TROPION-Breast03: a randomized phase III global trial of datopotamab deruxtecan ± durvalumab in patients with triple-negative breast cancer and residual invasive disease at surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy.

Background: Despite advances in the treatment of early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), patients with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant therapy have a high risk of disease recurrence and worse survival outcomes than those who have pathological complete response (pCR). Improving outcomes in early TNBC remains an unmet need requiring new adjuvant treatment approaches. Datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) is an antibody-drug conjugate comprising a humanized anti-trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody attached via a plasma-stable, cleavable linker to a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor payload, with activity observed in advanced TNBC. Objectives: TROPION-Breast03 is an ongoing phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of Dato-DXd alone or combined with durvalumab versus standard-of-care therapy as adjuvant treatment in patients with stage I-III TNBC with residual invasive disease at surgical resection following neoadjuvant treatment. Methods and design: Eligible patients, aged ⩾18 years, will be randomized in a 2:1:2 ratio to receive Dato-DXd [6 mg/kg intravenously (IV) every 3 weeks (Q3W); eight cycles] and durvalumab (1120 mg IV Q3W; nine cycles), Dato-DXd monotherapy (6 mg/kg IV Q3W), or investigator's choice of therapy (ICT; capecitabine, pembrolizumab, or capecitabine and pembrolizumab). The primary endpoint is invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) for Dato-DXd and durvalumab versus ICT. Key secondary endpoints include safety, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival for Dato-DXd and durvalumab versus ICT and iDFS for Dato-DXd monotherapy versus ICT. Ethics: TROPION-Breast03 will be approved by the independent ethics committees or institutional review boards at each study site. All study participants will provide written informed consent. Discussion: TROPION-Breast03 will help define the potential role of Dato-DXd in the treatment of patients with early-stage TNBC who do not have pCR after neoadjuvant therapy. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05629585 (registration date: 29 November 2022).

TROPION-Breast03: a clinical trial designed to assess the effectiveness and safety of Dato-DXd, alone or in combination with durvalumab, in patients with triple-negative breast cancer who have cancer cells remaining at the time of surgery after initial systemic therapy Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), in which cells do not have estrogen or progesterone receptors or high levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, is the most aggressive breast cancer subtype. TNBC is difficult to treat and associated with high risk of recurrence despite standard systemic therapy (treatment targeting the entire body), which can include chemotherapy alone or in combination with immunotherapy (treatment targeting the immune system). To reduce the risk of recurrence, standard systemic treatment is often followed by surgical removal of the patient's tumors and additional systemic treatment. Dato-DXd is an antibody-drug conjugate, which is an anticancer drug (DXd) connected to an antibody (datopotamab) by a stable linker. Datopotamab binds to TROP2, a protein found on breast cancer cells, and is taken into the tumor cell where the linker breaks, releasing DXd to kill the cell. By delivering DXd directly to cancer cells, Dato-DXd reduces exposure in the rest of the body, reducing the risk of side effects. Since Dato-DXd can recruit immune cells to cancer sites, it may work better combined with durvalumab, a drug that blocks the activity of a protein called PD-L1, making cancer cells more susceptible to being killed by immune cells. The TROPION-Breast03 study will compare Dato-DXd, alone or combined with durvalumab, with standard-of-care therapy in patients with TNBC that has not spread to parts of the body away from the original tumor site(s), but with cancer cells remaining at the time of surgery after initial systemic therapy. It will assess how well each treatment works and describe any side effects. We plan to recruit 1,075 eligible adults who will be randomly assigned in a 2:1:2 ratio to: • Dato-DXd + durvalumab • Dato-DXd alone • Standard-of-care therapy • Patients will receive treatment until they complete the planned course of therapy (8 or 9 cycles), their cancer returns, side effects become unacceptable, or they choose to stop.

Spatial predictors of immunotherapy response in triple-negative breast cancer.

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) benefits some patients with triple-negative breast cancer, but what distinguishes responders from non-responders is unclear1. Because ICB targets cell-cell interactions2, we investigated the impact of multicellular spatial organization on response, and explored how ICB remodels the tumour microenvironment. We show that cell phenotype, activation state and spatial location are intimately linked, influence ICB effect and differ in sensitive versus resistant tumours early on-treatment. We used imaging mass cytometry3 to profile the in situ expression of 43 proteins in tumours from patients in a randomized trial of neoadjuvant ICB, sampled at three timepoints (baseline, n = 243; early on-treatment, n = 207; post-treatment, n = 210). Multivariate modelling showed that the fractions of proliferating CD8+TCF1+T cells and MHCII+ cancer cells were dominant predictors of response, followed by cancer-immune interactions with B cells and granzyme B+ T cells. On-treatment, responsive tumours contained abundant granzyme B+ T cells, whereas resistant tumours were characterized by CD15+ cancer cells. Response was best predicted by combining tissue features before and on-treatment, pointing to a role for early biopsies in guiding adaptive therapy. Our findings show that multicellular spatial organization is a major determinant of ICB effect and suggest that its systematic enumeration in situ could help realize precision immuno-oncology.

COVID-19 in breast cancer patients: a subanalysis of the OnCovid registry.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are at higher risk of COVID-19 complications and mortality than the rest of the population. Breast cancer patients seem to have better prognosis when infected by SARS-CoV-2 than other cancer patients. METHODS: We report a subanalysis of the OnCovid study providing more detailed information in the breast cancer population. RESULTS: We included 495 breast cancer patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mean age was 62.6 years; 31.5% presented more than one comorbidity. The most frequent breast cancer subtype was luminal-like (n = 245, 49.5%) and 177 (35.8%) had metastatic disease. A total of 332 (67.1%) patients were receiving active treatment, with radical intent in 232 (47.6%) of them. Hospitalization rate was 58.2% and all-cause mortality rate was 20.3%. One hundred twenty-nine (26.1%) patients developed one COVID-19 complication, being acute respiratory failure the most common (n = 74, 15.0%). In the multivariable analysis, age older than 70 years, presence of COVID-19 complications, and metastatic disease were factors correlated with worse outcomes, while ongoing anticancer therapy at time of COVID-19 diagnosis appeared to be a protective factor. No particular oncological treatment was related to higher risk of complications. In the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 73 (18.3%) patients had some kind of modification on their oncologic treatment. At the first oncological reassessment (median time: 46.9 days ± 36.7), 255 (51.6%) patients reported to be fully recovered from the infection. There were 39 patients (7.9%) with long-term SARS-CoV-2-related complications. CONCLUSION: In the context of COVID-19, our data confirm that breast cancer patients appear to have lower complications and mortality rate than expected in other cancer populations. Most breast cancer patients can be safely treated for their neoplasm during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Oncological treatment has no impact on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 complications, and, especially in the curative setting, the treatment should be modified as little as possible.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With PIK3CA-Mutated Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer From SOLAR-1.

PURPOSE: In the phase III SOLAR-1 trial (NCT02437318), the PI3Kα-selective inhibitor and degrader alpelisib significantly improved median progression-free survival when added to fulvestrant in patients with phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA)-mutated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. We assessed health-related quality of life using patient-reported outcome measures in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the PIK3CA-mutant cohort, 341 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive alpelisib 300 mg daily or placebo plus fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 of subsequent 28-day cycles. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL of Cancer Patients and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form questionnaires. Changes from baseline and time to 10% deterioration were analyzed using repeated measurement models and Cox models, respectively. RESULTS: Global Health Status/QoL and functional status were maintained from baseline (mean changes < 10 points) in the alpelisib (overall change from baseline [95% CI], -3.50 [-8.02 to 1.02]) and placebo arms (overall change from baseline [95% CI], 0.27 [-4.48 to 5.02]). Overall treatment effect in Global Health Status/QoL was not significantly different between arms (-3.77; 95% CI, -8.35 to 0.80; P = .101). Time to 10% deterioration for Global Health Status/QoL was similar between arms (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.48). Compared with placebo, deterioration in social functioning and in diarrhea, appetite loss, nausea or vomiting, and fatigue symptom subscales occurred with alpelisib. Numerical improvement in Worst Pain was observed with alpelisib versus placebo (42% v 32%, week 24; P = .090). CONCLUSION: In SOLAR-1, there was no statistical difference in deterioration of Global Health Status/QoL between arms, whereas symptom subscales favored placebo for diarrhea, appetite loss, nausea or vomiting, and fatigue, known side effects of alpelisib. Treatment decisions must consider efficacy and tolerability; taken with clinical efficacy, these results support the benefit-risk profile of alpelisib in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative PIK3CA-mutated advanced breast cancer.

Patient preference for oral chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast and lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Although new therapies against metastatic cancer have been developed in recent decades, chemotherapy is still an important treatment option. Prolonged treatment and side-effects are often discouraging for patients, and in many cases, therapy is only palliative, not curative. This study explores patient preference for oral or intravenous (IV) chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast or lung cancer. METHODS: It is a descriptive, open label, multicentre, nation-wide study, in which a 16-item questionnaire consisting of single-choice questions scored on a 5-point Likert scale was administered to patients in a single visit, and another 11-item questionnaire was self-administered by the patient's oncologist. RESULTS: A total of 131 breast and lung cancer specialists at 64 hospitals enrolled 412 patients (lung cancer = 161; breast cancer = 251). To be eligible, patients must have already received IV therapy and at least 2 cycles of oral chemotherapy. Most (77%) patients expressed preference for oral therapy. Most considered their daily life was less disrupted with tablets (70.4%), had no trouble swallowing them (86.9%), and were not concerned about forgetting to take them (56.8%). Half (56.3%) were worried about problems related to drug infusion with IV therapy, 61.7% were concerned about nurses failing to find a suitable vein, and 63.1% were dissatisfied with hospital waiting times. A uniform response was obtained from both samples of patients. CONCLUSION: Convenience, ease of administration, fewer side effects and better quality of life tilt the balance towards oral drug administration.