Molecular profiling of metastatic breast cancer and target-based therapeutic matching in an Asian tertiary phase I oncology unit.

Introduction: Molecular profiling of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) through the widespread use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) has highlighted actionable mutations and driven trials of targeted therapy matched to tumour molecular profiles, with improved outcomes reported using such an approach. Here, we review NGS results and treatment outcomes for a cohort of Asian MBC patients in the phase I unit of a tertiary centre. Methods: Patients with MBC referred to a phase I unit underwent NGS via Ion AmpliSeq Cancer Hotspot v2 (ACH v2, 2014-2017) prior to institutional change to FoundationOne CDx (FM1; 2017-2022). Patients were counselled on findings and enrolled on matched therapeutic trials, where available. Outcomes for all subsequent treatment events were recorded to data cut-off on January 31, 2022. Results: A total of 215 patients were enrolled with successful NGS in 158 patients. The PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway was the most altered with one or more of the pathway member genes PIK3/AKT/PTEN affected in 62% (98/158) patients and 43% of tumours harbouring a PIK3CA alteration. Tumour mutational burden (TMB) was reported in 96/109 FM1 sequenced patients, with a mean TMB of 5.04 mt/Mb and 13% (12/96) with TMB ≥ 10 mt/Mb. Treatment outcomes were evaluable in 105/158 patients, with a pooled total of 216 treatment events recorded. Matched treatment was administered in 47/216 (22%) events and associated with prolonged median progression-free survival (PFS) of 21.0 weeks [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.7, 26.0 weeks] versus 12.1 weeks (95% CI 10.0, 15.4 weeks) in unmatched, with hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death of 0.63 (95% CI 0.41, 0.97; p = 0.034). In the subgroup of PIK3/AKT/PTEN-altered MBC, the HR for progression or death was 0.57 (95% CI 0.35, 0.92; p = 0.02), favouring matched treatment. Per-patient overall survival (OS) analysis (n = 105) showed improved survival for patients receiving matched treatment versus unmatched, with median OS (mOS) of 30.1 versus 11.8 months, HR = 0.45 (95% CI 0.24, 0.84; p = 0.013). Objective response rate (ORR) in the overall population was similar in matched and unmatched treatment events (23.7% versus 17.2%, odds ratio of response 1.14 95% CI 0.50, 2.62; p = 0.75). Conclusions: Broad-panel NGS in MBC is feasible, allowing therapeutic matching, which was associated with improvements in PFS and OS.

Phase II study of trifluridine/tipiracil in metastatic breast cancers with or without prior exposure to fluoropyrimidines.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidines are commonly used in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC), and trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) has shown activity in patients with colorectal and gastric cancers despite prior exposure to fluoropyrimidines. We investigate the role of FTD/TPI in patients with MBC with or without prior fluoropyridines in a single-arm phase II study. METHODS: Patients with MBC were enroled first into a run-in dose confirmation phase, followed by two parallel cohorts including patients with (Cohort A) and without (Cohort B) prior exposure to fluoropyrimidines, where they were treated with FTD/TPI. Primary objectives for each cohort included determination of progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary objectives included determination of objective response rates (ORR), safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients (42 Cohort A, 32 Cohort B) were enroled, all of whom were evaluable for toxicity and survival, with 72 evaluable for response. Median PFS was 5.7 months (95% confidence interval 3.8-8.3) and 9.4 months (95% CI 5.5-14.0) respectively in Cohorts A and B. Responses were observed regardless of prior exposure to fluoropyrimidines, with ORR of 19.5% (95% CI 8.8-34.9) and 16.1% (95% CI 5.5-33.7) in Cohorts A and B, and 6-month clinical benefit rates of 56.1% (95% CI 39.7-71.5) and 61.3% (95% CI 42.2-78.2) respectively. The safety profile was consistent with known toxicities of FTD/TPI, including neutropenia, fatigue, nausea, and anorexia, mitigated with dose modifications. CONCLUSION: FTD/TPI showed promising antitumour activity with manageable toxicity and is a clinically valid option in patients with MBC.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of First-Line CDK4/6-Inhibitors in Post-Menopausal Patients with HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Background: CDK4/6-inhibitors have demonstrated similar efficacy and are considered an effective first-line endocrine treatment of patients with hormone-receptor positive (HR+)/human-epidermal-growth-factor-receptor-2 negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in the endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS). Amongst these, palbociclib was first to achieve regulatory approval, followed subsequently by ribociclib and abemaciclib. However, recent updates of overall survival (OS) showed inconsistencies in the OS benefit for palbociclib compared with the other two CDK4/6-inhibitors. With the lack of head-to-head comparison studies, our study sought to compare indirect survival outcomes between CDK4/6-inhibitors in this setting using a novel reconstructive algorithm. Methods: Phase III randomized trials comparing first-line aromatase inhibitor with/without a CDK4/6-inhibitor in post-menopausal patients with HR+/HER2- MBC were identified through systemic review and literature search of online archives of published manuscripts and conference proceedings. A graphical reconstructive algorithm was utilized to retrieve time-to-event data from reported Kaplan-Meier OS and PFS plots to allow for comparison of survival outcomes. Survival analyses were conducted with Cox proportional-hazards model with a shared-frailty term. Results: Three randomized phase III trials-PALOMA-2, MONALEESA-2 and MONARCH-3-comprising 1827 patients were included. Indirect pairwise comparisons of all CDK4/6-inhibitors showed no significant PFS differences (all p > 0.05). Likewise, indirect treatment comparison between ribociclib vs. palbociclib (one-stage: HR = 0.903, 95%-CI: 0.746-1.094, p = 0.297), abemaciclib vs. palbociclib (one-stage: HR = 0.843, 95%-CI: 0.690-1.030, p = 0.094) and abemaciclib vs. ribociclib (one-stage: HR = 0.933, 95%-CI: 0.753-1.157, p = 0.528) failed to demonstrate a significant OS difference. Conclusions: Findings from this indirect treatment comparison suggest no significant PFS or OS differences between CDK4/6-inhibitors in post-menopausal patients with HR+/HER2- MBC.

COVID-19 Severity and Waning Immunity After up to 4 mRNA Vaccine Doses in 73 608 Patients With Cancer and 621 475 Matched Controls in Singapore: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

Importance: Despite patients with cancer being at risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19, there are few published studies for vaccine efficacy in this group, with suboptimal immunogenicity and waning vaccine efficacy described in small studies being a concern. Objective: To assess the incidence rate of severe COVID-19 disease outcomes associated with the number of vaccine doses received and the waning of protection over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective multicenter observational cohort study was carried out over 2 time periods (September 15, 2021, to December 20, 2021 [delta wave], and January 20, 2022, to November 11, 2022 [omicron wave]) predominated by SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants, respectively. Overall, 73 608 patients with cancer (23 217 active treatment, 50 391 cancer survivors) and 621 475 controls matched by age, sex, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status were included. Exposure: Vaccine doses received, from zero to 4 doses, and time elapsed since last vaccine dose. Outcomes: Competing-risk regression analyses were employed to account for competing risks of death in patients with cancer. Main outcomes were incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and severe disease (defined as requirement for supplemental oxygen, intensive care, or death). The IRRs stratified by time from last vaccine dose served as indicators of waning of vaccine effectiveness over time. Results: The mean (SD) age of actively treated patients with cancer, cancer survivors, and controls were 62.7 (14.7), 62.9 (12.6), and 61.8 (14.7) years, respectively. Of 73 608 patients with cancer, 27 170 (36.9%) were men; 60 100 (81.6%) were Chinese, 7432 (10.1%) Malay, 4597 (6.2%) Indian, and 1479 (2.0%) were of other races and ethnicities. The IRRs for the 3-dose and 4-dose vs the 2-dose group (reference) for COVID-19 hospitalization and severe disease were significantly lower during both the delta and omicron waves in cancer and control populations. The IRRs for severe disease in the 3-dose group for active treatment, cancer survivors, and controls were 0.14, 0.13, and 0.07 during the delta wave and 0.29, 0.19, and 0.21 during omicron wave, respectively. The IRRs for severe disease in the 4-dose group during the omicron wave were even lower at 0.13, 0.10 and 0.10, respectively. No waning of vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization and severe disease was seen beyond 5 months after a third dose, nor up to 5 months (the end of this study's follow-up) after a fourth dose. Conclusion: This cohort study provides evidence of the clinical effectiveness of mRNA-based vaccines against COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Longevity of immunity in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in actively treated patients with cancer, cancer survivors, and matched controls was observed at least 5 months after the third or fourth dose.

A Phase I, First-in-Human Study of PRL3-zumab in Advanced, Refractory Solid Tumors and Hematological Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Phosphatase of regenerating liver-3 (PRL-3) is involved in cellular processes driving metastasis, cell proliferation, invasion, motility and survival. It has been shown to be upregulated and overexpressed in cancer tissue, in contrast to low or no expression in most normal tissue. PRL3-zumab is a first-in-class humanized antibody that specifically binds to PRL-3 oncotarget with high affinity and has been shown to reduce tumor growth and increase survival. OBJECTIVE: In the study, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of PRL3-zumab in patients with advanced solid tumors and hematological malignancies. METHODS: We conducted a phase I, first-in-human study in advanced solid tumors and hematological malignancies to investigate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of PRL3-zumab. Response rates were evaluated using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guideline (version 1.1) for solid tumors. For acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients, bone marrow response criteria based on the European Leukaemia Network (ELN) 2017 guidelines for AML were used. We also explored the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic relationships of PRL3-zumab in patients. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03191682. RESULTS: In the dose-escalation cohort, 11 patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled into the study. An additional 12 patients with solid tumors and four patients with AML were enrolled in the dose-expansion cohort. Maximum tolerability was not achieved in this study, as there were no dose-limiting toxicities. Potential treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1 increased stoma output and fatigue and grade 2 vomiting. Best response observed was stable disease in three solid-tumor patients (11.1%). The pharmacokinetics of PRL3-zumab were dose proportional, consistent with an IgG type monoclonal antibody. CONCLUSIONS: PRL3-zumab, a first-in-class humanized antibody, was safe and tolerable in solid tumors and hematological malignancies.

Clinical outcome and prognostic factors for Asian patients in Phase I clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Patient selection is key in Phase I studies, and prognosis can be difficult to estimate in heavily pre-treated patients. Previous prognostic models like the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) score or using the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) have not been validated in current novel therapies nor in the Asian Phase I population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 414 patients with solid tumours participating in Phase I studies at our centre between October 2013 and December 2020. RESULTS: The RMH model showed poorer prognosis with increasing scores [RMH score 1, HR 1.28 (95% CI: 0.96-1.70); RMH score 2, HR 2.27 (95% CI: 1.62-3.17); RMH score 3, HR 4.14 (95% CI: 2.62-6.53)]. NLR did not improve the AUC of the model. Poorer ECOG status (ECOG 1 vs. 0: HR = 1.59 (95% CI = 1.24-2.04), P < 0.001) and primary tumour site (GI vs. breast cancer: HR = 3.06, 95% CI = 2.16-4.35, P < 0.001) were prognostic. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a NCIS prognostic score with excellent prognostic ability for both short-term and longer-term survival (iAUC: 0.71 [95% CI 0.65-0.76]), and validated the RMH model in the largest Asian study to date.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in breast cancer: development, mechanisms of resistance and potential management strategies.

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has increased exponentially in the past decade, although its progress specifically for breast cancer has been modest. The first U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for ICI in breast cancer came in 2019, eight years after the first-ever approval of an ICI. At present, current indications for ICIs are relevant only to a subset of patients with triple-negative breast cancer, or those displaying high microsatellite instability or deficiency in the mismatch repair protein pathway. With an increasing understanding of the limitations of using ICIs, which stem from breast cancer being innately poorly immunogenic, as well as the presence of various intrinsic and acquired resistance pathways, ongoing trials are evaluating different combination therapies to overcome these barriers. In this review, we aim to describe the development timeline of ICIs and resistance mechanisms limiting their utility, and summarise the available approaches and ongoing trials relevant to overcoming each resistance mechanism.

Real-world outcomes from use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the management of advanced/metastatic breast cancer in Asia.

Background: Oestrogen receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) negative breast cancer (BC) is the most frequently diagnosed BC subtype. Combinations of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) with anti-oestrogen therapy have led to improved survival compared with anti-oestrogen therapy alone for advanced/metastatic BC. The evaluation of CDK4/6i in the real-world facilitates treatment planning, insights into the incidence of drug toxicities, dose modifications including dose delays (DDs) and dose reductions (DRs) and improves prognostic accuracy in subgroups, for example geriatric patients, who are under-represented in clinical trials. Methods: This multi-centre study analysed retrospective and prospective data from 456 patients treated with CDK4/6i between January 2015 and December 2020. We examined patient characteristics, variation in prescribing practices, efficacy and toxicity outcomes. Results: In all, 456 patients were included in this study. The median age was 59 (range: 24-92). In total, 85 (19%) were ⩾70 years old. In all, 122 (27%) and 119 (26%) of patients were treated in the first-line and second-line settings, respectively. In total, 25 (5%), 31 (7%) and 145 (32%) of patients had brain, peritoneum and liver metastasis, respectively, at the time of CDK4/6i initiation. On univariate analysis, heavily pre-treated patients and those with distant metastases, involving the liver, brain or peritoneum, had significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and 24-month overall survival (OS). Elderly patients (⩾70) had a shorter PFS; OS results were not mature. Majority of patients (n = 362, 80%) initiated treatment with the United States FDA-approved starting dose of CDK4/6i. In all, 330 (72%) had at least one DD and 217 (48%) patients required at least one DR, but these dose modifications were not associated with poorer survival outcomes. Patients age ⩾70 were more likely to require dose modifications leading to a lower treatment dose. The most common reason for DD/DR was neutropenia (60%) and the incidence of febrile neutropenia was only 2%. Conclusions: Our study indicates CDK4/6i is effective and safe. Age ⩾ 70, distant metastases to liver, peritoneal or brain were negative prognostic factors. Age ⩾ 70 was associated with significantly increased requirement for dose modification; however, this did not impact survival outcomes. These findings provide reassurance that survival outcomes are not adversely affected in elderly patients when DD/DR is indicated.

Outcomes of a Phase II Study of Intraperitoneal Paclitaxel plus Systemic Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin (XELOX) for Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Adding intraperitoneal paclitaxel (IP-PTX) to paclitaxel/5-fluoropyrimidine has shown promising results in patients with gastric cancer peritoneal metastases (GCPM) but has not been studied with standard-of-care platinum/fluoropyrimidine combinations. Our goal to was evaluate IP-PTX with capecitabine/oxaliplatin (XELOX) in GCPM. METHODS: Forty-four patients with GCPM received IP PTX (40 mg/m2, Days 1, 8), oral capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 twice daily, Days 1-14) and intravenous oxaliplatin (100 mg/m2, Day 1) in 21-day cycles. Patients with synchronous GCPM underwent conversion surgery if they had good response after chemotherapy, conversion to negative cytology, no extraperitoneal metastasis, and no peritoneal disease during surgery. The primary endpoint was overall survival and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival and safety. Outcomes from the trial were compared against a matched cohort of 39 GCPM patients who received systemic chemotherapy (SC) comprising platinum/fluoropyrimidine. RESULTS: The median OS for the IP and SC groups was 14.6 and 10.6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.74; p = 0.002). The median PFS for the IP and SC group was 9.5 and 4.4 months respectively (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.25-0.66; p < 0.001). Patients in the SC group were younger (IP vs. SC, 61 vs. 56 years, p = 0.021) and had better performance status (ECOG 0, IP vs. SC, 47.7% vs. 76.9%, p = 0.007) compared with the IP cohort. In IP group, conversion surgery was performed in 36.1% (13/36) of patients, with a median OS of 24.2 (95% CI 13.1-35.3) months and 1-year OS of 84.6%. CONCLUSIONS: IP PTX with XELOX is a promising treatment option for GCPM patients. In patients with good response, conversion surgery was feasible with favourable outcomes.

Serial Tumor Molecular Profiling of Newly Diagnosed HER2-Negative Breast Cancers During Chemotherapy in Combination with Angiogenesis Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancers are heterogeneous with variable clinical courses and treatment responses. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate dynamic changes in the molecular landscape of HER2-negative tumors treated with chemotherapy and anti-angiogenic agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Newly diagnosed HER2-negative breast cancer patients received low-dose sunitinib or bevacizumab prior to four 2-weekly cycles of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. Tumor biopsies were obtained at baseline, after 2 weeks and after 8 weeks of chemotherapy. Next-generation sequencing was performed to assess for single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and copy number alterations (CNAs) of 440 cancer-related genes (ACTOnco®). Observed genomic changes were correlated with the Miller-Payne histological response to treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients received sunitinib and 18 received bevacizumab. In total, 77% were hormone receptor positive (HER2-/HR+) and 23% were triple negative breast cancers (TNBC). New therapy-induced mutations were infrequent, occurring only in 13%, and appeared early after a single cycle of treatment. Seventy-two percent developed changes in the variant allele frequency (VAF) of pathogenic SNVs; the majority (51%) of these changes occurred early at 2 weeks and were sustained for 8 weeks. Changes in VAF of SNVs were most commonly seen in the PI3K/mTOR/AKT pathway; 13% developed changes in pathogenic mutations, which potentially confer sensitivity to PIK3CA inhibitors. Tumors with poor Miller-Payne response to treatment were less likely to experience changes in VAF of SNVs compared with those with good response (50% [7/14] vs 15% [4/24] had no changes observed at any timepoint, p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Serial molecular profiling identifies early therapy-induced genomic alterations, which may guide future selection of targeted therapies in breast cancer patients who progress after standard chemotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02790580 (first posted June 6, 2016).

Phase Ib/II Dose Expansion Study of Lenvatinib Combined with Letrozole in Postmenopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: RET is an estrogen response gene with preclinical studies demonstrating cross-talk between the RET and estrogen receptor (ER) pathways. We investigate the role of lenvatinib, a multikinase inhibitor with potent activity against RET, in patients with metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced ER+/HER2- breast cancer were treated with lenvatinib plus letrozole in a phase Ib/II trial. Primary objectives included safety and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) determination in phase Ib, and objective response rates (ORR) in phase II dose expansion. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were recruited in dose finding, where deescalating doses of lenvatinib from 20 to 14 mg were investigated. Lenvatinib 14 mg plus letrozole 2.5 mg daily was determined as RP2D. Thirty-one patients with 5 median lines of prior therapy in the metastatic setting (range, 0-11) were recruited in dose expansion. In this cohort, ORR was 23.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9%-42.3%], with median duration of response (DoR) of 6.9 months [interquartile range (IQR) 5.9 to 13.1]. Clinical benefit rate ≥6 months (CBR) was 50.0% (95% CI, 31.3%-68.7%). Similar efficacy was observed in the subgroup of 25 patients who progressed on prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy [ORR 20.0% (95% CI, 6.8%-40.7%), median DoR 6.9 months (IQR 5.9-13.1), and CBR 52.0% (95% CI, 31.3%-72.2%)]. Pharmacodynamic studies showed target modulation, with paired tumor biopsies indicating downregulation of RET/pERK and improved vascular normalization index. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus letrozole had manageable toxicity, with target engagement and preliminary antitumor activity observed, supporting further assessment in randomized studies.

Phase Ib Dose-Finding Study of Varlitinib Combined with Weekly Paclitaxel With or Without Carboplatin ± Trastuzumab in Advanced Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Varlitinib is a highly potent, small-molecule, pan-HER inhibitor targeting HER1, HER2, and HER4. It has demonstrated activity in gastric, biliary tract, and breast cancers. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a phase Ib dose confirmation study to determine safety and early efficacy signals of varlitinib in combination with chemotherapy (paclitaxel ± carboplatin) ± subcutaneous trastuzumab. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced or metastatic solid tumors. A 3+3 dose de-escalation study design was used and pharmacokinetic analyses of varlitinib and paclitaxel were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled into eight cohorts with median 4 (0-14) prior lines of palliative systemic therapies. Carboplatin area under the curve 1.5 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly with varlitinib 500 mg twice daily continuously was de-escalated over four dose levels to 300 mg twice daily intermittently (4 days on, 3 days off) due to dose-limiting toxicities, most commonly neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and electrolyte disturbances, with the triplet combination deemed intolerable and unable to be developed further. Varlitinib was then combined with paclitaxel alone; the recommended phase II dose of varlitinib was 300 mg twice daily intermittently. The addition of subcutaneous trastuzumab 600 mg was safe with no dose-limiting toxicities. Thirty-one patients were evaluable for response: 35.5% partial response, 41.9% stable disease. Twenty patients had HER2+ metastatic breast cancer with a median of 4 (0-14) treatment lines, 8/20 continued on single-agent varlitinib after completing chemotherapy for a median of 5.1 (range 2.0-13.3) months. A pharmacokinetic analysis showed that plasma exposure of varlitinib was dose dependent. Varlitinib administration did not significantly affect the maximum concentration or area under the curve of paclitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended phase II dose of varlitinib with paclitaxel is 300 mg twice daily intermittently dosed. This is active in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer. Subcutaneous trastuzumab can be added safely to varlitinib and paclitaxel. This combination is currently being evaluated as neoadjuvant therapy in HER2+ breast cancer (NCT02396108). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02396108, date of registration: 25 March, 2015.

Immunohistochemistry study of tumor vascular normalization and anti-angiogenic effects of sunitinib versus bevacizumab prior to dose-dense doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in HER2-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Tumor angiogenesis controlled predominantly by vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptor (VEGF-VEGFR) interaction plays a key role in the growth and propagation of cancer cells. However, the newly formed network of blood vessels is disorganized and leaky. Pre-treatment with anti-angiogenic agents can "normalize" the tumor vasculature allowing effective intra-tumoral delivery of standard chemotherapy. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis was applied to investigate and compare the vascular normalization and anti-angiogenic effects of two commonly used anti-angiogenic agents, Sunitinib and Bevacizumab, administered prior to chemotherapy in HER2-negative breast cancer patients. METHODS: This prospective clinical trial enrolled 38 patients into a sunitinib cohort and 24 into a bevacizumab cohort. All received 4 cycles of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy and pre-treatment with either sunitinib or bevacizumab. Tumor biopsies were obtained at baseline, after cycle 1 (C1) and cycle 4 (C4) of chemotherapy. IHC was performed to assess the tumor vascular normalization index (VNI), lymphatic vessel density (LVD), Ki67 proliferation index and expression of tumor VEGFR2. RESULTS: In comparison to Bevacizumab, Sunitinib led to a significant increase in VNI post-C1 and C4 (p < 0.001 and 0.001) along with decrease in LVD post-C1 (p = 0.017). Both drugs when combined with chemotherapy resulted in significant decline in tumor proliferation after C1 and C4 (baseline vs post-C4 Ki67 index p = 0.006 for Sunitinib vs p = 0.021 for Bevacizumab). Bevacizumab resulted in a significant decrease in VEGFR2 expression post-C1 (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Sunitinib, in comparison to Bevacizumab showed a greater effect on tumor vessel modulation and lymphangiogenesis suggesting that its administration prior to chemotherapy might result in improved drug delivery. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02790580 (first posted June 6, 2016).

The Alliance-Outcome Association in Couple Therapy: A Common Fate Model.

The working alliance has been shown to be a robust predictor of couple therapy outcomes. However, there are still questions regarding the best way to conceptualize and analyze the association between the alliance and outcomes in the couple therapy context. This study presents results from a relatively novel analytic approach for evaluating the alliance and therapy outcomes via the shared influence model (i.e., common fate statistical methodology) with 93 couples who had at least three sessions. Examining the alliance in couple therapy this way allows for nuance in conceptualizing the process of the alliance among partners and the therapist in couple therapy. Empirically, the question that remains is whether the shared experience of the alliance between partners is a stronger predictor of therapy outcome as compared to the unique individual experiences of the alliance. This approach has not yet been utilized to model the couple alliance-outcome association. Results revealed that the shared influence model demonstrated a significant association between the alliance and therapy outcome. Specifically, the couple-level alliance construct was adequately represented from the partners' alliance ratings with the therapist, and couples that report higher shared alliance experiences were also likely to have better therapy outcomes. These findings suggest that conceptualizing and analyzing the alliance at the couple level may be strongly advantageous. Implications for research and practice are provided.

Se ha demostrado que la alianza terapéutica es un predictor fiable de los resultados de la terapia de pareja. Sin embargo, aún quedan preguntas con respecto a la mejor manera de conceptualizar y analizar la asociación entre la alianza y los resultados en el contexto de la terapia de pareja. Este estudio presenta resultados de un enfoque analítico relativamente innovador para evaluar la alianza y los resultados de la terapia mediante el modelo de influencia compartida (p. ej.: metodología estadística del destino común) con 93 parejas que tuvieron al menos tres sesiones. Analizar la alianza en la terapia de pareja de esta manera permite matices a la hora de conceptualizar el proceso de la alianza entre los integrantes de la pareja y el terapeuta en la terapia de pareja. Empíricamente, la pregunta que queda pendiente es si la experiencia compartida de la alianza entre los integrantes de la pareja es un predictor más fiable de los resultados de la terapia en comparación con las experiencias individuales únicas de la alianza. Este enfoque aún no se ha utilizado para interpretar la asociación entre la alianza de la pareja y los resultados. Los resultados revelaron que el modelo de influencia compartida demostró una asociación significativa entre la alianza y los resultados de la terapia. Específicamente, el constructo de la alianza a nivel de la pareja se representó adecuadamente a partir de las valoraciones de la alianza de los integrantes de la pareja con el terapeuta, y las parejas que informan más experiencias de alianza compartida también fueron propensas a tener mejores resultados en la terapia. Estos datos sugieren que puede ser enormemente ventajoso conceptualizar y analizar la alianza a nivel de la pareja. Se explican las consecuencias para la investigación y la práctica.

Triplet Therapy with Palbociclib, Taselisib, and Fulvestrant in PIK3CA-Mutant Breast Cancer and Doublet Palbociclib and Taselisib in Pathway-Mutant Solid Cancers.

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) and PI3K inhibitors synergize in PIK3CA-mutant ER-positive HER2-negative breast cancer models. We conducted a phase Ib trial investigating the safety and efficacy of doublet CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib plus selective PI3K inhibitor taselisib in advanced solid tumors, and triplet palbociclib plus taselisib plus fulvestrant in 25 patients with PIK3CA-mutant, ER-positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The triplet therapy response rate in PIK3CA-mutant, ER-positive HER2-negative cancer was 37.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 18.8-59.4]. Durable disease control was observed in PIK3CA-mutant ER-negative breast cancer and other solid tumors with doublet therapy. Both combinations were well tolerated at pharmacodynamically active doses. In the triplet group, high baseline cyclin E1 expression associated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS; HR = 4.2; 95% CI, 1.3-13.1; P = 0.02). Early circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) dynamics demonstrated high on-treatment ctDNA association with shorter PFS (HR = 5.2; 95% CI, 1.4-19.4; P = 0.04). Longitudinal plasma ctDNA sequencing provided genomic evolution evidence during triplet therapy. SIGNIFICANCE: The triplet of palbociclib, taselisib, and fulvestrant has promising efficacy in patients with heavily pretreated PIK3CA-mutant ER-positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. A subset of patients with PIK3CA-mutant triple-negative breast cancer derived clinical benefit from palbociclib and taselisib doublet, suggesting a potential nonchemotherapy targeted approach for this population.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1.

A randomized phase II trial evaluating the addition of low dose, short course sunitinib to docetaxel in advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that low-dose, short-course sunitinib prior to neoadjuvant doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) normalised tumour vasculature and improved perfusion, but resulted in neutropenia and delayed subsequent cycles in breast cancer patients. This study combined sunitinib with docetaxel, which has an earlier neutrophil nadir than AC. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid cancers were randomized 1:1 to 3-weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m2, with or without sunitinib 12.5 mg daily for 7 days prior to docetaxel, stratified by primary tumour site. Primary endpoints were objective-response (ORR:CR + PR) and clinical-benefit rate (CBR:CR + PR + SD); secondary endpoints were toxicity and progression-free-survival (PFS). RESULTS: We enrolled 68 patients from 2 study sites; 33 received docetaxel-sunitinib and 35 docetaxel alone, with 33 breast, 25 lung and 10 patients with other cancers. There was no difference in ORR (30.3% vs 28.6%, p = 0.432, odds-ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.38-3.18); CBR was lower in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (48.5% vs 71.4%, p = 0.027 OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-1.01). Median PFS was shorter in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (2.9 vs 4.9 months, hazard-ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% CI 1.15-3.48, p = 0.014) overall, as well as in breast (4.2 vs 5.6 months, p = 0.048) and other cancers (2.0 vs 5.3 months, p = 0.009), but not in lung cancers (2.9 vs 4.1 months, p = 0.597). Median OS was similar in both arms overall (9.9 vs 10.5 months, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51-1.67, p = 0.789), and in the breast (18.9 vs 25.8 months, p = 0.354), lung (7.0 vs 6.7 months, p = 0.970) and other cancers (4.5 vs 8.8 months, p = 0.449) subgroups. Grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were lower with docetaxel-sunitinib (18.2% vs 34.3%, p = 0.132), attributed to greater discretionary use of prophylactic G-CSF (90.9% vs 63.0%, p = 0.024). Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities were similar (12.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.792). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel was well-tolerated but did not improve outcomes. The possible negative impact in metastatic breast cancer patients is contrary to results of adding sunitinib to neoadjuvant AC. These negative results suggest that the intermittent administration of sunitinib in the current dose and schedule with docetaxel in advanced solid tumours, particularly breast cancers, is not beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered ( NCT01803503 ) prospectively on clinicaltrials.gov on 4th March 2013.

Phase I Trial of Expanded, Activated Autologous NK-cell Infusions with Trastuzumab in Patients with HER2-positive Cancers.

PURPOSE: Natural killer (NK) cells exert antibody-dependent cell cytotoxicity (ADCC). We infused expanded, activated autologous NK cells to potentiate trastuzumab-mediated ADCC in patients with HER2-positive malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase I trial, patients with treatment-refractory HER2-positive solid tumors received trastuzumab, with or without bevacizumab, and autologous NK cells expanded by 10-day coculture with K562-mb15-41BBL cells. Primary objectives included safety and recommended phase II dose determination; secondary objectives included monitoring NK-cell activity and RECIST antitumor efficacy. RESULTS: In 60 cultures with cells from 31 subjects, median NK-cell expansion from peripheral blood was 340-fold (range, 91-603). NK cells expressed high levels of CD16, the mediator of ADCC, and exerted powerful killing of trastuzumab-targeted cells. In the 22 subjects enrolled in phase I dose escalation, trastuzumab plus NK cells were well tolerated; MTD was not reached. Phase IB (n = 9) included multiple cycles of NK cells (1 × 107/kg) and addition of bevacizumab. Although no objective response was observed, 6 of 19 subjects who received at least 1 × 107/kg NK cells at cycle 1 had stable disease for ≥6 months (median, 8.8 months; range 6.0-12.0). One patient, the only one with the high-affinity F158V CD16 variant, had a partial response. Peripheral blood NK cells progressively downregulated CD16 postinfusion; paired tumor biopsies showed increased NK cells, lymphocytic infiltrates, and apoptosis posttreatment. CONCLUSIONS: NK-cell therapy in combination with trastuzumab was well tolerated, with target engagement and preliminary antitumor activity, supporting continued assessment of this approach in phase II trials.

The impact of COVID-19 on and recommendations for breast cancer care: the Singapore experience.

The ensuing COVID-19 pandemic poses unprecedented and daunting challenges to the routine delivery of oncological and supportive care to patients with breast cancer. Considerations include the infective risk of patients who are inherently immunosuppressed from their malignancy and therapies, long-term oncological outcomes from the treatment decisions undertaken during this extraordinary period, and diverted healthcare resources to support a coordinated whole-of-society outbreak response. In this review, we chronicle the repercussions of the COVID-19 outbreak on breast cancer management in Singapore and describe our approach to triaging and prioritising care of breast tumours. We further propose adaptations to established clinical processes and practices across the different specialties involved in breast oncology, with references to the relevant evidence base or expert consensus guidelines. These recommendations have been developed within the unique context of Singapore's public healthcare sector. They can serve as a resource to guide breast cancer management for future contingencies in this city-state, while certain elements therein may be extrapolatable to other medical systems during this global public health emergency.