr. Andre disclosed fees to his hospital on his behalf from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly, and Roche.

San Antonio – A 16-gene molecular signature may identify patients with breast cancer who are at risk for locoregional recurrence, as well as those who can be safely spared from breast radiation following breast-conserving surgery, an international team of investigators said.

In combined data from three independent randomized trials grouped into a meta-analysis, patients who had low scores on the messenger RNA–based signature, dubbed “Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiotherapy” (POLAR), derived only minimal benefit from radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery. In contrast, patients with high POLAR scores had significant clinical benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, reported Per Karlsson, MD, chief physician with the Sahlgrenska Comprehensive Cancer Center and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden). Dr. Karlsson reported his findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“To our knowledge, POLAR is the first genomic classifier that is not only prognostic but also predictive of radiotherapy benefit, showing a significant interaction between radiotherapy and the classifier,” he said. “These important retrospective findings warrant further investigation, including in contemporary clinical studies.”

Investigators with the Swedish SweBCG91RT trial (Swedish Breast Cancer Group 91 Radiotherapy), the Scottish Conservation (radiotherapy) Trial (SCT), and a trial from the Princess Margaret Cancer Hospital in Toronto, collaborated on improving and validating the POLAR signature, which was originally developed for use in the SweBCG91RT trial in patients with lymph node–negative breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery. The patients were randomized to whole breast irradiation or no radiotherapy.

To develop the signature, researchers collected tumor blocks from 1,004 patients, and extracted RNA from the samples. Gene expression data were obtained from primary tumors of 764 patients. The subset of 597 patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative tumors (ER+/HER2–) who did not receive systemic therapy were divided into a training set with 243 patients, and a validation cohort with 354 patients.

They identified a total of 16 genes involved in cellular proliferation and immune response, and then validated the signature using retrospective data from three clinical trials of patients randomized to radiotherapy or no radiation following breast-conserving surgery.

Of 623 patients with node-negative ER+/HER2– tumors who were included in the meta-analysis, 429 patients were found to have high POLAR scores. These patients benefited from adjuvant radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery with a 10-year cumulative incidence of low risk of locoregional recurrence ranging from 15% to 26% for those who were not treated with radiation therapy, compared with only 4%-11% percent for those who received radiation therapy (hazard ratio, 0.37; P < .001).

In contrast, among the 194 patients whose tumors had POLAR low scores, there was no apparent benefit from radiation therapy with a nonsignificant HR of 0.92 (P = .832).

In Cox proportional hazard models for time to locoregional recurrences for 309 patients who did not undergo radiation, POLAR scores were significantly prognostic for recurrence, with a HR of 1.53 (P < .001) in univariable analysis, and 1.43 (P = .005) in multivariable analysis controlling for age, tumor size, tumor grade and molecular groupings.
 

New modalities may make findings less relevant

Alphonse Taghian, MD, PhD, a breast radiation oncologist with Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the study, said there have been major changes in radiation therapy since the studies used for development of the POLAR signature were performed. For example, the Scottish Conservation Trial ran from 1985 to 1991, while the SweBCGR91RT trial and Princess Margaret trial were both conducted in the 1990s.

He noted that patients in those studies would likely experience more morbidities from radiation than patients treated with more recent modalities such as intensity modulated radiation therapy, and that patients treated 30 years ago would have to put up with lengthy fractionation schedules that required daily trips to the hospital over as long as 6 weeks, whereas a majority of patients can now be treated with hypofractionated radiation that can be performed in a much shorter time and with minimal comorbidities.

He acknowledged, however, that “it will help to have a signature proved, confirmed, or validated retrospectively with a different set of data.”

Dr. Taghian also said that it would be helpful to have more data about the age of patients, because omitting radiation is more common for elderly patients than it is for younger patients.

“It will maybe be beneficial to look at this signature in patients that we think might not need radiation,” he said.

The study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, King Gustav 5 Jubilee Clinic Foundation, the ALF Agreement of the Swedish government, PFS Genomics, and Exact Sciences. Dr. Karlsson has pending patents with and receives royalties from Exact Sciences and PreludeDX. Dr. Taghian reported having no relevant disclosures.

San Antonio – A 16-gene molecular signature may identify patients with breast cancer who are at risk for locoregional recurrence, as well as those who can be safely spared from breast radiation following breast-conserving surgery, an international team of investigators said.

In combined data from three independent randomized trials grouped into a meta-analysis, patients who had low scores on the messenger RNA–based signature, dubbed “Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiotherapy” (POLAR), derived only minimal benefit from radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery. In contrast, patients with high POLAR scores had significant clinical benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, reported Per Karlsson, MD, chief physician with the Sahlgrenska Comprehensive Cancer Center and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden). Dr. Karlsson reported his findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“To our knowledge, POLAR is the first genomic classifier that is not only prognostic but also predictive of radiotherapy benefit, showing a significant interaction between radiotherapy and the classifier,” he said. “These important retrospective findings warrant further investigation, including in contemporary clinical studies.”

Investigators with the Swedish SweBCG91RT trial (Swedish Breast Cancer Group 91 Radiotherapy), the Scottish Conservation (radiotherapy) Trial (SCT), and a trial from the Princess Margaret Cancer Hospital in Toronto, collaborated on improving and validating the POLAR signature, which was originally developed for use in the SweBCG91RT trial in patients with lymph node–negative breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery. The patients were randomized to whole breast irradiation or no radiotherapy.

To develop the signature, researchers collected tumor blocks from 1,004 patients, and extracted RNA from the samples. Gene expression data were obtained from primary tumors of 764 patients. The subset of 597 patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative tumors (ER+/HER2–) who did not receive systemic therapy were divided into a training set with 243 patients, and a validation cohort with 354 patients.

They identified a total of 16 genes involved in cellular proliferation and immune response, and then validated the signature using retrospective data from three clinical trials of patients randomized to radiotherapy or no radiation following breast-conserving surgery.

Of 623 patients with node-negative ER+/HER2– tumors who were included in the meta-analysis, 429 patients were found to have high POLAR scores. These patients benefited from adjuvant radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery with a 10-year cumulative incidence of low risk of locoregional recurrence ranging from 15% to 26% for those who were not treated with radiation therapy, compared with only 4%-11% percent for those who received radiation therapy (hazard ratio, 0.37; P < .001).

In contrast, among the 194 patients whose tumors had POLAR low scores, there was no apparent benefit from radiation therapy with a nonsignificant HR of 0.92 (P = .832).

In Cox proportional hazard models for time to locoregional recurrences for 309 patients who did not undergo radiation, POLAR scores were significantly prognostic for recurrence, with a HR of 1.53 (P < .001) in univariable analysis, and 1.43 (P = .005) in multivariable analysis controlling for age, tumor size, tumor grade and molecular groupings.
 

New modalities may make findings less relevant

Alphonse Taghian, MD, PhD, a breast radiation oncologist with Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the study, said there have been major changes in radiation therapy since the studies used for development of the POLAR signature were performed. For example, the Scottish Conservation Trial ran from 1985 to 1991, while the SweBCGR91RT trial and Princess Margaret trial were both conducted in the 1990s.

He noted that patients in those studies would likely experience more morbidities from radiation than patients treated with more recent modalities such as intensity modulated radiation therapy, and that patients treated 30 years ago would have to put up with lengthy fractionation schedules that required daily trips to the hospital over as long as 6 weeks, whereas a majority of patients can now be treated with hypofractionated radiation that can be performed in a much shorter time and with minimal comorbidities.

He acknowledged, however, that “it will help to have a signature proved, confirmed, or validated retrospectively with a different set of data.”

Dr. Taghian also said that it would be helpful to have more data about the age of patients, because omitting radiation is more common for elderly patients than it is for younger patients.

“It will maybe be beneficial to look at this signature in patients that we think might not need radiation,” he said.

The study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, King Gustav 5 Jubilee Clinic Foundation, the ALF Agreement of the Swedish government, PFS Genomics, and Exact Sciences. Dr. Karlsson has pending patents with and receives royalties from Exact Sciences and PreludeDX. Dr. Taghian reported having no relevant disclosures.

San Antonio – A 16-gene molecular signature may identify patients with breast cancer who are at risk for locoregional recurrence, as well as those who can be safely spared from breast radiation following breast-conserving surgery, an international team of investigators said.

In combined data from three independent randomized trials grouped into a meta-analysis, patients who had low scores on the messenger RNA–based signature, dubbed “Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiotherapy” (POLAR), derived only minimal benefit from radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery. In contrast, patients with high POLAR scores had significant clinical benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, reported Per Karlsson, MD, chief physician with the Sahlgrenska Comprehensive Cancer Center and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden). Dr. Karlsson reported his findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“To our knowledge, POLAR is the first genomic classifier that is not only prognostic but also predictive of radiotherapy benefit, showing a significant interaction between radiotherapy and the classifier,” he said. “These important retrospective findings warrant further investigation, including in contemporary clinical studies.”

Investigators with the Swedish SweBCG91RT trial (Swedish Breast Cancer Group 91 Radiotherapy), the Scottish Conservation (radiotherapy) Trial (SCT), and a trial from the Princess Margaret Cancer Hospital in Toronto, collaborated on improving and validating the POLAR signature, which was originally developed for use in the SweBCG91RT trial in patients with lymph node–negative breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery. The patients were randomized to whole breast irradiation or no radiotherapy.

To develop the signature, researchers collected tumor blocks from 1,004 patients, and extracted RNA from the samples. Gene expression data were obtained from primary tumors of 764 patients. The subset of 597 patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative tumors (ER+/HER2–) who did not receive systemic therapy were divided into a training set with 243 patients, and a validation cohort with 354 patients.

They identified a total of 16 genes involved in cellular proliferation and immune response, and then validated the signature using retrospective data from three clinical trials of patients randomized to radiotherapy or no radiation following breast-conserving surgery.

Of 623 patients with node-negative ER+/HER2– tumors who were included in the meta-analysis, 429 patients were found to have high POLAR scores. These patients benefited from adjuvant radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery with a 10-year cumulative incidence of low risk of locoregional recurrence ranging from 15% to 26% for those who were not treated with radiation therapy, compared with only 4%-11% percent for those who received radiation therapy (hazard ratio, 0.37; P < .001).

In contrast, among the 194 patients whose tumors had POLAR low scores, there was no apparent benefit from radiation therapy with a nonsignificant HR of 0.92 (P = .832).

In Cox proportional hazard models for time to locoregional recurrences for 309 patients who did not undergo radiation, POLAR scores were significantly prognostic for recurrence, with a HR of 1.53 (P < .001) in univariable analysis, and 1.43 (P = .005) in multivariable analysis controlling for age, tumor size, tumor grade and molecular groupings.
 

New modalities may make findings less relevant

Alphonse Taghian, MD, PhD, a breast radiation oncologist with Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the study, said there have been major changes in radiation therapy since the studies used for development of the POLAR signature were performed. For example, the Scottish Conservation Trial ran from 1985 to 1991, while the SweBCGR91RT trial and Princess Margaret trial were both conducted in the 1990s.

He noted that patients in those studies would likely experience more morbidities from radiation than patients treated with more recent modalities such as intensity modulated radiation therapy, and that patients treated 30 years ago would have to put up with lengthy fractionation schedules that required daily trips to the hospital over as long as 6 weeks, whereas a majority of patients can now be treated with hypofractionated radiation that can be performed in a much shorter time and with minimal comorbidities.

He acknowledged, however, that “it will help to have a signature proved, confirmed, or validated retrospectively with a different set of data.”

Dr. Taghian also said that it would be helpful to have more data about the age of patients, because omitting radiation is more common for elderly patients than it is for younger patients.

“It will maybe be beneficial to look at this signature in patients that we think might not need radiation,” he said.

The study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, King Gustav 5 Jubilee Clinic Foundation, the ALF Agreement of the Swedish government, PFS Genomics, and Exact Sciences. Dr. Karlsson has pending patents with and receives royalties from Exact Sciences and PreludeDX. Dr. Taghian reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN Antonio – How do you shoot at an invisible target? It seems counterintuitive, but trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) (Enhertu), which combines an antibody targeted to HER2 with a toxic payload, showed promising preliminary activity against localized hormone receptor–positive breast cancers with only low levels of HER2 expression (HR+/HER2-low).

In the investigator-initiated TRIO-US B-12 TALENT study looking at neoadjuvant T-DXd either alone or in combination with the hormone therapy anastrazole, the objective response rate (ORR) with T-DXd alone was 68%, compared with 58% for T-DXd plus anastrazole, reported Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston. He recently presented the study findings at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“The study provides a rich platform for additional translational research to evaluate more sensitive methods of HER2 detection, develop predictive biomarkers, and understand mechanisms of resistance in residual disease which would guide subsequent therapeutic strategies, including combination therapy,” he said in an oral abstract session at the meeting.
 

Not-so-innocent bystander

In an interview, Dr. Bardia explained that the T-DXd may have efficacy in HER2-low cancers because of a bystander effect.

“With these antibody drug conjugates, if you have the antigen, the ADC binds to the antigen, gets internalized, and releases the payload, but the payload has a bystander effect ... it’s membrane permeable, so it can go outside and affect other cells that do not express the antigen. So for HER2-low tumors, even if there is HER2 heterogeneity or if there are some cells that do not express HER2, this would work because of the bystander effect,” he said.

Although neoadjuvant chemotherapy with an anthracycline and taxane is often used to treat patients with high-risk localized HR-positive breast cancer, the therapy is associated with low pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, radiological response rates of around 50%, and significant toxicities, including myelosuppression, neuropathy, cardiomyopathy, and leukemia risk, Dr. Bardia said.
 

At cross purposes

The trial included both a T-DXd monotherapy arm and a second arm containing the antibody drug conjugate (ADC) with endocrine therapy. The rationale for the latter is that there is documented “cross-talk” between the estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2.

“In tumors that become endocrine resistant, you see an increase in the HER2 pathway, and if you block ER, you see that HER2 goes up and vice versa. If you just block HER2 alone, the expression of ER can go up, and if you block the PI3 kinase alone, the expression of ER goes up,” he said.

Dual blockade can be effective with antibody-based therapy or with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, but with an ADC, the dual blockade strategy may be less effective, Dr. Bardia said, “because if you have an ADC, you need HER2, the ADC binds to HER2, then gives the payload to the cancer cells and essentially kills the cancer cells,” Dr. Bardia explained in a media briefing held prior to his presentation.

In fact, the T-DXd–anastrozole combination was associated with a lower overall response rate in the study than T-DXd alone, but Dr. Bardia cautioned about overinterpreting these results, as the study included only 39 patients.
 

Study details

The investigators enrolled 58 patients – 56 pre- and postmenopausal women and 2 men – with HR+/HER2-low tumors determined by local and/or central review, and operable stage II or III cancers.

After stratification by HER2 expression level and menopausal status, the patients were randomized to receive either T-DXd alone at a dose of 5.4 mg/kg, or with T-DXd at the same dose plus anastrozole, with men and premenopausal women also receiving a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog.

The protocol originally called for six cycles of therapy, but was amended in February 2022 to increase the number to eight for newly enrolled participants and patients who were already on study treatment but had not yet had surgery.

The majority of patients in each arm had invasive ductal cancers, and most had HER2 expression on immunohistochemistry (IHC) of 1+, which is generally considered to be HER2-negative. However, there was only modest concordance between local and central review in determining HER2 expression levels, Dr. Bardia noted. Indeed, the entire question of HER2-low cancers, whether they compose a separate clinical entity from other cancers and how to standardize testing, was the subject of a special session at this year’s SABCS.
 

Results

Overall response rate, the primary endpoint, was 68% in the T-DXd arm and 58% in the T-DXd plus anastrazole arm.

Although the low response rate with the combination suggests that endocrine therapy may not be helpful in this patient population, it’s still too early to say so conclusively, Dr. Bardia said.

Looking at the change in HER2 expression by IHC from baseline to surgery, they found that 48.6% of patients had a change in HER2 IHC expression after T-DXd treatment, and that nearly 90% of these patients had a decrease in expression levels.

Among 42 patients with available data on residual cancer burden (RCB) at the time of data cutoff, one patient in the T-DXd alone arm with stage 3A disease had an RCB of 0, equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR). There were no other RCB 0 tumors after surgery in either study arm. The rate of combined RCB and RCB 1 (near pCR) was about 15% in each arm.

In all, 3 of the 58 patients in the study (5.2%) required dose reductions because of adverse events. There were no cases of grade 3 or greater pneumonitis, and no cases of either cardiomyopathy or neuropathy.
 

Way better than chemotherapy?

“It was very exciting when we got the DESTINY-Breast04 results showing this impressive activity of trastuzumab deruxtecan in this HER2-low entity, and now we know that hormone-positive [tumors], the majority of them are HER2-low. It was really encouraging, it was practice changing, but we were left wondering about this HER2-low entity, and can we act on it in the earlier setting,” commented Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“The beauty of the TRIO-US B-12 TALENT study is that it looked at the neoadjuvant setting where we know those patients who are hormone-positive usually do not respond well to chemotherapy,” he said in an interview.

He said that although the study didn’t compare T-DXd to chemotherapy, “it’s an excellent first start.”

An overall response rate near 70% “is something amazing. I’m really excited to see it against chemo. I think it’s going to do way better,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The study was conducted by the Translational Research In Oncology (TRIO)-US network. Funding was provided by Daiichi Sankyo, the maker of trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). Dr. Bardia serves as a consultant or advisory board member for Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead Sciences, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly, and has received research funding from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly.

Dr. Mouabbi disclosed honoraria from BostonGene, Cardinal Health, Napo Pharmaceuticals, and Fresenius Kabi.

SAN Antonio – How do you shoot at an invisible target? It seems counterintuitive, but trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) (Enhertu), which combines an antibody targeted to HER2 with a toxic payload, showed promising preliminary activity against localized hormone receptor–positive breast cancers with only low levels of HER2 expression (HR+/HER2-low).

In the investigator-initiated TRIO-US B-12 TALENT study looking at neoadjuvant T-DXd either alone or in combination with the hormone therapy anastrazole, the objective response rate (ORR) with T-DXd alone was 68%, compared with 58% for T-DXd plus anastrazole, reported Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston. He recently presented the study findings at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“The study provides a rich platform for additional translational research to evaluate more sensitive methods of HER2 detection, develop predictive biomarkers, and understand mechanisms of resistance in residual disease which would guide subsequent therapeutic strategies, including combination therapy,” he said in an oral abstract session at the meeting.
 

Not-so-innocent bystander

In an interview, Dr. Bardia explained that the T-DXd may have efficacy in HER2-low cancers because of a bystander effect.

“With these antibody drug conjugates, if you have the antigen, the ADC binds to the antigen, gets internalized, and releases the payload, but the payload has a bystander effect ... it’s membrane permeable, so it can go outside and affect other cells that do not express the antigen. So for HER2-low tumors, even if there is HER2 heterogeneity or if there are some cells that do not express HER2, this would work because of the bystander effect,” he said.

Although neoadjuvant chemotherapy with an anthracycline and taxane is often used to treat patients with high-risk localized HR-positive breast cancer, the therapy is associated with low pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, radiological response rates of around 50%, and significant toxicities, including myelosuppression, neuropathy, cardiomyopathy, and leukemia risk, Dr. Bardia said.
 

At cross purposes

The trial included both a T-DXd monotherapy arm and a second arm containing the antibody drug conjugate (ADC) with endocrine therapy. The rationale for the latter is that there is documented “cross-talk” between the estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2.

“In tumors that become endocrine resistant, you see an increase in the HER2 pathway, and if you block ER, you see that HER2 goes up and vice versa. If you just block HER2 alone, the expression of ER can go up, and if you block the PI3 kinase alone, the expression of ER goes up,” he said.

Dual blockade can be effective with antibody-based therapy or with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, but with an ADC, the dual blockade strategy may be less effective, Dr. Bardia said, “because if you have an ADC, you need HER2, the ADC binds to HER2, then gives the payload to the cancer cells and essentially kills the cancer cells,” Dr. Bardia explained in a media briefing held prior to his presentation.

In fact, the T-DXd–anastrozole combination was associated with a lower overall response rate in the study than T-DXd alone, but Dr. Bardia cautioned about overinterpreting these results, as the study included only 39 patients.
 

Study details

The investigators enrolled 58 patients – 56 pre- and postmenopausal women and 2 men – with HR+/HER2-low tumors determined by local and/or central review, and operable stage II or III cancers.

After stratification by HER2 expression level and menopausal status, the patients were randomized to receive either T-DXd alone at a dose of 5.4 mg/kg, or with T-DXd at the same dose plus anastrozole, with men and premenopausal women also receiving a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog.

The protocol originally called for six cycles of therapy, but was amended in February 2022 to increase the number to eight for newly enrolled participants and patients who were already on study treatment but had not yet had surgery.

The majority of patients in each arm had invasive ductal cancers, and most had HER2 expression on immunohistochemistry (IHC) of 1+, which is generally considered to be HER2-negative. However, there was only modest concordance between local and central review in determining HER2 expression levels, Dr. Bardia noted. Indeed, the entire question of HER2-low cancers, whether they compose a separate clinical entity from other cancers and how to standardize testing, was the subject of a special session at this year’s SABCS.
 

Results

Overall response rate, the primary endpoint, was 68% in the T-DXd arm and 58% in the T-DXd plus anastrazole arm.

Although the low response rate with the combination suggests that endocrine therapy may not be helpful in this patient population, it’s still too early to say so conclusively, Dr. Bardia said.

Looking at the change in HER2 expression by IHC from baseline to surgery, they found that 48.6% of patients had a change in HER2 IHC expression after T-DXd treatment, and that nearly 90% of these patients had a decrease in expression levels.

Among 42 patients with available data on residual cancer burden (RCB) at the time of data cutoff, one patient in the T-DXd alone arm with stage 3A disease had an RCB of 0, equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR). There were no other RCB 0 tumors after surgery in either study arm. The rate of combined RCB and RCB 1 (near pCR) was about 15% in each arm.

In all, 3 of the 58 patients in the study (5.2%) required dose reductions because of adverse events. There were no cases of grade 3 or greater pneumonitis, and no cases of either cardiomyopathy or neuropathy.
 

Way better than chemotherapy?

“It was very exciting when we got the DESTINY-Breast04 results showing this impressive activity of trastuzumab deruxtecan in this HER2-low entity, and now we know that hormone-positive [tumors], the majority of them are HER2-low. It was really encouraging, it was practice changing, but we were left wondering about this HER2-low entity, and can we act on it in the earlier setting,” commented Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“The beauty of the TRIO-US B-12 TALENT study is that it looked at the neoadjuvant setting where we know those patients who are hormone-positive usually do not respond well to chemotherapy,” he said in an interview.

He said that although the study didn’t compare T-DXd to chemotherapy, “it’s an excellent first start.”

An overall response rate near 70% “is something amazing. I’m really excited to see it against chemo. I think it’s going to do way better,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The study was conducted by the Translational Research In Oncology (TRIO)-US network. Funding was provided by Daiichi Sankyo, the maker of trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). Dr. Bardia serves as a consultant or advisory board member for Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead Sciences, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly, and has received research funding from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly.

Dr. Mouabbi disclosed honoraria from BostonGene, Cardinal Health, Napo Pharmaceuticals, and Fresenius Kabi.

SAN Antonio – How do you shoot at an invisible target? It seems counterintuitive, but trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) (Enhertu), which combines an antibody targeted to HER2 with a toxic payload, showed promising preliminary activity against localized hormone receptor–positive breast cancers with only low levels of HER2 expression (HR+/HER2-low).

In the investigator-initiated TRIO-US B-12 TALENT study looking at neoadjuvant T-DXd either alone or in combination with the hormone therapy anastrazole, the objective response rate (ORR) with T-DXd alone was 68%, compared with 58% for T-DXd plus anastrazole, reported Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston. He recently presented the study findings at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“The study provides a rich platform for additional translational research to evaluate more sensitive methods of HER2 detection, develop predictive biomarkers, and understand mechanisms of resistance in residual disease which would guide subsequent therapeutic strategies, including combination therapy,” he said in an oral abstract session at the meeting.
 

Not-so-innocent bystander

In an interview, Dr. Bardia explained that the T-DXd may have efficacy in HER2-low cancers because of a bystander effect.

“With these antibody drug conjugates, if you have the antigen, the ADC binds to the antigen, gets internalized, and releases the payload, but the payload has a bystander effect ... it’s membrane permeable, so it can go outside and affect other cells that do not express the antigen. So for HER2-low tumors, even if there is HER2 heterogeneity or if there are some cells that do not express HER2, this would work because of the bystander effect,” he said.

Although neoadjuvant chemotherapy with an anthracycline and taxane is often used to treat patients with high-risk localized HR-positive breast cancer, the therapy is associated with low pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, radiological response rates of around 50%, and significant toxicities, including myelosuppression, neuropathy, cardiomyopathy, and leukemia risk, Dr. Bardia said.
 

At cross purposes

The trial included both a T-DXd monotherapy arm and a second arm containing the antibody drug conjugate (ADC) with endocrine therapy. The rationale for the latter is that there is documented “cross-talk” between the estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2.

“In tumors that become endocrine resistant, you see an increase in the HER2 pathway, and if you block ER, you see that HER2 goes up and vice versa. If you just block HER2 alone, the expression of ER can go up, and if you block the PI3 kinase alone, the expression of ER goes up,” he said.

Dual blockade can be effective with antibody-based therapy or with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, but with an ADC, the dual blockade strategy may be less effective, Dr. Bardia said, “because if you have an ADC, you need HER2, the ADC binds to HER2, then gives the payload to the cancer cells and essentially kills the cancer cells,” Dr. Bardia explained in a media briefing held prior to his presentation.

In fact, the T-DXd–anastrozole combination was associated with a lower overall response rate in the study than T-DXd alone, but Dr. Bardia cautioned about overinterpreting these results, as the study included only 39 patients.
 

Study details

The investigators enrolled 58 patients – 56 pre- and postmenopausal women and 2 men – with HR+/HER2-low tumors determined by local and/or central review, and operable stage II or III cancers.

After stratification by HER2 expression level and menopausal status, the patients were randomized to receive either T-DXd alone at a dose of 5.4 mg/kg, or with T-DXd at the same dose plus anastrozole, with men and premenopausal women also receiving a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog.

The protocol originally called for six cycles of therapy, but was amended in February 2022 to increase the number to eight for newly enrolled participants and patients who were already on study treatment but had not yet had surgery.

The majority of patients in each arm had invasive ductal cancers, and most had HER2 expression on immunohistochemistry (IHC) of 1+, which is generally considered to be HER2-negative. However, there was only modest concordance between local and central review in determining HER2 expression levels, Dr. Bardia noted. Indeed, the entire question of HER2-low cancers, whether they compose a separate clinical entity from other cancers and how to standardize testing, was the subject of a special session at this year’s SABCS.
 

Results

Overall response rate, the primary endpoint, was 68% in the T-DXd arm and 58% in the T-DXd plus anastrazole arm.

Although the low response rate with the combination suggests that endocrine therapy may not be helpful in this patient population, it’s still too early to say so conclusively, Dr. Bardia said.

Looking at the change in HER2 expression by IHC from baseline to surgery, they found that 48.6% of patients had a change in HER2 IHC expression after T-DXd treatment, and that nearly 90% of these patients had a decrease in expression levels.

Among 42 patients with available data on residual cancer burden (RCB) at the time of data cutoff, one patient in the T-DXd alone arm with stage 3A disease had an RCB of 0, equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR). There were no other RCB 0 tumors after surgery in either study arm. The rate of combined RCB and RCB 1 (near pCR) was about 15% in each arm.

In all, 3 of the 58 patients in the study (5.2%) required dose reductions because of adverse events. There were no cases of grade 3 or greater pneumonitis, and no cases of either cardiomyopathy or neuropathy.
 

Way better than chemotherapy?

“It was very exciting when we got the DESTINY-Breast04 results showing this impressive activity of trastuzumab deruxtecan in this HER2-low entity, and now we know that hormone-positive [tumors], the majority of them are HER2-low. It was really encouraging, it was practice changing, but we were left wondering about this HER2-low entity, and can we act on it in the earlier setting,” commented Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“The beauty of the TRIO-US B-12 TALENT study is that it looked at the neoadjuvant setting where we know those patients who are hormone-positive usually do not respond well to chemotherapy,” he said in an interview.

He said that although the study didn’t compare T-DXd to chemotherapy, “it’s an excellent first start.”

An overall response rate near 70% “is something amazing. I’m really excited to see it against chemo. I think it’s going to do way better,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The study was conducted by the Translational Research In Oncology (TRIO)-US network. Funding was provided by Daiichi Sankyo, the maker of trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). Dr. Bardia serves as a consultant or advisory board member for Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead Sciences, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly, and has received research funding from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly.

Dr. Mouabbi disclosed honoraria from BostonGene, Cardinal Health, Napo Pharmaceuticals, and Fresenius Kabi.