Outcome and presentation of heart failure in breast cancer patients: findings from a Swedish register-based study.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) patients diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) may have a higher risk of death, and different HF presentation and treatment than patients without BC. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 14 998 women with incident HF (iHF) or prevalent HF (pHF) enrolled in the Swedish HF Registry within and after 1 month since HF diagnosis, respectively, between 2008 and 2013. Patients were linked with the National Patient-, Cancer-, and Cause-of-Death Registry. Two hundred and ninety-four iHF and 338 pHF patients with BC were age-matched to 1470 iHF and 1690 pHF patients without BC. Comorbidity and treatment characteristics were compared using the χ2 tests for categories. Cox proportional hazard models assessed the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among HF patients with and without BC. In the pHF group, BC patients had less often myocardial infarction (21.6% vs. 28.6%, P < 0.01) and received less often aspirin (47.6% vs. 55.1%, P = 0.01), coronary revascularization (11.8% vs. 16.2%, P < 0.01), or device therapy (0.9% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.03). After median follow-up of 2 years, risk of all-cause mortality (iHF: HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.83-1.29 and pHF: HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.79-1.12), cardiovascular mortality (iHF: HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.71-1.24 and pHF: HR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.71-1.10), and HF mortality (iHF: HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.34-1.90 and pHF: HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.43-1.29) were similar for patients with and without BC in the iHF and pHF groups. CONCLUSION: Risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in HF patients did not differ by BC status. Differences in pre-existing myocardial infarction and HF treatment among pHF patients with and without BC may suggest differences in pathogenesis of HF.

Efficacy and safety of tailored and dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab for resected HER2-positive breast cancer: Results from the phase 3 PANTHER trial.

BACKGROUND: Dose-dense (DD) adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes in early breast cancer (BC). However, there are no phase 3 randomized data to inform on its combination with trastuzumab for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive disease. METHODS: This was a protocol-predefined secondary analysis of the randomized phase 3 Pan-European Tailored Chemotherapy (PANTHER) trial. Women 65 years old or younger with node-positive or high-risk, node-negative BC were randomized 1:1 to either tailored (according to hematologic nadirs) and DD epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel or standard 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide plus docetaxel every 3 weeks. Patients with HER2-positive disease received 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab. The primary endpoint was BC relapse-free survival. In addition, HER2-positive patients and an equal number of HER2-negative patients matched for age, treatment group, and institution who were enrolled at Swedish sites were asked to participate in a predefined study of cardiac safety and underwent echocardiography or multigated acquisition scanning and electrocardiography at the baseline and at 4 and 6 years of follow-up. RESULTS: There were 342 HER2-positive patients; 335 received at least 1 dose of trastuzumab, and 29 patients discontinued trastuzumab prematurely. Relapse-free survival was not statistically significantly in favor of the tailored and DD group (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.27; P = .231). Cardiac outcomes after 4 and 6 years of follow-up did not differ significantly between HER2-positive and HER2-negative patients or between the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of DD chemotherapy and trastuzumab decreased the relative risk for relapse by 32% in comparison with standard treatment, a statistically nonsignificant difference. Its efficacy and safety merit further evaluation as part of both escalation and de-escalation strategies.

Neutropenic complications in the PANTHER phase III study of adjuvant tailored dose-dense chemotherapy in early breast cancer.

Introduction: Myelosuppresion is a common side effect of chemotherapy and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is often used to reduce the risk of neutropenic events. The purpose of this exploratory analysis was to investigate neutropenic complications in the phase III PANTHER trial of standard 3-weekly chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide plus docetaxel (FEC/D) versus bi-weekly tailored dose-dense EC/D adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.Patients and methods: Febrile neutropenia, neutropenic infection and infection grade 3-4 according to CTC AE 3.0, were explored in relation to G-CSF use. Per cycle analysis was performed concerning dose reduction and dose delays in conjunction with G-CSF administration.Results: In the experimental group, 98.9% of patients received primary G-CSF support during EC and 97.4% during docetaxel, compared with 49.7% during FEC and 63.88% during docetaxel in the standard group. Overall, the use of G-CSF was associated with a lower risk for developing neutropenic events (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.35-0.55, p < .001). Chemotherapy delays due to neutropenia and leukopenia were significantly decreased among patients that received G-CSF (OR 0.098, 95% CI 0.06-0.15 and OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18-0.58, respectively).Discussion: In conclusion, G-CSF support reduces neutropenic events and permits increased relative dose intensity, which is essential for improved survival outcomes.

Drug sensitivity testing on patient-derived sarcoma cells predicts patient response to treatment and identifies c-Sarc inhibitors as active drugs for translocation sarcomas.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity and low incidence comprise the biggest challenge in sarcoma diagnosis and treatment. Chemotherapy, although efficient for some sarcoma subtypes, generally results in poor clinical responses and is mostly recommended for advanced disease. Specific genomic aberrations have been identified in some sarcoma subtypes but few of them can be targeted with approved drugs. METHODS: We cultured and characterised patient-derived sarcoma cells and evaluated their sensitivity to 525 anti-cancer agents including both approved and non-approved drugs. In total, 14 sarcomas and 5 healthy mesenchymal primary cell cultures were studied. The sarcoma biopsies and derived cells were characterised by gene panel sequencing, cancer driver gene expression and by detecting specific fusion oncoproteins in situ in sarcomas with translocations. RESULTS: Soft tissue sarcoma cultures were established from patient biopsies with a success rate of 58%. The genomic profile and drug sensitivity testing on these samples helped to identify targeted inhibitors active on sarcomas. The cSrc inhibitor Dasatinib was identified as an active drug in sarcomas carrying chromosomal translocations. The drug sensitivity of the patient sarcoma cells ex vivo correlated with the response to the former treatment of the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that patient-derived sarcoma cells cultured in vitro are relevant and practical models for genotypic and phenotypic screens aiming to identify efficient drugs to treat sarcoma patients with poor treatment options.

[Cardiotoxicity relatively common in cancer treatment]. / Kardiotoxicitet relativt vanligt vid cancerbehandling - Samarbete mellan kardiologi och onkologi kan ge bättre vård.

Modern cancer therapy has noticeably improved the prognosis for various cancer diseases, but cardiovascular side effects are not uncommon, both in short and long term. The individual patient's cardiovascular risk profile affects the risk of developing side effects. Potential underestimation of this risk can lead to life-long severe cardiac disease for a patient that has been cured from cancer. Overestimation of the risk can lead to withdrawal of life-saving cancer treatment because of potentially reversible or mild cardiac side effects. A multidisciplinary approach will lead to better handling of cardio-oncologic patients.

Is Estradiol Monitoring Necessary in Women Receiving Ovarian Suppression for Breast Cancer?

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.A 36-year-old premenopausal woman had been diagnosed with stage III breast cancer. After an initial biopsy confirmed breast cancer, she underwent mastectomy and axillary node dissection for a left-sided breast cancer, measuring 7 cm. The tumor had lobular histology and was considered grade 2 of 3. Metastatic carcinoma was identified in 10 of 13 axillary nodes. Immunohistochemical studies showed that the tumor was strongly positive for estrogen and progesterone receptor expression and had a Ki-67 score of 15% (> 20% is considered high according to a Swedish quality control study and the St Gallen Expert Consensus).(1,2) There was no amplification of the HER2/neu gene. Staging scans were negative for metastatic disease. In the adjuvant setting, she received three cycles of anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination chemotherapy followed by three cycles of taxane chemotherapy and then locoregional radiotherapy. After completion of chemotherapy, she developed amenorrhea. As adjuvant endocrine therapy, she began monthly goserelin administration to achieve ovarian function suppression (OFS), in combination with the aromatase inhibitor (AI) exemestane. She experienced menopausal symptoms including hot flashes, vaginal dryness, and sexual dysfunction. After two monthly treatments with goserelin and exemestane, a sensitive assay for serum estradiol was checked and returned at 16 pg/mL (61 pmol/L); postmenopausal range for sensitive assay is less than 15 pg/mL (< 50 pmol/L). The patient has now been referred to our unit to discuss further management.