Molecular classification of hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer.

Hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer is the most prevalent type of breast cancer, in which endocrine therapy resistance and distant relapse remain unmet challenges. Accurate molecular classification is urgently required for guiding precision treatment. We established a large-scale multi-omics cohort of 579 patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer and identified the following four molecular subtypes: canonical luminal, immunogenic, proliferative and receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK)-driven. Tumors of these four subtypes showed distinct biological and clinical features, suggesting subtype-specific therapeutic strategies. The RTK-driven subtype was characterized by the activation of the RTK pathways and associated with poor outcomes. The immunogenic subtype had enriched immune cells and could benefit from immune checkpoint therapy. In addition, we developed convolutional neural network models to discriminate these subtypes based on digital pathology for potential clinical translation. The molecular classification provides insights into molecular heterogeneity and highlights the potential for precision treatment of HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

Clinico-pathologic relationships with Ki67 and its change with short-term aromatase inhibitor treatment in primary ER + breast cancer: further results from the POETIC trial (CRUK/07/015).

PURPOSE: Ki67 assessed at diagnosis (Ki67baseline) is an important prognostic factor in primary oestrogen receptor-positive (ER +) breast cancer. Proportional change in Ki67 after 2 weeks (∆Ki672week) is associated with clinical benefit from endocrine therapies and residual Ki67 (Ki672week) with recurrence-free survival. The aim was to define the association between Ki67baseline and after aromatase inhibitor (AI) exposure ∆Ki672week and Ki672week with key prognostic and biologic factors utilising data from the POETIC study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In POETIC 4480 postmenopausal patients with primary ER and/or PgR + breast cancer were randomised 2:1 to 2 weeks' presurgical AI (anastrozole or letrozole) or no presurgical treatment (control). Ki67 was measured centrally in core-cut biopsies taken prior to AI and in core-cuts or the excision biopsy at surgery. Relationships between the Ki67 and biologic factors were explored using linear regression. RESULTS: Established associations of Ki67baseline with biologic factors including PgR status, tumour grade, tumour size, histological subtype, nodal status, and vascular invasion were confirmed in the HER2- subpopulation. In the HER2 + subpopulation only grade and tumour size were significantly associated with Ki67baseline. In control group Ki672week was 18% lower than Ki67baseline (p < 0.001) when Ki672week was measured in excision biopsies but not when measured in core-cuts. Median suppression by AIs (∆Ki672week) was 79.3% (IQR: -89.9 to -54.6) and 53.7% (IQR: -78.9 to -21.1) for HER2-negative and HER2-positive cases, respectively. Significantly less suppression occurred in PgR- vs PgR + and HER2 + vs HER2- tumours which remained apparent after adjustment for 2-week sample type. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of this study allowed characterisation of relationships between Ki67baseline, ∆Ki672week and Ki672week with high degrees of confidence providing a reference source for other studies. Lower values of Ki67 occur when measured on excision biopsies and could lead to apparent but artefactual decreases in Ki67: this should be considered when either ∆Ki672week or Ki672week is used in routine clinical practice to aid treatment decisions or in clinical trials assessing new drug therapies.

Impact of Duration of Neoadjuvant Aromatase Inhibitors on Molecular Expression Profiles in Estrogen Receptor-positive Breast Cancers.

PURPOSE: Aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment is the standard of care for postmenopausal women with primary estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. The impact of duration of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) on molecular characteristics is still unknown. We evaluated and compared changes of gene expression profiles under short-term (2-week) versus longer-term neoadjuvant AIs. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Global gene expression profiles from the PeriOperative Endocrine Therapy for Individualised Care (POETIC) trial (137 received 2 weeks of AIs and 47 received no treatment) and targeted gene expression from 80 patients with breast cancer treated with NET for more than 1 month (NeoAI) were assessed. Intrinsic subtyping, module scores covering different cancer pathways and immune-related genes were calculated for pretreated and posttreated tumors. RESULTS: The differences in intrinsic subtypes after NET were comparable between the two cohorts, with most Luminal B (90.0% in the POETIC trial and 76.3% in NeoAI) and 50.0% of HER2 enriched at baseline reclassified as Luminal A or normal-like after NET. Downregulation of proliferative-related pathways was observed after 2 weeks of AIs. However, more changes in genes from cancer-signaling pathways such as MAPK and PI3K/AKT/mTOR and immune response/immune-checkpoint components that were associated with AI-resistant tumors and differential outcome were observed in the NeoAI study. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor transcriptional profiles undergo bigger changes in response to longer NET. Changes in HER2-enriched and Luminal B subtypes are similar between the two cohorts, thus AI-sensitive intrinsic subtype tumors associated with good survival might be identified after 2 weeks of AI. The changes of immune-checkpoint component expression in early AI resistance and its impact on survival outcome warrants careful investigation in clinical trials.

Meta-analyses of visceral versus non-visceral metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer treated by endocrine monotherapies.

Endocrine therapy (ET) is recommended as first-line therapy for the majority of patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC); however, the efficacy of ET in patients with visceral metastases (VM) versus patients whose disease is limited to non-visceral metastases (non-VM) is debated. Meta-analyses including available data from randomised controlled trials of first- and second-line endocrine monotherapies for patients with HR+ ABC were performed to address this question. In one and two-stage meta-analyses, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate (CBR) and duration of clinical benefit (DoCB) outcomes were analysed. In the first-line meta-analysis (seven trials; n = 1988) tamoxifen and fulvestrant significantly improved PFS, OS and CBR for patients with non-VM versus those whose disease included VM. The most substantial hazard ratios were observed for fulvestrant 500 mg; 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.70) and 0.55 (95% CI 0.42-0.72) for PFS and OS, respectively. In the second-line meta-analysis (seven trials; n = 2324), all ET combined was more effective (in terms of PFS, OS and DoCB) for non-VM versus VM. In both meta-analyses, patients with non-liver VM had better clinical outcomes than patients with liver VM for all types of ET. Patients whose disease included non-VM sites had better clinical outcomes with endocrine monotherapy compared with patients whose disease included VM. These findings may facilitate better informed treatment decision-making.

Meta-analyses of phase 3 randomised controlled trials of third generation aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen as first-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer (ABC) comparing aromatase inhibitors (AIs) versus the selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, each individually reported significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) but none showed a significant difference in overall survival (OS). In these trials between 6.8% and 55% of tumours were hormone receptor (HR) status unknown or negative. This meta-analysis restricted the comparison to HR-positive (HR+) tumours. METHODS: Anonymised individual patient data were obtained from three RCTs, EORTC (exemestane versus tamoxifen), Study 0027 and Study 0030 (both anastrozole versus tamoxifen). For the remaining RCT (Femara Study PO25; letrozole versus tamoxifen), odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HzR), with confidence intervals were obtained from the clinical study report, for patients with HR+ tumours, in addition to published data. In total, data were obtained from 2296 patients; 1560 (68%) had HR+ ABC. FINDINGS: The OR for clinical benefit rate was 1.56, in favour of AIs (p < 0.001). The duration of clinical benefit was not significantly increased by AIs (HzR 0·88; p = 0.08). For PFS the HzR (0.82) was in favour of AIs (p = 0·007). However, for OS the HzR (1.05) was not significantly different between AIs and tamoxifen (p = 0.42). INTERPRETATION: Although third generation AIs put significantly more patients into 'clinical benefit', their tumours were not controlled for significantly longer. Overall, while this resulted in a significantly greater PFS in favour of the AIs, this did not translate into improvement in OS.

Improving primary care identification of familial breast cancer risk using proactive invitation and decision support.

Family history of breast cancer is a key risk factor, accounting for up to 10% of cancers. We evaluated the proactive assessment of familial breast cancer (FBC) risk in primary care. Eligible women (30 to 60 years) were recruited from eight English general practices. Practices were trained on FBC risk assessment. In four randomly-assigned practices, women were invited to complete a validated, postal family history questionnaire, which practice staff inputted into decision support software to determine cancer risk. Those with increased risk were offered specialist referral. Usual care was observed in the other four practices. In intervention practices, 1127/7012 women (16.1%) returned family history questionnaires, comprising 1105 (98%) self-reported white ethnicity and 446 (39.6%) educated to University undergraduate or equivalent qualification, with 119 (10.6%) identified at increased breast cancer risk and offered referral. Sixty-seven (56%) women recommended referral were less than 50 years old. From 66 women attending specialists, 26 (39.4%) were confirmed to have high risk and recommended annual surveillance (40-60 years) and surgical prevention; while 30 (45.5%) were confirmed at moderate risk, with 19 offered annual surveillance (40-50 years). The remaining 10 (15.2%) managed in primary care. None were recommended chemoprevention. In usual care practices, only ten women consulted with concerns about breast cancer family history. This study demonstrated proactive risk assessment in primary care enables accurate identification of women, including many younger women, at increased risk of breast cancer. To improve generalisability across the population, more active methods of engagement need to be explored.Trial registration: CRUK Clinical Trials Database 11779.

Correction: The clinical significance of oestrogen receptor expression in breast ductal carcinoma in situ.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

The clinical significance of oestrogen receptor expression in breast ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Oestrogen receptor (ER) in invasive breast cancer (BC) predicts response to endocrine therapy (ET) and provides prognostic value. In this study, we investigated the value of ER expression in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in terms of outcome and the impact on ET decision. METHODS: In total, 643 pure DCIS, diagnosed at Nottingham University Hospitals, were assessed for ER. Clinicopathological data were correlated against ER status, together with assessment of recurrence rate. RESULTS: ER positivity was observed in 74% (475/643) of cases. ER positivity was associated with clinicopathological variables of good prognosis; however, outcome analysis revealed that ER status was not associated with local recurrence. In the intermediate- and high-grade ER-positive DCIS, 58% (11/19) and 63% (15/24) of the recurrences were invasive, respectively, comprising 7% and 6% of all ER-positive DCIS, respectively. Invasive recurrence in low-grade DCIS was infrequent (2%), and none of these patients died of BC. The ER status of the recurrent invasive tumours matched the primary DCIS ER status (94% in ipsilateral and 90% of contralateral recurrence). CONCLUSION: The strong correlation between DCIS and invasive recurrence ER status and the clinical impact of ET justify discussion of the use of ET in ER-positive DCIS treated by breast-conserving surgery. The excellent outcome of low-grade DCIS, which was almost always ER-positive, does not, in the opinion of authors, justify the use of risk-reducing ET. Therefore, the decision on ET for DCIS should be personalised and consider grade, ER status and other characteristics.

ESR1 Mutations and Overall Survival on Fulvestrant versus Exemestane in Advanced Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Combined Analysis of the Phase III SoFEA and EFECT Trials.

PURPOSE: ESR1 mutations are acquired frequently in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer after prior aromatase inhibitors. We assessed the clinical utility of baseline ESR1 circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis in the two phase III randomized trials of fulvestrant versus exemestane. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The phase III EFECT and SoFEA trials randomized patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer who had progressed on prior nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy, between fulvestrant 250 mg and exemestane. Baseline serum samples from 227 patients in EFECT, and baseline plasma from 161 patients in SoFEA, were analyzed for ESR1 mutations by digital PCR. The primary objectives were to assess the impact of ESR1 mutation status on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a combined analysis of both studies. RESULTS: ESR1 mutations were detected in 30% (151/383) baseline samples. In patients with ESR1 mutation detected, PFS was 2.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.0-2.6] on exemestane and 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.0-6.0) on fulvestrant [hazard ratio (HR), 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.89; P = 0.01). In patients without ESR1 mutations detected, PFS was 4.8 months (95% CI, 3.7-6.2) on exemestane and 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.6-5.5) on fulvestrant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.81-1.37; P = 0.69). There was an interaction between ESR1 mutation and treatment (P = 0.02). Patients with ESR1 mutation detected had 1-year OS of 62% (95% CI, 45%-75%) on exemestane and 80% (95% CI, 68%-87%) on fulvestrant (P = 0.04; restricted mean survival analysis). Patients without ESR1 mutations detected had 1-year OS of 79% (95% CI, 71%-85%) on exemestane and 81% (95% CI, 74%-87%) on fulvestrant (P = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of ESR1 mutations in baseline ctDNA is associated with inferior PFS and OS in patients treated with exemestane versus fulvestrant.

A Randomized, Open-label, Presurgical, Window-of-Opportunity Study Comparing the Pharmacodynamic Effects of the Novel Oral SERD AZD9496 with Fulvestrant in Patients with Newly Diagnosed ER+ HER2- Primary Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Fulvestrant, the first-in-class selective estrogen receptor (ER) degrader (SERD), is clinically effective in patients with ER+ breast cancer, but it has administration and pharmacokinetic limitations. Pharmacodynamic data suggest complete ER degradation is not achieved at fulvestrant's clinically feasible dose. This presurgical study (NCT03236974) compared the pharmacodynamic effects of fulvestrant with AZD9496, a novel, orally bioavailable, nonsteroidal, potent SERD, in treatment-naïve patients with ER+ HER2- primary breast cancer awaiting curative intent surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive AZD9496 250 mg twice daily from day 1 for 5-14 days, or fulvestrant 500 mg on day 1. On-treatment imaging-guided core tumor biopsies were taken between day 5 and 14 and compared with pretreatment diagnostic biopsies. The primary objective was to compare the effects of AZD9496 and fulvestrant on ER expression. Secondary objectives included changes in progesterone receptor (PR) and Ki-67 pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships and safety. RESULTS: Forty-six women received treatment (AZD9496 n = 22; fulvestrant n = 24); 35 paired biopsies were evaluable (AZD9496 n = 15; fulvestrant n = 20). The least square mean estimate for ER H-score reduction was 24% after AZD9496 versus 36% after fulvestrant treatment (P = 0.86). AZD9496 also reduced PR H-scores (-33.3%) and Ki-67 levels (-39.9%) from baseline, but was also not superior to fulvestrant (PR: -68.7%, P = 0.97; Ki-67: -75.4%, P = 0.98). No new safety findings were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first presurgical study to demonstrate that an oral SERD affects its key biological targets. However, AZD9496 was not superior to fulvestrant at the dose tested.

Unconditional and conditional monetary incentives to increase response to mailed questionnaires: A randomized controlled study within a trial (SWAT).

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: High response rates to research questionnaires can help to ensure results are more representative of the population studied and provide increased statistical power, on which the study may have been predicated. Improving speed and quality of response can reduce costs. METHOD: We conducted a randomized study within a trial (SWAT) to assess questionnaire response rates, reminders sent, and data completeness with unconditional compared with conditional monetary incentives. Eligible individuals were mailed a series of psychological questionnaires as a follow-up to a baseline host trial questionnaire. Half received a £5 gift voucher with questionnaires (unconditional), and half were promised the voucher after returning questionnaires (conditional). RESULTS: Of 1079 individuals, response rates to the first follow-up questionnaire were 94.2% and 91.7% in the unconditional and conditional monetary incentive groups, respectively (OR 1.78; 95% CI, 0.85-3.72). There were significantly greater odds of returning repeat questionnaires in the unconditional group at 6 months (OR 2.97; 95% CI, 1.01-8.71; .047) but not at 12 months (OR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.44-2.85). Incentive condition had no impact at any time point on the proportion of sent questionnaires that needed reminders. Odds of incomplete questionnaires were significantly greater at 3 months in the unconditional compared with the conditional incentive group (OR 2.45; 95% CI, 1.32-4.55; .004). CONCLUSIONS: Unconditional monetary incentives can produce a transitory greater likelihood of mailed questionnaire response in a clinical trial participant group, consistent with the direction of effect in other settings. However, this could have been a chance finding. The use of multiple strategies to promote response may have created a ceiling effect. This strategy has potential to reduce administrative and postage costs, weighed against the cost of incentives used, but could risk compromising the completeness of data.

Proliferation and AKT Activity Biomarker Analyses after Capivasertib (AZD5363) Treatment of Patients with ER+ Invasive Breast Cancer (STAKT).

PURPOSE: The STAKT study examined short-term exposure (4.5 days) to the oral selective pan-AKT inhibitor capivasertib (AZD5363) to determine if this drug can reach its therapeutic target in sufficient concentration to significantly modulate key biomarkers of the AKT pathway and tumor proliferation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: STAKT was a two-stage, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, "window-of-opportunity" study in patients with newly diagnosed ER+ invasive breast cancer. Stage 1 assessed capivasertib 480 mg b.i.d. (recommended monotherapy dose) and placebo, and stage 2 assessed capivasertib 360 and 240 mg b.i.d. Primary endpoints were changes from baseline in AKT pathway markers pPRAS40, pGSK3ß, and proliferation protein Ki67. Pharmacologic and pharmacodynamic properties were analyzed from blood sampling, and tolerability by adverse-event monitoring. RESULTS: After 4.5 days' exposure, capivasertib 480 mg b.i.d. (n = 17) produced significant decreases from baseline versus placebo (n = 11) in pGSK3ß (H-score absolute change: -55.3, P = 0.006) and pPRAS40 (-83.8, P < 0.0001), and a decrease in Ki67 (absolute change in percentage positive nuclei: -9.6%, P = 0.031). Significant changes also occurred in secondary signaling biomarker pS6 (-42.3, P = 0.004), while pAKT (and nuclear FOXO3a) also increased in accordance with capivasertib's mechanism (pAKT: 81.3, P = 0.005). At doses of 360 mg b.i.d. (n = 5) and 240 mg b.i.d. (n = 6), changes in primary and secondary biomarkers were also observed, albeit of smaller magnitude. Biomarker modulation was dose and concentration dependent, and no new safety signals were evident. CONCLUSIONS: Capivasertib 480 mg b.i.d. rapidly modulates key biomarkers of the AKT pathway and decreases proliferation marker Ki67, suggesting future potential as an effective therapy in AKT-dependent breast cancers.

A meta-analysis of clinical benefit rates for fulvestrant 500 mg vs. alternative endocrine therapies for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader, is approved for first- and second-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC). METHODS: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive ABC, to evaluate differences in clinical benefit rate (CBR; proportion of patients experiencing best overall response of complete response, partial response, or stable disease for ≥ 24 weeks) between fulvestrant 500 mg and comparator endocrine therapies. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for CBR were calculated; fixed effects (FE) models were constructed (first- and second-line data, alone and combined). RESULTS: Six RCTs were included. Four studies evaluated fulvestrant 500 mg vs. fulvestrant 250 mg; two evaluated fulvestrant 500 mg vs. anastrozole 1 mg. In total, 1054 and 534 patients were included (first- and second-line treatment, respectively). Analysis of OR and 95% CI of CBR by therapy line favored fulvestrant 500 mg vs. comparator therapy. Assessing all results combined in the FE model indicated significant improvement in CBR with fulvestrant 500 mg vs. comparator treatments (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.13-1.57; p = 0.001). Restricting the FE model to therapy line demonstrated significant improvement in CBR vs. comparator treatments (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.02-1.73; p = 0.035) for first-line, and a trend to improvement vs. comparator treatments (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.90-1.79; p = 0.174) for second-line. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive ABC, fulvestrant 500 mg first-line was associated with significantly greater CBR (more patients benefiting from treatment) vs. comparator endocrine therapy.

Lung cancer screening: does pulmonary nodule detection affect a range of smoking behaviours?

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening can reduce lung cancer mortality by 20%. Screen-detected abnormalities may provide teachable moments for smoking cessation. This study assesses impact of pulmonary nodule detection on smoking behaviours within the first UK trial of a novel auto-antibody test, followed by chest x-ray and serial CT scanning for early detection of lung cancer (Early Cancer Detection Test-Lung Cancer Scotland Study). METHODS: Test-positive participants completed questionnaires on smoking behaviours at baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months. Logistic regression compared outcomes between nodule (n = 95) and normal CT groups (n = 174) at 3 and 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the nodule and normal CT groups for any smoking behaviours and odds ratios comparing the nodule and normal CT groups did not vary significantly between 3 and 6 months. There was some evidence the nodule group were more likely to report significant others wanted them to stop smoking than the normal CT group (OR across 3- and 6-month time points: 3.04, 95% CI: 0.95, 9.73; P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Pulmonary nodule detection during lung cancer screening has little impact on smoking behaviours. Further work should explore whether lung cancer screening can impact on perceived social pressure and promote smoking cessation.