Metastatic Breast Cancer

CHICAGO – Metastatic invasive lobular breast cancers (ILC) that are hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative have therapeutic outcomes similar to those of invasive ductal cancer (IDC) following treatment with endocrine therapy combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, mTOR inhibitor, or PI3K inhibitor, according to a new retrospective analysis of patients treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The two conditions have historically been lumped together when studying treatment outcomes, but more recent research has shown key differences between the two subtypes, according to Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“All the studies that were done were driven by ductal patients, so you can never take conclusions for the lobular patients. We have a big database at MD Anderson, so we can really study a large number of patients and get some signals whether or not patients would benefit from that therapy or not,” said Dr. Mouabbi, a lobular breast cancer specialist at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The results of the study are important since patients often come to physicians with sophisticated understanding of their disease, he said. Patients with lobular cancer naturally wonder if a therapeutic regimen tested primarily in IDC will benefit them. “For the longest time, we said, ‘we have no data,’ ” said Dr. Mouabbi.

The new study should offer patients and physicians some reassurance. “We found that all of them benefit from it and most importantly, they all benefit from it (with) the same magnitude,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The researchers analyzed data from 2,971 patients (82% IDC, 14% ILC, 4% mixed) treated between 2010 and 2021. The median age was 50 in all groups. Eighty percent were White, 10% were Hispanic, and 5% were Black. Ninety-nine percent had estrogen receptor (ER) + tumors, and 88% had progesterone positive (PR) + tumors.

A total of 1,895 patients received CDK4/6 inhibitors, 1,027 received everolimus, and 49 received alpelisib. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between the two cancer types in any of the treatment groups.

Despite the similar outcomes, the two conditions remain unique. IDC is a disease of cells from the ducts that deliver milk, while ILC arises in cells that produce milk. Nearly 95% of ILC cases are hormone-positive, compared to 50%-55% of IDC.

So, while existing treatments seem to benefit both groups, there are nonetheless plans to develop therapeutic strategies tailored to lobular cancer.

Dr. Mouabbi’s group has compared molecular profiles of ILC and IDC tumors to better understand how to target them individually. Almost all ILC cancers have a mutation in a gene called CDH1, which leads to loss of an anchoring protein. They believe this causes a unique growth pattern of thin tendrils, rather than the onion-like growths of IDC. A therapy targeting this mutation could provide a specific benefit for lobular breast cancer.

There are other differences: PI3 kinases are mutated in about 60% of ILC tumors, versus about 30% of IDC tumors, and other genes mutated at lower frequencies are also different between the two subtypes. “So there are a lot of (approaches) we are trying to initiate in lobular cancer because we have awareness now that they are different,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The study received no external funding.

CHICAGO – Metastatic invasive lobular breast cancers (ILC) that are hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative have therapeutic outcomes similar to those of invasive ductal cancer (IDC) following treatment with endocrine therapy combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, mTOR inhibitor, or PI3K inhibitor, according to a new retrospective analysis of patients treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The two conditions have historically been lumped together when studying treatment outcomes, but more recent research has shown key differences between the two subtypes, according to Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“All the studies that were done were driven by ductal patients, so you can never take conclusions for the lobular patients. We have a big database at MD Anderson, so we can really study a large number of patients and get some signals whether or not patients would benefit from that therapy or not,” said Dr. Mouabbi, a lobular breast cancer specialist at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The results of the study are important since patients often come to physicians with sophisticated understanding of their disease, he said. Patients with lobular cancer naturally wonder if a therapeutic regimen tested primarily in IDC will benefit them. “For the longest time, we said, ‘we have no data,’ ” said Dr. Mouabbi.

The new study should offer patients and physicians some reassurance. “We found that all of them benefit from it and most importantly, they all benefit from it (with) the same magnitude,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The researchers analyzed data from 2,971 patients (82% IDC, 14% ILC, 4% mixed) treated between 2010 and 2021. The median age was 50 in all groups. Eighty percent were White, 10% were Hispanic, and 5% were Black. Ninety-nine percent had estrogen receptor (ER) + tumors, and 88% had progesterone positive (PR) + tumors.

A total of 1,895 patients received CDK4/6 inhibitors, 1,027 received everolimus, and 49 received alpelisib. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between the two cancer types in any of the treatment groups.

Despite the similar outcomes, the two conditions remain unique. IDC is a disease of cells from the ducts that deliver milk, while ILC arises in cells that produce milk. Nearly 95% of ILC cases are hormone-positive, compared to 50%-55% of IDC.

So, while existing treatments seem to benefit both groups, there are nonetheless plans to develop therapeutic strategies tailored to lobular cancer.

Dr. Mouabbi’s group has compared molecular profiles of ILC and IDC tumors to better understand how to target them individually. Almost all ILC cancers have a mutation in a gene called CDH1, which leads to loss of an anchoring protein. They believe this causes a unique growth pattern of thin tendrils, rather than the onion-like growths of IDC. A therapy targeting this mutation could provide a specific benefit for lobular breast cancer.

There are other differences: PI3 kinases are mutated in about 60% of ILC tumors, versus about 30% of IDC tumors, and other genes mutated at lower frequencies are also different between the two subtypes. “So there are a lot of (approaches) we are trying to initiate in lobular cancer because we have awareness now that they are different,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The study received no external funding.

CHICAGO – Metastatic invasive lobular breast cancers (ILC) that are hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative have therapeutic outcomes similar to those of invasive ductal cancer (IDC) following treatment with endocrine therapy combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, mTOR inhibitor, or PI3K inhibitor, according to a new retrospective analysis of patients treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The two conditions have historically been lumped together when studying treatment outcomes, but more recent research has shown key differences between the two subtypes, according to Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“All the studies that were done were driven by ductal patients, so you can never take conclusions for the lobular patients. We have a big database at MD Anderson, so we can really study a large number of patients and get some signals whether or not patients would benefit from that therapy or not,” said Dr. Mouabbi, a lobular breast cancer specialist at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The results of the study are important since patients often come to physicians with sophisticated understanding of their disease, he said. Patients with lobular cancer naturally wonder if a therapeutic regimen tested primarily in IDC will benefit them. “For the longest time, we said, ‘we have no data,’ ” said Dr. Mouabbi.

The new study should offer patients and physicians some reassurance. “We found that all of them benefit from it and most importantly, they all benefit from it (with) the same magnitude,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The researchers analyzed data from 2,971 patients (82% IDC, 14% ILC, 4% mixed) treated between 2010 and 2021. The median age was 50 in all groups. Eighty percent were White, 10% were Hispanic, and 5% were Black. Ninety-nine percent had estrogen receptor (ER) + tumors, and 88% had progesterone positive (PR) + tumors.

A total of 1,895 patients received CDK4/6 inhibitors, 1,027 received everolimus, and 49 received alpelisib. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between the two cancer types in any of the treatment groups.

Despite the similar outcomes, the two conditions remain unique. IDC is a disease of cells from the ducts that deliver milk, while ILC arises in cells that produce milk. Nearly 95% of ILC cases are hormone-positive, compared to 50%-55% of IDC.

So, while existing treatments seem to benefit both groups, there are nonetheless plans to develop therapeutic strategies tailored to lobular cancer.

Dr. Mouabbi’s group has compared molecular profiles of ILC and IDC tumors to better understand how to target them individually. Almost all ILC cancers have a mutation in a gene called CDH1, which leads to loss of an anchoring protein. They believe this causes a unique growth pattern of thin tendrils, rather than the onion-like growths of IDC. A therapy targeting this mutation could provide a specific benefit for lobular breast cancer.

There are other differences: PI3 kinases are mutated in about 60% of ILC tumors, versus about 30% of IDC tumors, and other genes mutated at lower frequencies are also different between the two subtypes. “So there are a lot of (approaches) we are trying to initiate in lobular cancer because we have awareness now that they are different,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The study received no external funding.

A study of elderly patients with HER2-positive/HR-negative metastatic breast cancer finds a significantly shorter median overall survival in actual clinical practice than younger counterparts.

After 46 months of treatment, the survival rate was only 25%, according to a study presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The finding suggests that older age is an important prognostic factor for breast cancer survival, said study author Zhonghui Jenny Ou, a doctoral candidate at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in Boston.

For comparison, Ms. Ou cited the CLEOPATRA trial which showed a median overall survival of 57.1 months for patients who were treated with pertuzumab, docetaxel and trastuzumab versus 40.8 months for placebo with docetaxel plus trastuzumab.

The Ou study is based on an analysis of data between 2012 and 2016 from the SEER-Medicare database. The final analysis included 73 women (average age 75 years at diagnosis) with early-stage HER2-positive/HR-negative metastatic breast cancer. Fifty-six women were treated with trastuzumab with pertuzumab and chemotherapy as first-line treatment, and 17 were treated with chemotherapy only. The longest length of treatment with trastuzumab was over 44 months. And, the median follow-up for overall survival was 13 months (95% confidence interval, 12.7-18.7).

Between 2012 and 2016, five patients died from other causes, including lung cancer, cerebrovascular diseases, aortic aneurysm and dissection, pneumonia and influenza, and heart disease.

“While there are many clinical trials about HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, these trials were all performed in younger and relatively healthier patients. Few studies included elderly patients 65 years or older,” Ms. Ou said.

According to the American Cancer Society, 31% of all newly diagnosed breast cancer cases are in women who are 70 years old or older, yet 47% of all breast cancer deaths each year are in women in this age group.

Undertreatment and lower treatment intensity have been cited by other studies as possible contributing factors to lower overall survival rates, but breast cancer in elderly women is a complex and understudied subject. Why the mortality rates for elderly women are disproportionately higher than those of younger women is attributable to a number of reasons, write the authors of one of the most recent studies on the subject.

“It is well established that receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, trastuzumab, and hormonal therapy reduces risk of recurrence and death across all age groups, yet multiple studies document suboptimal systemic treatment and adherence for older patients, including omission of efficacious treatments, receipt of lower intensity and/or nonguideline treatment, or poor adherence to hormonal therapy,” Freedman et al. wrote in the May 15, 2018, issue of the journal Cancer.

While the Ou study sample size was small, the study’s real-world analysis is telling, Ms. Ou said.

“The major limitation of this study is that it has – after applying all the eligibility criteria to the 170,516 breast cancer patients from the SEER-Medicare database between 2012 and 2016 – a study population of just 73 patients. The number is sufficient to do survival analysis,” she said.

A study of elderly patients with HER2-positive/HR-negative metastatic breast cancer finds a significantly shorter median overall survival in actual clinical practice than younger counterparts.

After 46 months of treatment, the survival rate was only 25%, according to a study presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The finding suggests that older age is an important prognostic factor for breast cancer survival, said study author Zhonghui Jenny Ou, a doctoral candidate at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in Boston.

For comparison, Ms. Ou cited the CLEOPATRA trial which showed a median overall survival of 57.1 months for patients who were treated with pertuzumab, docetaxel and trastuzumab versus 40.8 months for placebo with docetaxel plus trastuzumab.

The Ou study is based on an analysis of data between 2012 and 2016 from the SEER-Medicare database. The final analysis included 73 women (average age 75 years at diagnosis) with early-stage HER2-positive/HR-negative metastatic breast cancer. Fifty-six women were treated with trastuzumab with pertuzumab and chemotherapy as first-line treatment, and 17 were treated with chemotherapy only. The longest length of treatment with trastuzumab was over 44 months. And, the median follow-up for overall survival was 13 months (95% confidence interval, 12.7-18.7).

Between 2012 and 2016, five patients died from other causes, including lung cancer, cerebrovascular diseases, aortic aneurysm and dissection, pneumonia and influenza, and heart disease.

“While there are many clinical trials about HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, these trials were all performed in younger and relatively healthier patients. Few studies included elderly patients 65 years or older,” Ms. Ou said.

According to the American Cancer Society, 31% of all newly diagnosed breast cancer cases are in women who are 70 years old or older, yet 47% of all breast cancer deaths each year are in women in this age group.

Undertreatment and lower treatment intensity have been cited by other studies as possible contributing factors to lower overall survival rates, but breast cancer in elderly women is a complex and understudied subject. Why the mortality rates for elderly women are disproportionately higher than those of younger women is attributable to a number of reasons, write the authors of one of the most recent studies on the subject.

“It is well established that receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, trastuzumab, and hormonal therapy reduces risk of recurrence and death across all age groups, yet multiple studies document suboptimal systemic treatment and adherence for older patients, including omission of efficacious treatments, receipt of lower intensity and/or nonguideline treatment, or poor adherence to hormonal therapy,” Freedman et al. wrote in the May 15, 2018, issue of the journal Cancer.

While the Ou study sample size was small, the study’s real-world analysis is telling, Ms. Ou said.

“The major limitation of this study is that it has – after applying all the eligibility criteria to the 170,516 breast cancer patients from the SEER-Medicare database between 2012 and 2016 – a study population of just 73 patients. The number is sufficient to do survival analysis,” she said.

A study of elderly patients with HER2-positive/HR-negative metastatic breast cancer finds a significantly shorter median overall survival in actual clinical practice than younger counterparts.

After 46 months of treatment, the survival rate was only 25%, according to a study presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The finding suggests that older age is an important prognostic factor for breast cancer survival, said study author Zhonghui Jenny Ou, a doctoral candidate at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in Boston.

For comparison, Ms. Ou cited the CLEOPATRA trial which showed a median overall survival of 57.1 months for patients who were treated with pertuzumab, docetaxel and trastuzumab versus 40.8 months for placebo with docetaxel plus trastuzumab.

The Ou study is based on an analysis of data between 2012 and 2016 from the SEER-Medicare database. The final analysis included 73 women (average age 75 years at diagnosis) with early-stage HER2-positive/HR-negative metastatic breast cancer. Fifty-six women were treated with trastuzumab with pertuzumab and chemotherapy as first-line treatment, and 17 were treated with chemotherapy only. The longest length of treatment with trastuzumab was over 44 months. And, the median follow-up for overall survival was 13 months (95% confidence interval, 12.7-18.7).

Between 2012 and 2016, five patients died from other causes, including lung cancer, cerebrovascular diseases, aortic aneurysm and dissection, pneumonia and influenza, and heart disease.

“While there are many clinical trials about HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, these trials were all performed in younger and relatively healthier patients. Few studies included elderly patients 65 years or older,” Ms. Ou said.

According to the American Cancer Society, 31% of all newly diagnosed breast cancer cases are in women who are 70 years old or older, yet 47% of all breast cancer deaths each year are in women in this age group.

Undertreatment and lower treatment intensity have been cited by other studies as possible contributing factors to lower overall survival rates, but breast cancer in elderly women is a complex and understudied subject. Why the mortality rates for elderly women are disproportionately higher than those of younger women is attributable to a number of reasons, write the authors of one of the most recent studies on the subject.

“It is well established that receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, trastuzumab, and hormonal therapy reduces risk of recurrence and death across all age groups, yet multiple studies document suboptimal systemic treatment and adherence for older patients, including omission of efficacious treatments, receipt of lower intensity and/or nonguideline treatment, or poor adherence to hormonal therapy,” Freedman et al. wrote in the May 15, 2018, issue of the journal Cancer.

While the Ou study sample size was small, the study’s real-world analysis is telling, Ms. Ou said.

“The major limitation of this study is that it has – after applying all the eligibility criteria to the 170,516 breast cancer patients from the SEER-Medicare database between 2012 and 2016 – a study population of just 73 patients. The number is sufficient to do survival analysis,” she said.

Eight-year follow-up of the ASTRRA trial confirmed and extended support for adding 2 years of ovarian function suppression with goserelin to tamoxifen, compared with tamoxifen alone.

“Adding ovarian suppression to tamoxifen should be considered for this population of women,” said senior author Hee Jeong Kim, MD, a breast cancer surgeon with the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Kim presented the data earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The median disease-free survival rate of 85.4% for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression versus 80.2% for tamoxifen alone (HR, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.514-0.869; P = .0027) was consistent with recent findings from SOFT (Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial), which also showed a clear survival benefit in breast cancer events with the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen for women who remain premenopausal after chemotherapy. SOFT trial analyses of disease-free survival at 5 and 8 years demonstrated hazard ratios of 0.82 and 0.76 respectively.

Dr. Kim’s study is a post-trial follow-up of the ASTRRA trial, or the Addition of Ovarian Suppression to Tamoxifen in Young Women With Hormone-Sensitive Breast Cancer Who Remain Premenopausal or Regain Vaginal Bleeding After Chemotherapy, which randomly assigned 1,298 patients with breast cancer in a one-to-one ratio to receive tamoxifen only (n = 647) or tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (n = 635). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and the secondary endpoint was overall survival.

Earlier ASTRRA analysis at 5-year follow-up had shown disease-free survival rates of 89.9% for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression versus 87.2% for tamoxifen alone in women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer who remained premenopausal or had premenopausal status restored after chemotherapy. Overall survival, a secondary endpoint, also favored adding ovarian function suppression (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.94; P = .029). The absolute difference for disease-free survival adding ovarian function suppression at the later median follow-up of 106.4 months was 5.2%. The difference at 5 years had been 2.7%, Dr. Kim pointed out. Also, these findings were calculated from time of enrollment. When calculated from time of randomization, the disease-free survival rates were 84.1% and 78.1%, respectively, for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression and tamoxifen alone, with a 6.0% absolute difference (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.516-0.872); P = .0025).

The benefit of adding ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen for the secondary endpoint of overall survival at 8 years (96.5% versus 95.3%) did not achieve statistical significance (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.486-1.253); P = .3). “Although it’s not statistically significant, there are absolute differences between the two groups favoring tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. She pointed out also that for distant metastasis-free survival the hazard ratio was 0.71, significantly favoring tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression. “More than 95% were still surviving at 8 years with tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression. So, we need more events to fully evaluate the overall survival benefit.”

A study limitation, Dr. Kim acknowledged in the interview, is that safety and adverse event data were not collected. “As ovarian function suppression has been widely used in clinical practice for decades, and the side effects of its relatively short-term use were considered to be well-understood in previous studies, we focused on the oncologic efficacy of ovarian function suppression in this study,” she said.

Eight-year follow-up of the ASTRRA trial confirmed and extended support for adding 2 years of ovarian function suppression with goserelin to tamoxifen, compared with tamoxifen alone.

“Adding ovarian suppression to tamoxifen should be considered for this population of women,” said senior author Hee Jeong Kim, MD, a breast cancer surgeon with the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Kim presented the data earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The median disease-free survival rate of 85.4% for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression versus 80.2% for tamoxifen alone (HR, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.514-0.869; P = .0027) was consistent with recent findings from SOFT (Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial), which also showed a clear survival benefit in breast cancer events with the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen for women who remain premenopausal after chemotherapy. SOFT trial analyses of disease-free survival at 5 and 8 years demonstrated hazard ratios of 0.82 and 0.76 respectively.

Dr. Kim’s study is a post-trial follow-up of the ASTRRA trial, or the Addition of Ovarian Suppression to Tamoxifen in Young Women With Hormone-Sensitive Breast Cancer Who Remain Premenopausal or Regain Vaginal Bleeding After Chemotherapy, which randomly assigned 1,298 patients with breast cancer in a one-to-one ratio to receive tamoxifen only (n = 647) or tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (n = 635). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and the secondary endpoint was overall survival.

Earlier ASTRRA analysis at 5-year follow-up had shown disease-free survival rates of 89.9% for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression versus 87.2% for tamoxifen alone in women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer who remained premenopausal or had premenopausal status restored after chemotherapy. Overall survival, a secondary endpoint, also favored adding ovarian function suppression (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.94; P = .029). The absolute difference for disease-free survival adding ovarian function suppression at the later median follow-up of 106.4 months was 5.2%. The difference at 5 years had been 2.7%, Dr. Kim pointed out. Also, these findings were calculated from time of enrollment. When calculated from time of randomization, the disease-free survival rates were 84.1% and 78.1%, respectively, for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression and tamoxifen alone, with a 6.0% absolute difference (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.516-0.872); P = .0025).

The benefit of adding ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen for the secondary endpoint of overall survival at 8 years (96.5% versus 95.3%) did not achieve statistical significance (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.486-1.253); P = .3). “Although it’s not statistically significant, there are absolute differences between the two groups favoring tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. She pointed out also that for distant metastasis-free survival the hazard ratio was 0.71, significantly favoring tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression. “More than 95% were still surviving at 8 years with tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression. So, we need more events to fully evaluate the overall survival benefit.”

A study limitation, Dr. Kim acknowledged in the interview, is that safety and adverse event data were not collected. “As ovarian function suppression has been widely used in clinical practice for decades, and the side effects of its relatively short-term use were considered to be well-understood in previous studies, we focused on the oncologic efficacy of ovarian function suppression in this study,” she said.

Eight-year follow-up of the ASTRRA trial confirmed and extended support for adding 2 years of ovarian function suppression with goserelin to tamoxifen, compared with tamoxifen alone.

“Adding ovarian suppression to tamoxifen should be considered for this population of women,” said senior author Hee Jeong Kim, MD, a breast cancer surgeon with the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Kim presented the data earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The median disease-free survival rate of 85.4% for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression versus 80.2% for tamoxifen alone (HR, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.514-0.869; P = .0027) was consistent with recent findings from SOFT (Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial), which also showed a clear survival benefit in breast cancer events with the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen for women who remain premenopausal after chemotherapy. SOFT trial analyses of disease-free survival at 5 and 8 years demonstrated hazard ratios of 0.82 and 0.76 respectively.

Dr. Kim’s study is a post-trial follow-up of the ASTRRA trial, or the Addition of Ovarian Suppression to Tamoxifen in Young Women With Hormone-Sensitive Breast Cancer Who Remain Premenopausal or Regain Vaginal Bleeding After Chemotherapy, which randomly assigned 1,298 patients with breast cancer in a one-to-one ratio to receive tamoxifen only (n = 647) or tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (n = 635). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and the secondary endpoint was overall survival.

Earlier ASTRRA analysis at 5-year follow-up had shown disease-free survival rates of 89.9% for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression versus 87.2% for tamoxifen alone in women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer who remained premenopausal or had premenopausal status restored after chemotherapy. Overall survival, a secondary endpoint, also favored adding ovarian function suppression (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.94; P = .029). The absolute difference for disease-free survival adding ovarian function suppression at the later median follow-up of 106.4 months was 5.2%. The difference at 5 years had been 2.7%, Dr. Kim pointed out. Also, these findings were calculated from time of enrollment. When calculated from time of randomization, the disease-free survival rates were 84.1% and 78.1%, respectively, for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression and tamoxifen alone, with a 6.0% absolute difference (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.516-0.872); P = .0025).

The benefit of adding ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen for the secondary endpoint of overall survival at 8 years (96.5% versus 95.3%) did not achieve statistical significance (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.486-1.253); P = .3). “Although it’s not statistically significant, there are absolute differences between the two groups favoring tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. She pointed out also that for distant metastasis-free survival the hazard ratio was 0.71, significantly favoring tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression. “More than 95% were still surviving at 8 years with tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression. So, we need more events to fully evaluate the overall survival benefit.”

A study limitation, Dr. Kim acknowledged in the interview, is that safety and adverse event data were not collected. “As ovarian function suppression has been widely used in clinical practice for decades, and the side effects of its relatively short-term use were considered to be well-understood in previous studies, we focused on the oncologic efficacy of ovarian function suppression in this study,” she said.

A neighborhood analysis of socioeconomic status conducted in the Pittsburgh area found worse metastatic breast cancer survival outcomes among patients of low socioeconomic status. The findings suggest that race is not a relevant factor in outcomes.

“This study demonstrates that metastatic breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status have worse outcomes than those with higher socioeconomic status at our center. It also underscores the idea that race is not so much a biological construct but more a consequence of socioeconomic issues. The effect of race is likely mediated by lower socioeconomic status,” said Susrutha Puthanmadhom Narayanan, MD, who presented the results of her study earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in the management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race. One should think of socioeconomic status as a predictor of bad outcomes, almost like a comorbidity, and think of [associations between race and outcomes], as a consequence of socioeconomic inequality,” said Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan, who is an internal medicine resident at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

She and her colleagues intend to dig deeper into the relationships. “We are interested in looking at utilization of different treatment options for metastatic breast cancer between the socioeconomic status groups. In the preliminary analysis, we saw that ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with lower socioeconomic status get treated with tamoxifen more often than aromatase inhibitors and newer agents. And, we have plans to study stress signaling and inflammation as mediators of bad outcomes in the low socioeconomic status population,” Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan said.

In fact, that tendency for lower socioeconomic status patients to receive older treatments should be a call to action for physicians. “This study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race,” she said.

The study is based on an analysis of data from the Neighborhood Atlas in which a Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI) score was calculated. An NDI score in the bottom tertile meant that patients were better off than patients with mid to high range NDI scores. In this study, socioeconomic status was described as “low deprivation” or “high depreviation.” Higher deprivation correlated with lower overall survival. And, there were more Black patients in the higher deprivation group (10.5%), compared with the low deprivation group (3.7%). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, socioeconomic status, but not race, had a significant effect on overall survival (HR for high deprivation was 1.19 [95% confidence interval; 1.04-1.37], P = 0.01).

It included 1,246 patients who were treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2000 and 2017. Of 1,246 patients, 414 patients considered in the bottom tertile of NDI as having low deprivation, while 832 patients in the middle or top tertiles were classified as having high deprivation.

The two socioeconomic status groups were similar in baseline characteristics, with the exception of race: 10.5% of the high deprivation group were African American, compared with 3.7% of the low deprivation group (P =.000093).

Univariate analyses showed worse survival in both Black women and women in the lower socioeconomic status group, but a multivariate analysis found only socioeconomic status was associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for lower socioeconomic status, 1.19; P = .01).

The study had several strengths, according to Rachel Freedman, MD, MPH, who served as a discussant for the abstract. “It included both de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer, unlike previous studies based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database that only included de novo cases. It also employed a novel tool to define socioeconomic status in the form of the Neighborhood Atlas. The study “adds more evidence that socioeconomic status likely mediates much of what we see when it comes to racial disparities,” said Dr. Freedman, who is a senior physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Nevertheless, more work needs to be done. Dr. Freedman pointed out that the current study did not include information on treatment.

The findings underscore the failure to date to address disparities in breast cancer treatment, an effort that is hampered by difficulty in teasing out complex factors that may impact survival. “We need to standardize the way that we collect social determinants of health and act upon findings, and we need to standardize patient navigation, and we need to commit as a community to diverse clinical trial populations,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Narayanan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Freedman is an employee and stockholder of Firefly Health.

A neighborhood analysis of socioeconomic status conducted in the Pittsburgh area found worse metastatic breast cancer survival outcomes among patients of low socioeconomic status. The findings suggest that race is not a relevant factor in outcomes.

“This study demonstrates that metastatic breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status have worse outcomes than those with higher socioeconomic status at our center. It also underscores the idea that race is not so much a biological construct but more a consequence of socioeconomic issues. The effect of race is likely mediated by lower socioeconomic status,” said Susrutha Puthanmadhom Narayanan, MD, who presented the results of her study earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in the management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race. One should think of socioeconomic status as a predictor of bad outcomes, almost like a comorbidity, and think of [associations between race and outcomes], as a consequence of socioeconomic inequality,” said Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan, who is an internal medicine resident at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

She and her colleagues intend to dig deeper into the relationships. “We are interested in looking at utilization of different treatment options for metastatic breast cancer between the socioeconomic status groups. In the preliminary analysis, we saw that ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with lower socioeconomic status get treated with tamoxifen more often than aromatase inhibitors and newer agents. And, we have plans to study stress signaling and inflammation as mediators of bad outcomes in the low socioeconomic status population,” Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan said.

In fact, that tendency for lower socioeconomic status patients to receive older treatments should be a call to action for physicians. “This study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race,” she said.

The study is based on an analysis of data from the Neighborhood Atlas in which a Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI) score was calculated. An NDI score in the bottom tertile meant that patients were better off than patients with mid to high range NDI scores. In this study, socioeconomic status was described as “low deprivation” or “high depreviation.” Higher deprivation correlated with lower overall survival. And, there were more Black patients in the higher deprivation group (10.5%), compared with the low deprivation group (3.7%). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, socioeconomic status, but not race, had a significant effect on overall survival (HR for high deprivation was 1.19 [95% confidence interval; 1.04-1.37], P = 0.01).

It included 1,246 patients who were treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2000 and 2017. Of 1,246 patients, 414 patients considered in the bottom tertile of NDI as having low deprivation, while 832 patients in the middle or top tertiles were classified as having high deprivation.

The two socioeconomic status groups were similar in baseline characteristics, with the exception of race: 10.5% of the high deprivation group were African American, compared with 3.7% of the low deprivation group (P =.000093).

Univariate analyses showed worse survival in both Black women and women in the lower socioeconomic status group, but a multivariate analysis found only socioeconomic status was associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for lower socioeconomic status, 1.19; P = .01).

The study had several strengths, according to Rachel Freedman, MD, MPH, who served as a discussant for the abstract. “It included both de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer, unlike previous studies based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database that only included de novo cases. It also employed a novel tool to define socioeconomic status in the form of the Neighborhood Atlas. The study “adds more evidence that socioeconomic status likely mediates much of what we see when it comes to racial disparities,” said Dr. Freedman, who is a senior physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Nevertheless, more work needs to be done. Dr. Freedman pointed out that the current study did not include information on treatment.

The findings underscore the failure to date to address disparities in breast cancer treatment, an effort that is hampered by difficulty in teasing out complex factors that may impact survival. “We need to standardize the way that we collect social determinants of health and act upon findings, and we need to standardize patient navigation, and we need to commit as a community to diverse clinical trial populations,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Narayanan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Freedman is an employee and stockholder of Firefly Health.

A neighborhood analysis of socioeconomic status conducted in the Pittsburgh area found worse metastatic breast cancer survival outcomes among patients of low socioeconomic status. The findings suggest that race is not a relevant factor in outcomes.

“This study demonstrates that metastatic breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status have worse outcomes than those with higher socioeconomic status at our center. It also underscores the idea that race is not so much a biological construct but more a consequence of socioeconomic issues. The effect of race is likely mediated by lower socioeconomic status,” said Susrutha Puthanmadhom Narayanan, MD, who presented the results of her study earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in the management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race. One should think of socioeconomic status as a predictor of bad outcomes, almost like a comorbidity, and think of [associations between race and outcomes], as a consequence of socioeconomic inequality,” said Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan, who is an internal medicine resident at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

She and her colleagues intend to dig deeper into the relationships. “We are interested in looking at utilization of different treatment options for metastatic breast cancer between the socioeconomic status groups. In the preliminary analysis, we saw that ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with lower socioeconomic status get treated with tamoxifen more often than aromatase inhibitors and newer agents. And, we have plans to study stress signaling and inflammation as mediators of bad outcomes in the low socioeconomic status population,” Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan said.

In fact, that tendency for lower socioeconomic status patients to receive older treatments should be a call to action for physicians. “This study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race,” she said.

The study is based on an analysis of data from the Neighborhood Atlas in which a Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI) score was calculated. An NDI score in the bottom tertile meant that patients were better off than patients with mid to high range NDI scores. In this study, socioeconomic status was described as “low deprivation” or “high depreviation.” Higher deprivation correlated with lower overall survival. And, there were more Black patients in the higher deprivation group (10.5%), compared with the low deprivation group (3.7%). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, socioeconomic status, but not race, had a significant effect on overall survival (HR for high deprivation was 1.19 [95% confidence interval; 1.04-1.37], P = 0.01).

It included 1,246 patients who were treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2000 and 2017. Of 1,246 patients, 414 patients considered in the bottom tertile of NDI as having low deprivation, while 832 patients in the middle or top tertiles were classified as having high deprivation.

The two socioeconomic status groups were similar in baseline characteristics, with the exception of race: 10.5% of the high deprivation group were African American, compared with 3.7% of the low deprivation group (P =.000093).

Univariate analyses showed worse survival in both Black women and women in the lower socioeconomic status group, but a multivariate analysis found only socioeconomic status was associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for lower socioeconomic status, 1.19; P = .01).

The study had several strengths, according to Rachel Freedman, MD, MPH, who served as a discussant for the abstract. “It included both de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer, unlike previous studies based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database that only included de novo cases. It also employed a novel tool to define socioeconomic status in the form of the Neighborhood Atlas. The study “adds more evidence that socioeconomic status likely mediates much of what we see when it comes to racial disparities,” said Dr. Freedman, who is a senior physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Nevertheless, more work needs to be done. Dr. Freedman pointed out that the current study did not include information on treatment.

The findings underscore the failure to date to address disparities in breast cancer treatment, an effort that is hampered by difficulty in teasing out complex factors that may impact survival. “We need to standardize the way that we collect social determinants of health and act upon findings, and we need to standardize patient navigation, and we need to commit as a community to diverse clinical trial populations,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Narayanan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Freedman is an employee and stockholder of Firefly Health.

CHICAGO – Comorbid autoimmune disease is associated with a greater chance of survival among women with stage IV breast cancer, according to a retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“It’s counterintuitive that, if you have two diseases instead of one, that you live longer, so then we had to scratch our heads a little bit and think about why these people are living longer,” said lead author Demitrios Dedousis, MD, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, Cleveland.

Dr. Dedousis and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of patients from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare databases between 2007 and 2014 with breast cancer. The study included data from 137,324 patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2012, before the widespread use of immunotherapy. 27% of patients had an autoimmune disease, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (23%), psoriasis (2.4%), and systemic lupus erythematosus (1.1%).

When all patients were included in the analysis, those with autoimmune disorders had slightly longer survival times, but these weren’t clinically significant. A subanalysis found a greater difference in survival.

The association appears more pronounced in metastatic cancer. Patients with stage 4 breast cancer and autoimmune disease had a longer mean overall survival (36 months vs. 30 months; hazard ratio, 1.46; P < .0001. Cancer-specific survival: HR, 1.39; P < .0001). Patients with autoimmune disease and stage 1-3 breast cancer had lower overall survival (P < .0001, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.026 respectively), compared with patients without autoimmune disease.

“What we thought was happening is that the lack of increased survival in stages 1 through 3 was hiding the increase in survival among the stage IV patients when looking at the overall cohort,” Dr. Dedousis said.

The retrospective nature of the study makes it impossible to draw any firm conclusions about causation. It could be that patients who have already been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease are more vigilant about going to health checkups. “There are other possible explanations, but the one that’s most interesting to us is that their immune system is involved in fighting the cancer. Our study certainly didn’t prove that, but it’s suggesting that’s a possibility,” Dr. Dedousis said.

He and his coauthors anticipate conducting similar studies in other cancers to see if there are similar relationships. Some preliminary work has already suggested something similar in lung cancer. “I think demonstrating this in a few kinds of cancer goes part of the way towards showing that this is a real biological phenomenon,” he said.

Another research avenue is to examine the immune systems and pathology specimens in patients with both an autoimmune disease and cancer to see if there is a greater immune response within the tumor. If so, that could suggest new immunotherapy strategies.

Another possibility is to look at the specific immune pathways within “protective” autoimmune conditions. “For the sake of argument, if we find a particular autoimmune condition is improving survival across multiple kinds of cancers, we could look at those pathways that are specifically involved in that autoimmune condition. It might help us identify a target for drug development,” Dr. Dedousis said.

Asked why a potential benefit might be more apparent in late-stage disease, he suggested that, in early-stage breast cancer, surgery and other treatments may be so effective that the immune system’s role only rarely makes a difference. It could play a larger role in late-stage disease when there are less effective therapies. It could also be that the immune system doesn’t recognize the cancer until it has spread beyond the regional lymph nodes on its way to metastasizing.

According to the National Cancer Institute, 10%-30% of people with cancer also have an autoimmune disease.

Dr. Dedousis has no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Comorbid autoimmune disease is associated with a greater chance of survival among women with stage IV breast cancer, according to a retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“It’s counterintuitive that, if you have two diseases instead of one, that you live longer, so then we had to scratch our heads a little bit and think about why these people are living longer,” said lead author Demitrios Dedousis, MD, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, Cleveland.

Dr. Dedousis and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of patients from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare databases between 2007 and 2014 with breast cancer. The study included data from 137,324 patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2012, before the widespread use of immunotherapy. 27% of patients had an autoimmune disease, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (23%), psoriasis (2.4%), and systemic lupus erythematosus (1.1%).

When all patients were included in the analysis, those with autoimmune disorders had slightly longer survival times, but these weren’t clinically significant. A subanalysis found a greater difference in survival.

The association appears more pronounced in metastatic cancer. Patients with stage 4 breast cancer and autoimmune disease had a longer mean overall survival (36 months vs. 30 months; hazard ratio, 1.46; P < .0001. Cancer-specific survival: HR, 1.39; P < .0001). Patients with autoimmune disease and stage 1-3 breast cancer had lower overall survival (P < .0001, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.026 respectively), compared with patients without autoimmune disease.

“What we thought was happening is that the lack of increased survival in stages 1 through 3 was hiding the increase in survival among the stage IV patients when looking at the overall cohort,” Dr. Dedousis said.

The retrospective nature of the study makes it impossible to draw any firm conclusions about causation. It could be that patients who have already been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease are more vigilant about going to health checkups. “There are other possible explanations, but the one that’s most interesting to us is that their immune system is involved in fighting the cancer. Our study certainly didn’t prove that, but it’s suggesting that’s a possibility,” Dr. Dedousis said.

He and his coauthors anticipate conducting similar studies in other cancers to see if there are similar relationships. Some preliminary work has already suggested something similar in lung cancer. “I think demonstrating this in a few kinds of cancer goes part of the way towards showing that this is a real biological phenomenon,” he said.

Another research avenue is to examine the immune systems and pathology specimens in patients with both an autoimmune disease and cancer to see if there is a greater immune response within the tumor. If so, that could suggest new immunotherapy strategies.

Another possibility is to look at the specific immune pathways within “protective” autoimmune conditions. “For the sake of argument, if we find a particular autoimmune condition is improving survival across multiple kinds of cancers, we could look at those pathways that are specifically involved in that autoimmune condition. It might help us identify a target for drug development,” Dr. Dedousis said.

Asked why a potential benefit might be more apparent in late-stage disease, he suggested that, in early-stage breast cancer, surgery and other treatments may be so effective that the immune system’s role only rarely makes a difference. It could play a larger role in late-stage disease when there are less effective therapies. It could also be that the immune system doesn’t recognize the cancer until it has spread beyond the regional lymph nodes on its way to metastasizing.

According to the National Cancer Institute, 10%-30% of people with cancer also have an autoimmune disease.

Dr. Dedousis has no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Comorbid autoimmune disease is associated with a greater chance of survival among women with stage IV breast cancer, according to a retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“It’s counterintuitive that, if you have two diseases instead of one, that you live longer, so then we had to scratch our heads a little bit and think about why these people are living longer,” said lead author Demitrios Dedousis, MD, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, Cleveland.

Dr. Dedousis and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of patients from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare databases between 2007 and 2014 with breast cancer. The study included data from 137,324 patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2012, before the widespread use of immunotherapy. 27% of patients had an autoimmune disease, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (23%), psoriasis (2.4%), and systemic lupus erythematosus (1.1%).

When all patients were included in the analysis, those with autoimmune disorders had slightly longer survival times, but these weren’t clinically significant. A subanalysis found a greater difference in survival.

The association appears more pronounced in metastatic cancer. Patients with stage 4 breast cancer and autoimmune disease had a longer mean overall survival (36 months vs. 30 months; hazard ratio, 1.46; P < .0001. Cancer-specific survival: HR, 1.39; P < .0001). Patients with autoimmune disease and stage 1-3 breast cancer had lower overall survival (P < .0001, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.026 respectively), compared with patients without autoimmune disease.

“What we thought was happening is that the lack of increased survival in stages 1 through 3 was hiding the increase in survival among the stage IV patients when looking at the overall cohort,” Dr. Dedousis said.

The retrospective nature of the study makes it impossible to draw any firm conclusions about causation. It could be that patients who have already been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease are more vigilant about going to health checkups. “There are other possible explanations, but the one that’s most interesting to us is that their immune system is involved in fighting the cancer. Our study certainly didn’t prove that, but it’s suggesting that’s a possibility,” Dr. Dedousis said.

He and his coauthors anticipate conducting similar studies in other cancers to see if there are similar relationships. Some preliminary work has already suggested something similar in lung cancer. “I think demonstrating this in a few kinds of cancer goes part of the way towards showing that this is a real biological phenomenon,” he said.

Another research avenue is to examine the immune systems and pathology specimens in patients with both an autoimmune disease and cancer to see if there is a greater immune response within the tumor. If so, that could suggest new immunotherapy strategies.

Another possibility is to look at the specific immune pathways within “protective” autoimmune conditions. “For the sake of argument, if we find a particular autoimmune condition is improving survival across multiple kinds of cancers, we could look at those pathways that are specifically involved in that autoimmune condition. It might help us identify a target for drug development,” Dr. Dedousis said.

Asked why a potential benefit might be more apparent in late-stage disease, he suggested that, in early-stage breast cancer, surgery and other treatments may be so effective that the immune system’s role only rarely makes a difference. It could play a larger role in late-stage disease when there are less effective therapies. It could also be that the immune system doesn’t recognize the cancer until it has spread beyond the regional lymph nodes on its way to metastasizing.

According to the National Cancer Institute, 10%-30% of people with cancer also have an autoimmune disease.

Dr. Dedousis has no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Progress in breast cancer treatment over the past 2 decades has reduced expected mortality from both early-stage and metastatic disease, according to a new model that looked at 10-year distant recurrence-free survival and survival time after metastatic diagnosis, among other factors.

“There has been an accelerating influx of new treatments for breast cancer starting around 1990. We wished to ask whether and to what extent decades of metastatic treatment advances may have affected population level breast cancer mortality,” said Jennifer Lee Caswell-Jin, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Our models find that metastatic treatments improved population-level survival in all breast cancer subtypes since 2000 with substantial variability by subtype," said Dr. Caswell-Jin, who is a medical oncologist with Stanford (Calif.) Medicine specializing in breast cancer.

The study is based on an analysis of four models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). The models simulated breast cancer mortality between 2000 and 2019 factoring in the use of mammography, efficacy and dissemination of estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2-specific treatments of early-stage (stages I-III) and metastatic (stage IV or distant recurrence) disease, but also non–cancer-related mortality. The models compared overall and ER/HER2-specific breast cancer mortality rates during this period with estimated rates with no screening or treatment, and then attributed mortality reductions to screening, early-stage, or metastatic treatment.

The results were compared with three clinical trials that tested therapies in different subtypes of metastatic disease. Dr. Caswell-Jin and colleagues adjusted the analysis to reflect expected differences between clinical trial populations and the broader population by sampling simulated patients who resembled the trial population.

The investigators found that, at 71%, the biggest drop in mortality rates were for women with ER+/HER2+ breast cancer, followed by 61% for women with ER-/HER2+ breast cancer and 59% for women with ER+/HER2– breast cancer. Triple-negative breast cancer – one of the most challenging breast cancers to treat – only saw a drop of 40% during this period. About 19% of the overall reduction in breast cancer mortality were caused by treatments after metastasis.

The median survival after a diagnosis of ER+/HER2– metastatic recurrence increased from 2 years in 2000 to 3.5 years in 2019. In triple-negative breast cancer, the increase was more modest, from 1.2 years in 2000 to 1.8 years in 2019. After a diagnosis of metastatic recurrence of ER+/HER2+ breast cancer, median survival increased from 2.3 years in 2000 to 4.8 years in 2019, and for ER–/HER2+ breast cancer, from 2.2 years in 2000 to 3.9 years in 2019.

“How much metastatic treatments contributed to the overall mortality reduction varied over time depending on what therapies were entering the metastatic setting at that time and what therapies were transitioning from the metastatic to early-stage setting,” Dr. Caswell-Jin said.

The study did not include sacituzumab govitecan for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, or trastuzumab deruxtecan and tucatinib for HER2-positive disease, which were approved after 2020. “The numbers that we cite will be better today for triple-negative breast cancer because of those two drugs. And will be even better for HER2-positive breast cancer because of those two drugs,” she said.

During the Q&A portion of the presentation, Daniel Hayes, MD, the Stuart B. Padnos Professor of Breast Cancer Research at the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, asked about the potential of CISNET as an in-practice diagnostic tool.

“We’ve traditionally told patients who have metastatic disease that they will not be cured. I told two patients that on Tuesday. Can CISNET modeling let us begin to see if there is indeed now, with the improved therapies we have, a group of patients who do appear to be cured, or is that not possible?” he asked.

Perhaps, Dr. Caswell-Jin said, in a very small population of older patients with HER2-positive breast cancer that did in fact occur, but to a very small degree.

CHICAGO – Progress in breast cancer treatment over the past 2 decades has reduced expected mortality from both early-stage and metastatic disease, according to a new model that looked at 10-year distant recurrence-free survival and survival time after metastatic diagnosis, among other factors.

“There has been an accelerating influx of new treatments for breast cancer starting around 1990. We wished to ask whether and to what extent decades of metastatic treatment advances may have affected population level breast cancer mortality,” said Jennifer Lee Caswell-Jin, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Our models find that metastatic treatments improved population-level survival in all breast cancer subtypes since 2000 with substantial variability by subtype," said Dr. Caswell-Jin, who is a medical oncologist with Stanford (Calif.) Medicine specializing in breast cancer.

The study is based on an analysis of four models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). The models simulated breast cancer mortality between 2000 and 2019 factoring in the use of mammography, efficacy and dissemination of estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2-specific treatments of early-stage (stages I-III) and metastatic (stage IV or distant recurrence) disease, but also non–cancer-related mortality. The models compared overall and ER/HER2-specific breast cancer mortality rates during this period with estimated rates with no screening or treatment, and then attributed mortality reductions to screening, early-stage, or metastatic treatment.

The results were compared with three clinical trials that tested therapies in different subtypes of metastatic disease. Dr. Caswell-Jin and colleagues adjusted the analysis to reflect expected differences between clinical trial populations and the broader population by sampling simulated patients who resembled the trial population.

The investigators found that, at 71%, the biggest drop in mortality rates were for women with ER+/HER2+ breast cancer, followed by 61% for women with ER-/HER2+ breast cancer and 59% for women with ER+/HER2– breast cancer. Triple-negative breast cancer – one of the most challenging breast cancers to treat – only saw a drop of 40% during this period. About 19% of the overall reduction in breast cancer mortality were caused by treatments after metastasis.

The median survival after a diagnosis of ER+/HER2– metastatic recurrence increased from 2 years in 2000 to 3.5 years in 2019. In triple-negative breast cancer, the increase was more modest, from 1.2 years in 2000 to 1.8 years in 2019. After a diagnosis of metastatic recurrence of ER+/HER2+ breast cancer, median survival increased from 2.3 years in 2000 to 4.8 years in 2019, and for ER–/HER2+ breast cancer, from 2.2 years in 2000 to 3.9 years in 2019.

“How much metastatic treatments contributed to the overall mortality reduction varied over time depending on what therapies were entering the metastatic setting at that time and what therapies were transitioning from the metastatic to early-stage setting,” Dr. Caswell-Jin said.

The study did not include sacituzumab govitecan for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, or trastuzumab deruxtecan and tucatinib for HER2-positive disease, which were approved after 2020. “The numbers that we cite will be better today for triple-negative breast cancer because of those two drugs. And will be even better for HER2-positive breast cancer because of those two drugs,” she said.

During the Q&A portion of the presentation, Daniel Hayes, MD, the Stuart B. Padnos Professor of Breast Cancer Research at the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, asked about the potential of CISNET as an in-practice diagnostic tool.

“We’ve traditionally told patients who have metastatic disease that they will not be cured. I told two patients that on Tuesday. Can CISNET modeling let us begin to see if there is indeed now, with the improved therapies we have, a group of patients who do appear to be cured, or is that not possible?” he asked.

Perhaps, Dr. Caswell-Jin said, in a very small population of older patients with HER2-positive breast cancer that did in fact occur, but to a very small degree.

CHICAGO – Progress in breast cancer treatment over the past 2 decades has reduced expected mortality from both early-stage and metastatic disease, according to a new model that looked at 10-year distant recurrence-free survival and survival time after metastatic diagnosis, among other factors.

“There has been an accelerating influx of new treatments for breast cancer starting around 1990. We wished to ask whether and to what extent decades of metastatic treatment advances may have affected population level breast cancer mortality,” said Jennifer Lee Caswell-Jin, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Our models find that metastatic treatments improved population-level survival in all breast cancer subtypes since 2000 with substantial variability by subtype," said Dr. Caswell-Jin, who is a medical oncologist with Stanford (Calif.) Medicine specializing in breast cancer.

The study is based on an analysis of four models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). The models simulated breast cancer mortality between 2000 and 2019 factoring in the use of mammography, efficacy and dissemination of estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2-specific treatments of early-stage (stages I-III) and metastatic (stage IV or distant recurrence) disease, but also non–cancer-related mortality. The models compared overall and ER/HER2-specific breast cancer mortality rates during this period with estimated rates with no screening or treatment, and then attributed mortality reductions to screening, early-stage, or metastatic treatment.

The results were compared with three clinical trials that tested therapies in different subtypes of metastatic disease. Dr. Caswell-Jin and colleagues adjusted the analysis to reflect expected differences between clinical trial populations and the broader population by sampling simulated patients who resembled the trial population.

The investigators found that, at 71%, the biggest drop in mortality rates were for women with ER+/HER2+ breast cancer, followed by 61% for women with ER-/HER2+ breast cancer and 59% for women with ER+/HER2– breast cancer. Triple-negative breast cancer – one of the most challenging breast cancers to treat – only saw a drop of 40% during this period. About 19% of the overall reduction in breast cancer mortality were caused by treatments after metastasis.

The median survival after a diagnosis of ER+/HER2– metastatic recurrence increased from 2 years in 2000 to 3.5 years in 2019. In triple-negative breast cancer, the increase was more modest, from 1.2 years in 2000 to 1.8 years in 2019. After a diagnosis of metastatic recurrence of ER+/HER2+ breast cancer, median survival increased from 2.3 years in 2000 to 4.8 years in 2019, and for ER–/HER2+ breast cancer, from 2.2 years in 2000 to 3.9 years in 2019.

“How much metastatic treatments contributed to the overall mortality reduction varied over time depending on what therapies were entering the metastatic setting at that time and what therapies were transitioning from the metastatic to early-stage setting,” Dr. Caswell-Jin said.

The study did not include sacituzumab govitecan for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, or trastuzumab deruxtecan and tucatinib for HER2-positive disease, which were approved after 2020. “The numbers that we cite will be better today for triple-negative breast cancer because of those two drugs. And will be even better for HER2-positive breast cancer because of those two drugs,” she said.

During the Q&A portion of the presentation, Daniel Hayes, MD, the Stuart B. Padnos Professor of Breast Cancer Research at the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, asked about the potential of CISNET as an in-practice diagnostic tool.

“We’ve traditionally told patients who have metastatic disease that they will not be cured. I told two patients that on Tuesday. Can CISNET modeling let us begin to see if there is indeed now, with the improved therapies we have, a group of patients who do appear to be cured, or is that not possible?” he asked.

Perhaps, Dr. Caswell-Jin said, in a very small population of older patients with HER2-positive breast cancer that did in fact occur, but to a very small degree.

CHICAGO – In a large case series of metastatic breast cancer patients with pseudocirrhosis, researchers found that almost all such patients had hormone receptor–positive (HR+) disease as well as extensive liver metastases. Pseudocirrhosis appears radiographically similar to cirrhosis, but lacks its classic pathologic features.

The study is the largest cohort of patients with pseudocirrhosis studied to date. “It provides important clinical information about the natural history of this condition to help oncologists better understand which patients develop this condition and what complications are most common. Interestingly, we found that patients who developed ascites had a worse overall survival than patients who did not develop ascites, which was not previously reported,” said Laura Huppert, MD, who presented the findings during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Pseudocirrhosis is commonly found in patients with metastatic breast cancer and can lead to ascites and varices, among other complications. “These problems can be quite debilitating and even life-threatening for our patients. In order to better diagnose and treat our patients with pseudocirrhosis, we first wanted to understand the natural history of this condition, including which patients develop it, what treatments they have received, and what complications are most frequent,” said Dr. Huppert, MD, who is a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco.

The study was retrospective, making it impossible to determine causality. “It is possible that the biology of HR+ disease predisposes patients to the development of pseudocirrhosis through mechanisms that are not yet elucidated. Alternatively, this may be due to the fact that patients with HR+ disease tend to have longer survival and are on systemic therapy for longer periods of time, allowing more time for pseudocirrhosis to develop in response to systemic therapy,” Dr. Huppert said.

In future work, Dr. Huppert plans to examine a control arm of patients with liver disease who do not develop pseudocirrhosis to gain a better understanding of factors that might cause the condition. She also hopes to work with hepatologists to determine if new antifibrosis agents might be applicable to pseudocirrhosis. “There may be interesting things we can learn from other disease states and apply to this condition,” she said.

The researchers analyzed data from 120 patients with pseudocirrhosis. 82.5% of patients were HR+/HER2–, 11.7% were HR+/HER2+, 2.5% were HR–/HER2+, and 3.3% were triple negative. Liver metastases were present in all patients, and 82.5% had more than 15 liver lesions.

A total of 92.5% of patients had previously undergone chemotherapy before pseudocirrhosis was identified, and the median time to diagnosis of pseudocirrhosis after diagnosis of liver metastases was 18.7 months. 50% of patients with pseudocirrhosis had stable or responding disease. After pseudocirrhosis diagnosis, patients underwent a median of 1.0 additional lines of therapy, and the median overall survival following pseudocirrhosis diagnosis was 7.9 months. A total of 80.8% of patients went on to be diagnosed with ascites, 17.5% with esophageal varices, 21.7% with splenomegaly, 10.0% with gastrointestinal bleeding, and 9.2% with hepatic encephalopathy.

Patients with radiographic evidence of ascites survived an average of 42.8 months after metastatic breast cancer diagnosis, while those without ascites survived an average of 76.2 months (P < .001).

Specialty care was rare: Just 7.5% of patients received a GI/hepatology consultation.

Dr. Huppert has no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – In a large case series of metastatic breast cancer patients with pseudocirrhosis, researchers found that almost all such patients had hormone receptor–positive (HR+) disease as well as extensive liver metastases. Pseudocirrhosis appears radiographically similar to cirrhosis, but lacks its classic pathologic features.

The study is the largest cohort of patients with pseudocirrhosis studied to date. “It provides important clinical information about the natural history of this condition to help oncologists better understand which patients develop this condition and what complications are most common. Interestingly, we found that patients who developed ascites had a worse overall survival than patients who did not develop ascites, which was not previously reported,” said Laura Huppert, MD, who presented the findings during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Pseudocirrhosis is commonly found in patients with metastatic breast cancer and can lead to ascites and varices, among other complications. “These problems can be quite debilitating and even life-threatening for our patients. In order to better diagnose and treat our patients with pseudocirrhosis, we first wanted to understand the natural history of this condition, including which patients develop it, what treatments they have received, and what complications are most frequent,” said Dr. Huppert, MD, who is a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco.

The study was retrospective, making it impossible to determine causality. “It is possible that the biology of HR+ disease predisposes patients to the development of pseudocirrhosis through mechanisms that are not yet elucidated. Alternatively, this may be due to the fact that patients with HR+ disease tend to have longer survival and are on systemic therapy for longer periods of time, allowing more time for pseudocirrhosis to develop in response to systemic therapy,” Dr. Huppert said.

In future work, Dr. Huppert plans to examine a control arm of patients with liver disease who do not develop pseudocirrhosis to gain a better understanding of factors that might cause the condition. She also hopes to work with hepatologists to determine if new antifibrosis agents might be applicable to pseudocirrhosis. “There may be interesting things we can learn from other disease states and apply to this condition,” she said.

The researchers analyzed data from 120 patients with pseudocirrhosis. 82.5% of patients were HR+/HER2–, 11.7% were HR+/HER2+, 2.5% were HR–/HER2+, and 3.3% were triple negative. Liver metastases were present in all patients, and 82.5% had more than 15 liver lesions.

A total of 92.5% of patients had previously undergone chemotherapy before pseudocirrhosis was identified, and the median time to diagnosis of pseudocirrhosis after diagnosis of liver metastases was 18.7 months. 50% of patients with pseudocirrhosis had stable or responding disease. After pseudocirrhosis diagnosis, patients underwent a median of 1.0 additional lines of therapy, and the median overall survival following pseudocirrhosis diagnosis was 7.9 months. A total of 80.8% of patients went on to be diagnosed with ascites, 17.5% with esophageal varices, 21.7% with splenomegaly, 10.0% with gastrointestinal bleeding, and 9.2% with hepatic encephalopathy.

Patients with radiographic evidence of ascites survived an average of 42.8 months after metastatic breast cancer diagnosis, while those without ascites survived an average of 76.2 months (P < .001).

Specialty care was rare: Just 7.5% of patients received a GI/hepatology consultation.

Dr. Huppert has no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – In a large case series of metastatic breast cancer patients with pseudocirrhosis, researchers found that almost all such patients had hormone receptor–positive (HR+) disease as well as extensive liver metastases. Pseudocirrhosis appears radiographically similar to cirrhosis, but lacks its classic pathologic features.

The study is the largest cohort of patients with pseudocirrhosis studied to date. “It provides important clinical information about the natural history of this condition to help oncologists better understand which patients develop this condition and what complications are most common. Interestingly, we found that patients who developed ascites had a worse overall survival than patients who did not develop ascites, which was not previously reported,” said Laura Huppert, MD, who presented the findings during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Pseudocirrhosis is commonly found in patients with metastatic breast cancer and can lead to ascites and varices, among other complications. “These problems can be quite debilitating and even life-threatening for our patients. In order to better diagnose and treat our patients with pseudocirrhosis, we first wanted to understand the natural history of this condition, including which patients develop it, what treatments they have received, and what complications are most frequent,” said Dr. Huppert, MD, who is a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco.

The study was retrospective, making it impossible to determine causality. “It is possible that the biology of HR+ disease predisposes patients to the development of pseudocirrhosis through mechanisms that are not yet elucidated. Alternatively, this may be due to the fact that patients with HR+ disease tend to have longer survival and are on systemic therapy for longer periods of time, allowing more time for pseudocirrhosis to develop in response to systemic therapy,” Dr. Huppert said.

In future work, Dr. Huppert plans to examine a control arm of patients with liver disease who do not develop pseudocirrhosis to gain a better understanding of factors that might cause the condition. She also hopes to work with hepatologists to determine if new antifibrosis agents might be applicable to pseudocirrhosis. “There may be interesting things we can learn from other disease states and apply to this condition,” she said.

The researchers analyzed data from 120 patients with pseudocirrhosis. 82.5% of patients were HR+/HER2–, 11.7% were HR+/HER2+, 2.5% were HR–/HER2+, and 3.3% were triple negative. Liver metastases were present in all patients, and 82.5% had more than 15 liver lesions.

A total of 92.5% of patients had previously undergone chemotherapy before pseudocirrhosis was identified, and the median time to diagnosis of pseudocirrhosis after diagnosis of liver metastases was 18.7 months. 50% of patients with pseudocirrhosis had stable or responding disease. After pseudocirrhosis diagnosis, patients underwent a median of 1.0 additional lines of therapy, and the median overall survival following pseudocirrhosis diagnosis was 7.9 months. A total of 80.8% of patients went on to be diagnosed with ascites, 17.5% with esophageal varices, 21.7% with splenomegaly, 10.0% with gastrointestinal bleeding, and 9.2% with hepatic encephalopathy.

Patients with radiographic evidence of ascites survived an average of 42.8 months after metastatic breast cancer diagnosis, while those without ascites survived an average of 76.2 months (P < .001).

Specialty care was rare: Just 7.5% of patients received a GI/hepatology consultation.

Dr. Huppert has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study shows that being overweight may offer some women undergoing treatment for breast cancer protection against neutropenia – a potentially deadly outcome that can occur as a result of chemotherapy treatment.

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

It is known that body mass index can affect breast cancer risk and prognosis, but it is not known if BMI can affect how well endocrine therapy works in a given patient. In the PALLAS clinical trial, Georg Pfeiler, MD, Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues, conducted an analysis of 5,698 patients with early hormone receptor–positive breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy with or without palbociclib. Dr. Pfeiler found that women who are overweight or obese had significantly less frequent and less severe cases of neutropenia. With fewer or less severe cases of neutropenia, there were also fewer interruptions in palbociclib treatment.

“One explanation for the lower discontinuation rates may be that the distributional volume of the drug is higher in overweight and obese patients leading to lower serum drug concentrations. It could also be influenced by differences in pharmacokinetics with respect to hyperinsulinemia,” said Dr. Pfeiler, who leads the Oncological Breast Outpatient Clinic and Bone Health Outpatient Clinic at the Medical University of Vienna.

The PALLAS trial compared the combination of palbociclib and adjuvant endocrine therapy with endocrine therapy alone in 5,698 women with early breast cancer. Patients were categorized according to BMI as underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9), overweight (BMI, 25-29.9), and obese (> 30). The investigators analyzed differences in adverse events, time to early discontinuation of palbociclib, and in time to invasive disease-free survival.

At baseline, of 5,698 patients, 68 (1.2%) were underweight, 2,082 (36.5%) were of normal weight, 1,818 (31.9%) were overweight, and, 1,730 (30.4%) were obese. In patients treated with palbociclib, neutropenia was the primary toxicity leading to treatment discontinuation with rates of 21.1% in normal-weight patients, 14.0% of overweight patients, and 5.9% of obese patients, respectively.

Significantly different rates of all-grade neutropenia were observed in normal weight, overweight, and obese participants with regard to total (88.5%, 85.7% and 74.7%), as well as grade 3 (64.1%, 62.0% and 43.9%) and grade 4 neutropenia (7.0%, 3.6% and 2.0%), respectively. The lower frequency and severity of neutropenia observed in overweight and obese patients was associated with a significantly lower treatment discontinuation rate over time when compared with normal-weight patients (overweight vs. normal weight: HR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.63-0.84; P < .0001, and obese vs. normal weight: HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75; P < .0001). There was, however, despite these observations, no statistically significant improvement in invasive disease survival with the addition of palbociclib to endocrine therapy in any weight category (normal weight: HR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.63-1.12; overweight: HR, 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.49; and obese: HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69-1.30).

“This is an early analysis, and should be interpreted with caution, especially with regard to disease outcomes. The findings may reduce concerns over hematologic side effects in the overweight and obese. In the future there may be an important impact if it turns out after longer-term follow-up that palbociclib has been underdosed in the overweight and obese. We may need BMI-adapted dose management,” said Dr. Pfeiler, who is currently working on a longer-term follow-up study of the PALLAS group.

The analysis found no significant correlation between weight and occurrence of invasive disease events.

Dr. Pfeiler disclosed honoraria and grants from Pfizer. The study was funded by Alliance Foundation Trials.

A new study shows that being overweight may offer some women undergoing treatment for breast cancer protection against neutropenia – a potentially deadly outcome that can occur as a result of chemotherapy treatment.

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

It is known that body mass index can affect breast cancer risk and prognosis, but it is not known if BMI can affect how well endocrine therapy works in a given patient. In the PALLAS clinical trial, Georg Pfeiler, MD, Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues, conducted an analysis of 5,698 patients with early hormone receptor–positive breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy with or without palbociclib. Dr. Pfeiler found that women who are overweight or obese had significantly less frequent and less severe cases of neutropenia. With fewer or less severe cases of neutropenia, there were also fewer interruptions in palbociclib treatment.

“One explanation for the lower discontinuation rates may be that the distributional volume of the drug is higher in overweight and obese patients leading to lower serum drug concentrations. It could also be influenced by differences in pharmacokinetics with respect to hyperinsulinemia,” said Dr. Pfeiler, who leads the Oncological Breast Outpatient Clinic and Bone Health Outpatient Clinic at the Medical University of Vienna.

The PALLAS trial compared the combination of palbociclib and adjuvant endocrine therapy with endocrine therapy alone in 5,698 women with early breast cancer. Patients were categorized according to BMI as underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9), overweight (BMI, 25-29.9), and obese (> 30). The investigators analyzed differences in adverse events, time to early discontinuation of palbociclib, and in time to invasive disease-free survival.

At baseline, of 5,698 patients, 68 (1.2%) were underweight, 2,082 (36.5%) were of normal weight, 1,818 (31.9%) were overweight, and, 1,730 (30.4%) were obese. In patients treated with palbociclib, neutropenia was the primary toxicity leading to treatment discontinuation with rates of 21.1% in normal-weight patients, 14.0% of overweight patients, and 5.9% of obese patients, respectively.

Significantly different rates of all-grade neutropenia were observed in normal weight, overweight, and obese participants with regard to total (88.5%, 85.7% and 74.7%), as well as grade 3 (64.1%, 62.0% and 43.9%) and grade 4 neutropenia (7.0%, 3.6% and 2.0%), respectively. The lower frequency and severity of neutropenia observed in overweight and obese patients was associated with a significantly lower treatment discontinuation rate over time when compared with normal-weight patients (overweight vs. normal weight: HR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.63-0.84; P < .0001, and obese vs. normal weight: HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75; P < .0001). There was, however, despite these observations, no statistically significant improvement in invasive disease survival with the addition of palbociclib to endocrine therapy in any weight category (normal weight: HR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.63-1.12; overweight: HR, 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.49; and obese: HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69-1.30).

“This is an early analysis, and should be interpreted with caution, especially with regard to disease outcomes. The findings may reduce concerns over hematologic side effects in the overweight and obese. In the future there may be an important impact if it turns out after longer-term follow-up that palbociclib has been underdosed in the overweight and obese. We may need BMI-adapted dose management,” said Dr. Pfeiler, who is currently working on a longer-term follow-up study of the PALLAS group.

The analysis found no significant correlation between weight and occurrence of invasive disease events.

Dr. Pfeiler disclosed honoraria and grants from Pfizer. The study was funded by Alliance Foundation Trials.

A new study shows that being overweight may offer some women undergoing treatment for breast cancer protection against neutropenia – a potentially deadly outcome that can occur as a result of chemotherapy treatment.

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

It is known that body mass index can affect breast cancer risk and prognosis, but it is not known if BMI can affect how well endocrine therapy works in a given patient. In the PALLAS clinical trial, Georg Pfeiler, MD, Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues, conducted an analysis of 5,698 patients with early hormone receptor–positive breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy with or without palbociclib. Dr. Pfeiler found that women who are overweight or obese had significantly less frequent and less severe cases of neutropenia. With fewer or less severe cases of neutropenia, there were also fewer interruptions in palbociclib treatment.

“One explanation for the lower discontinuation rates may be that the distributional volume of the drug is higher in overweight and obese patients leading to lower serum drug concentrations. It could also be influenced by differences in pharmacokinetics with respect to hyperinsulinemia,” said Dr. Pfeiler, who leads the Oncological Breast Outpatient Clinic and Bone Health Outpatient Clinic at the Medical University of Vienna.

The PALLAS trial compared the combination of palbociclib and adjuvant endocrine therapy with endocrine therapy alone in 5,698 women with early breast cancer. Patients were categorized according to BMI as underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9), overweight (BMI, 25-29.9), and obese (> 30). The investigators analyzed differences in adverse events, time to early discontinuation of palbociclib, and in time to invasive disease-free survival.

At baseline, of 5,698 patients, 68 (1.2%) were underweight, 2,082 (36.5%) were of normal weight, 1,818 (31.9%) were overweight, and, 1,730 (30.4%) were obese. In patients treated with palbociclib, neutropenia was the primary toxicity leading to treatment discontinuation with rates of 21.1% in normal-weight patients, 14.0% of overweight patients, and 5.9% of obese patients, respectively.

Significantly different rates of all-grade neutropenia were observed in normal weight, overweight, and obese participants with regard to total (88.5%, 85.7% and 74.7%), as well as grade 3 (64.1%, 62.0% and 43.9%) and grade 4 neutropenia (7.0%, 3.6% and 2.0%), respectively. The lower frequency and severity of neutropenia observed in overweight and obese patients was associated with a significantly lower treatment discontinuation rate over time when compared with normal-weight patients (overweight vs. normal weight: HR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.63-0.84; P < .0001, and obese vs. normal weight: HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75; P < .0001). There was, however, despite these observations, no statistically significant improvement in invasive disease survival with the addition of palbociclib to endocrine therapy in any weight category (normal weight: HR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.63-1.12; overweight: HR, 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.49; and obese: HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69-1.30).

“This is an early analysis, and should be interpreted with caution, especially with regard to disease outcomes. The findings may reduce concerns over hematologic side effects in the overweight and obese. In the future there may be an important impact if it turns out after longer-term follow-up that palbociclib has been underdosed in the overweight and obese. We may need BMI-adapted dose management,” said Dr. Pfeiler, who is currently working on a longer-term follow-up study of the PALLAS group.

The analysis found no significant correlation between weight and occurrence of invasive disease events.

Dr. Pfeiler disclosed honoraria and grants from Pfizer. The study was funded by Alliance Foundation Trials.

When a patient first presents to a doctor with signs and symptoms of having breast cancer that has metastasized to other parts of the body, the prospects of long-term survival are dim. But now, a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology suggests that women with metastatic HER2+ breast cancer are generally living longer, compared with women treated in previous years.

Between 2010 and 2018, the overall survival for 5,576 women (99% women) with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer enrolled in this study improved 5.6% each year of the study. The study also showed a 6.4% improvement in breast cancer–specific death rates year over year.

“These highlights coincide with significant therapeutic advances for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer over the past decade. We need to continue our research efforts to identify better treatments for our patients so we can continue to improve the prognosis of these patients,” said study author Jose Pablo Leone, MD, a medical oncologist with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The study, which is based on an evaluation of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database, found factors associated with shorter survival included older age, Black race, lower income, and the presence of visceral or brain metastases. Long-term survival of more than 5 years was associated with younger age, White race, and higher income, but also having fewer metastatic sites and estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) positivity.

“We also found specific factors that were only associated with shorter overall survival, such as the presence of metastases in the brain, liver, or lung. The lack of metastasis in these sites was not associated with longer overall survival. In contrast, a lower number of metastatic sites, regardless of the location of those sites were associated with longer overall survival but not short-term survival,” Dr. Leone said.

A total of 63.3% of patients in the study survived less than 2 years while 37.8% lived 5 years or more, and 26.8% lived longer than 8 years. Factors associated with less than 2 years in overall survival were older age (odds ratio, 3.76), Black race (OR 1.5), nonductal nonlobular (OR, 4.64), brain metastases (OR, 2.95), liver metastases (OR, 1.98), lung metastases (OR, 1.56), ER/PR negativity (OR, 1.74), and lower income (OR, 1.62). Factors associated with longer survival of 5 years or more included younger age (OR, 2.85), White race (OR, 1.7), fewer metastatic organ sites (OR, 2.6), ER/PR positivity (OR, 1.27), and higher income (OR, 3.31).

Dr. Leone said that, while involvement of specific visceral sites (brain, liver, lung) was associated with shorter overall survival, the odds of living longer than 5 years was not associated with those sites. In contrast, the number of sites was associated with longer overall survival, but not shorter overall survival regardless of location. “While fewer number of metastatic sites were associated with higher odds of overall survival greater than 5 years, the number of metastatic sites was not associated with the odds of overall survival of being less than 2 years,” he said.

A limitation of the study included the retrospective nature of the study. “Treatment data are unavailable, so we cannot quantify the impact of various treatments on the odds of survival,” Dr. Leone said.

This study was not funded.

When a patient first presents to a doctor with signs and symptoms of having breast cancer that has metastasized to other parts of the body, the prospects of long-term survival are dim. But now, a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology suggests that women with metastatic HER2+ breast cancer are generally living longer, compared with women treated in previous years.

Between 2010 and 2018, the overall survival for 5,576 women (99% women) with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer enrolled in this study improved 5.6% each year of the study. The study also showed a 6.4% improvement in breast cancer–specific death rates year over year.

“These highlights coincide with significant therapeutic advances for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer over the past decade. We need to continue our research efforts to identify better treatments for our patients so we can continue to improve the prognosis of these patients,” said study author Jose Pablo Leone, MD, a medical oncologist with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The study, which is based on an evaluation of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database, found factors associated with shorter survival included older age, Black race, lower income, and the presence of visceral or brain metastases. Long-term survival of more than 5 years was associated with younger age, White race, and higher income, but also having fewer metastatic sites and estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) positivity.

“We also found specific factors that were only associated with shorter overall survival, such as the presence of metastases in the brain, liver, or lung. The lack of metastasis in these sites was not associated with longer overall survival. In contrast, a lower number of metastatic sites, regardless of the location of those sites were associated with longer overall survival but not short-term survival,” Dr. Leone said.

A total of 63.3% of patients in the study survived less than 2 years while 37.8% lived 5 years or more, and 26.8% lived longer than 8 years. Factors associated with less than 2 years in overall survival were older age (odds ratio, 3.76), Black race (OR 1.5), nonductal nonlobular (OR, 4.64), brain metastases (OR, 2.95), liver metastases (OR, 1.98), lung metastases (OR, 1.56), ER/PR negativity (OR, 1.74), and lower income (OR, 1.62). Factors associated with longer survival of 5 years or more included younger age (OR, 2.85), White race (OR, 1.7), fewer metastatic organ sites (OR, 2.6), ER/PR positivity (OR, 1.27), and higher income (OR, 3.31).

Dr. Leone said that, while involvement of specific visceral sites (brain, liver, lung) was associated with shorter overall survival, the odds of living longer than 5 years was not associated with those sites. In contrast, the number of sites was associated with longer overall survival, but not shorter overall survival regardless of location. “While fewer number of metastatic sites were associated with higher odds of overall survival greater than 5 years, the number of metastatic sites was not associated with the odds of overall survival of being less than 2 years,” he said.

A limitation of the study included the retrospective nature of the study. “Treatment data are unavailable, so we cannot quantify the impact of various treatments on the odds of survival,” Dr. Leone said.

This study was not funded.

When a patient first presents to a doctor with signs and symptoms of having breast cancer that has metastasized to other parts of the body, the prospects of long-term survival are dim. But now, a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology suggests that women with metastatic HER2+ breast cancer are generally living longer, compared with women treated in previous years.

Between 2010 and 2018, the overall survival for 5,576 women (99% women) with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer enrolled in this study improved 5.6% each year of the study. The study also showed a 6.4% improvement in breast cancer–specific death rates year over year.

“These highlights coincide with significant therapeutic advances for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer over the past decade. We need to continue our research efforts to identify better treatments for our patients so we can continue to improve the prognosis of these patients,” said study author Jose Pablo Leone, MD, a medical oncologist with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The study, which is based on an evaluation of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database, found factors associated with shorter survival included older age, Black race, lower income, and the presence of visceral or brain metastases. Long-term survival of more than 5 years was associated with younger age, White race, and higher income, but also having fewer metastatic sites and estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) positivity.

“We also found specific factors that were only associated with shorter overall survival, such as the presence of metastases in the brain, liver, or lung. The lack of metastasis in these sites was not associated with longer overall survival. In contrast, a lower number of metastatic sites, regardless of the location of those sites were associated with longer overall survival but not short-term survival,” Dr. Leone said.

A total of 63.3% of patients in the study survived less than 2 years while 37.8% lived 5 years or more, and 26.8% lived longer than 8 years. Factors associated with less than 2 years in overall survival were older age (odds ratio, 3.76), Black race (OR 1.5), nonductal nonlobular (OR, 4.64), brain metastases (OR, 2.95), liver metastases (OR, 1.98), lung metastases (OR, 1.56), ER/PR negativity (OR, 1.74), and lower income (OR, 1.62). Factors associated with longer survival of 5 years or more included younger age (OR, 2.85), White race (OR, 1.7), fewer metastatic organ sites (OR, 2.6), ER/PR positivity (OR, 1.27), and higher income (OR, 3.31).

Dr. Leone said that, while involvement of specific visceral sites (brain, liver, lung) was associated with shorter overall survival, the odds of living longer than 5 years was not associated with those sites. In contrast, the number of sites was associated with longer overall survival, but not shorter overall survival regardless of location. “While fewer number of metastatic sites were associated with higher odds of overall survival greater than 5 years, the number of metastatic sites was not associated with the odds of overall survival of being less than 2 years,” he said.

A limitation of the study included the retrospective nature of the study. “Treatment data are unavailable, so we cannot quantify the impact of various treatments on the odds of survival,” Dr. Leone said.

This study was not funded.

A final long-term analysis of a study designed to evaluate the safety of a common osteoporosis drug used to treat bone loss in women who were treated for breast cancer, finds the treatment not only reduces fractures long-term, but it may also improve overall survival and increase bone density.

The final analysis of “Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast Cancer (ABCSG-18)” was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Adjuvant denosumab should be considered for routine clinical use in postmenopausal patients with HR+ breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors treatment,” said the study’s author Michael Gnant, MD, FACS, director of surgery for the Medical University of Vienna.

Denosumab is currently recommended by ASCO as a treatment option for osteoporosis in patients who were successfully treated for nonmetastatic disease.

ABCSG-18 was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that comprised 3,420 patients (mean age 64.5 years) from 58 treatment centers. It included postmenopausal patients with early HR+ breast cancer who were treated with aromatase inhibitors between 2006 and 2013. Among the patients, 1,711 received denosumab 60 mg and 1,709 received a placebo every 6 months.

The primary endpoint was time to first clinical fracture, and the secondary disease outcome-related endpoints were disease-free survival, bone metastasis–free survival, and overall survival.

The hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the denosumab group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.97, P = .02) after a median follow-up of 8 years. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 69.0% in the placebo arm and 74.4% in the denosumab arm, with events occurring in 19.8% of patients overall, including deaths in 8.3%.

Bone metastasis–free survival (BMFS) rates were 81.3% and 85.7% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.65-1.00, P = .05). Overall survival was 83.6% and 88.8% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.01, P = .06).

There were no new toxicities, nor was there a single positive case of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) during the study period, which may be due to the low dosage of denosumab. The bone protection dose of denosumab is much lower than that used for treatment of metastases which can be 12 times higher. In those cases, 4%-6% of patients may develop ONJ. “At these very low doses, even after 30,000 treatment years, we did not observe a single confirmed ONJ case,” he said.

Exploratory observations showed the majority of events to include distant recurrences in bone, liver, and lungs. Analysis revealed a trend toward reduction in contralateral breast cancer in the denosumab arm (24 versus 29 events), with a reduction in second non-breast primary malignancies (101 versus 127 events).

In a much earlier ABCSG-18 study from 2015, the primary endpoint of fracture risk was reduced significantly with denosumab (HR = 0.50, P < .0001), with highly significantly longer time to first clinical fracture, higher percent increase in bone mineral density (P < .0001 for both) and fewer vertebral fractures (P = .009). There is evidence that older generation bisphosphonates have potential beyond bone health, such as reducing metabolism (which benefits bone turnover), and improving breast cancer outcomes. These benefits sparked interest in potential long-term cancer reduction with denosumab, Dr. Gnant said.

“Bone marrow is a putative source of late relapse. Tumor cells can harbor there in a quiescent state for 10-15-20 years, and then for some reason wake up and cause metastases. So, all bone-targeted agents are also evaluated for reductions in cancer which is what we were looking to investigate here in this 15-year data,” he said. Denosumab is more targeted than the bisphosphonates, and directly inhibits the RANK ligand which is an important mediator of osteoclast activation. “This ligand is believed to support metastases in the process of waking up,” Dr. Gnant said.

A limitation of the study is that the outcome endpoints of ABCSG-18 are secondary ones, making the results technically descriptive. The study was sponsored by Amgen.

A final long-term analysis of a study designed to evaluate the safety of a common osteoporosis drug used to treat bone loss in women who were treated for breast cancer, finds the treatment not only reduces fractures long-term, but it may also improve overall survival and increase bone density.

The final analysis of “Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast Cancer (ABCSG-18)” was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Adjuvant denosumab should be considered for routine clinical use in postmenopausal patients with HR+ breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors treatment,” said the study’s author Michael Gnant, MD, FACS, director of surgery for the Medical University of Vienna.

Denosumab is currently recommended by ASCO as a treatment option for osteoporosis in patients who were successfully treated for nonmetastatic disease.

ABCSG-18 was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that comprised 3,420 patients (mean age 64.5 years) from 58 treatment centers. It included postmenopausal patients with early HR+ breast cancer who were treated with aromatase inhibitors between 2006 and 2013. Among the patients, 1,711 received denosumab 60 mg and 1,709 received a placebo every 6 months.

The primary endpoint was time to first clinical fracture, and the secondary disease outcome-related endpoints were disease-free survival, bone metastasis–free survival, and overall survival.

The hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the denosumab group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.97, P = .02) after a median follow-up of 8 years. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 69.0% in the placebo arm and 74.4% in the denosumab arm, with events occurring in 19.8% of patients overall, including deaths in 8.3%.

Bone metastasis–free survival (BMFS) rates were 81.3% and 85.7% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.65-1.00, P = .05). Overall survival was 83.6% and 88.8% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.01, P = .06).

There were no new toxicities, nor was there a single positive case of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) during the study period, which may be due to the low dosage of denosumab. The bone protection dose of denosumab is much lower than that used for treatment of metastases which can be 12 times higher. In those cases, 4%-6% of patients may develop ONJ. “At these very low doses, even after 30,000 treatment years, we did not observe a single confirmed ONJ case,” he said.

Exploratory observations showed the majority of events to include distant recurrences in bone, liver, and lungs. Analysis revealed a trend toward reduction in contralateral breast cancer in the denosumab arm (24 versus 29 events), with a reduction in second non-breast primary malignancies (101 versus 127 events).

In a much earlier ABCSG-18 study from 2015, the primary endpoint of fracture risk was reduced significantly with denosumab (HR = 0.50, P < .0001), with highly significantly longer time to first clinical fracture, higher percent increase in bone mineral density (P < .0001 for both) and fewer vertebral fractures (P = .009). There is evidence that older generation bisphosphonates have potential beyond bone health, such as reducing metabolism (which benefits bone turnover), and improving breast cancer outcomes. These benefits sparked interest in potential long-term cancer reduction with denosumab, Dr. Gnant said.

“Bone marrow is a putative source of late relapse. Tumor cells can harbor there in a quiescent state for 10-15-20 years, and then for some reason wake up and cause metastases. So, all bone-targeted agents are also evaluated for reductions in cancer which is what we were looking to investigate here in this 15-year data,” he said. Denosumab is more targeted than the bisphosphonates, and directly inhibits the RANK ligand which is an important mediator of osteoclast activation. “This ligand is believed to support metastases in the process of waking up,” Dr. Gnant said.

A limitation of the study is that the outcome endpoints of ABCSG-18 are secondary ones, making the results technically descriptive. The study was sponsored by Amgen.

A final long-term analysis of a study designed to evaluate the safety of a common osteoporosis drug used to treat bone loss in women who were treated for breast cancer, finds the treatment not only reduces fractures long-term, but it may also improve overall survival and increase bone density.

The final analysis of “Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast Cancer (ABCSG-18)” was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Adjuvant denosumab should be considered for routine clinical use in postmenopausal patients with HR+ breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors treatment,” said the study’s author Michael Gnant, MD, FACS, director of surgery for the Medical University of Vienna.

Denosumab is currently recommended by ASCO as a treatment option for osteoporosis in patients who were successfully treated for nonmetastatic disease.

ABCSG-18 was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that comprised 3,420 patients (mean age 64.5 years) from 58 treatment centers. It included postmenopausal patients with early HR+ breast cancer who were treated with aromatase inhibitors between 2006 and 2013. Among the patients, 1,711 received denosumab 60 mg and 1,709 received a placebo every 6 months.

The primary endpoint was time to first clinical fracture, and the secondary disease outcome-related endpoints were disease-free survival, bone metastasis–free survival, and overall survival.

The hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the denosumab group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.97, P = .02) after a median follow-up of 8 years. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 69.0% in the placebo arm and 74.4% in the denosumab arm, with events occurring in 19.8% of patients overall, including deaths in 8.3%.

Bone metastasis–free survival (BMFS) rates were 81.3% and 85.7% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.65-1.00, P = .05). Overall survival was 83.6% and 88.8% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.01, P = .06).

There were no new toxicities, nor was there a single positive case of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) during the study period, which may be due to the low dosage of denosumab. The bone protection dose of denosumab is much lower than that used for treatment of metastases which can be 12 times higher. In those cases, 4%-6% of patients may develop ONJ. “At these very low doses, even after 30,000 treatment years, we did not observe a single confirmed ONJ case,” he said.

Exploratory observations showed the majority of events to include distant recurrences in bone, liver, and lungs. Analysis revealed a trend toward reduction in contralateral breast cancer in the denosumab arm (24 versus 29 events), with a reduction in second non-breast primary malignancies (101 versus 127 events).

In a much earlier ABCSG-18 study from 2015, the primary endpoint of fracture risk was reduced significantly with denosumab (HR = 0.50, P < .0001), with highly significantly longer time to first clinical fracture, higher percent increase in bone mineral density (P < .0001 for both) and fewer vertebral fractures (P = .009). There is evidence that older generation bisphosphonates have potential beyond bone health, such as reducing metabolism (which benefits bone turnover), and improving breast cancer outcomes. These benefits sparked interest in potential long-term cancer reduction with denosumab, Dr. Gnant said.

“Bone marrow is a putative source of late relapse. Tumor cells can harbor there in a quiescent state for 10-15-20 years, and then for some reason wake up and cause metastases. So, all bone-targeted agents are also evaluated for reductions in cancer which is what we were looking to investigate here in this 15-year data,” he said. Denosumab is more targeted than the bisphosphonates, and directly inhibits the RANK ligand which is an important mediator of osteoclast activation. “This ligand is believed to support metastases in the process of waking up,” Dr. Gnant said.

A limitation of the study is that the outcome endpoints of ABCSG-18 are secondary ones, making the results technically descriptive. The study was sponsored by Amgen.