Nab-paclitaxel weekly versus dose-dense solvent-based paclitaxel followed by dose-dense epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide in high-risk HR+/HER2- early breast cancer: results from the neoadjuvant part of the WSG-ADAPT-HR+/HER2- trial.

BACKGROUND: In high-risk hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC), nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel showed promising efficacy versus solvent-based (sb)-paclitaxel in neoadjuvant trials; however, optimal patient and therapy selection remains a topic of ongoing research. Here, we investigate the potential of Oncotype DX® recurrence score (RS) and endocrine therapy (ET) response (low post-endocrine Ki67) for therapy selection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the WSG-ADAPT trial (NCT01779206), high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC patients were randomized to (neo)adjuvant 4× sb-paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 q2w or 8× nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 q1w, followed by 4× epirubicin + cyclophosphamide (90 mg + 600 mg) q2w; inclusion criteria: (i) cN0-1, RS 12-25, and post-ET Ki67 >10%; (ii) cN0-1 with RS >25. Patients with cN2-3 or (G3, baseline Ki67 ≥40%, and tumor size >1 cm) were allowed to be included without RS and/or ET response testing. Associations of key factors with pathological complete response (pCR) (primary) and survival (secondary) endpoints were analyzed using statistical mediation and moderation models. RESULTS: Eight hundred and sixty-four patients received neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel (n= 437) or sb-paclitaxel (n = 427); nab-paclitaxel was superior for pCR (20.8% versus 12.9%, P = 0.002). pCR was higher for RS >25 versus RS ≤25 (16.0% versus 8.4%, P = 0.021) and for ET non-response versus ET response (15.1% versus 6.0%, P = 0.027); no factors were predictive for the relative efficacy of nab-paclitaxel versus sb-paclitaxel. Patients with pCR had longer distant disease-free survival [dDFS; hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.91, P = 0.024]. Despite favorable prognostic association of RS >25 versus RS ≤25 with pCR (odds ratio 3.11, 95% CI 1.71-5.63, P ≤ 0.001), higher RS was unfavorably associated with dDFS (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC, neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel q1w appears superior to sb-paclitaxel q2w regarding pCR. Combining RS and ET response assessment appears to select patients with highest pCR rates. The disadvantage of higher RS for dDFS is reduced in patients with pCR. These are the first results from a large neoadjuvant randomized trial supporting the use of RS to help select patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC.

The West German Study Group Breast Cancer Intrinsic Subtype study: a prospective multicenter decision impact study utilizing the Prosigna assay for adjuvant treatment decision-making in estrogen-receptor-positive, HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The West German Study Group (WSG) Breast Cancer Intrinsic Subtype (BCIST) study was designed to assess the influence of Prosigna gene signature assay results on physicians' adjuvant treatment recommendations by determining the extent of change in pre-test treatment recommendations following assay results. Secondary objectives were to assess the influence of Prosigna results on physicians' confidence in their therapeutic recommendations and on patients' decisional conflict status, anxiety levels, and functional status. METHODS: This prospective, observational, decision impact study enrolled consecutive postmenopausal patients with estrogen-receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative, lymph-node-negative early-stage breast cancer in 11 centers in Germany. Physicians based their pre-test adjuvant treatment recommendations on standard clinico-pathological parameters. Tumor specimens were assayed using the Prosigna test in a WSG central pathology laboratory following manufacturer's guidelines. An independent pathology laboratory performed subsequent Prosigna assays on tumor sections to assess assay result concordance with the central laboratory. Physicians completed treatment confidence questionnaires prior to and after receiving Prosigna test results. Patients completed standardized questionnaires on decisional conflict, anxiety, and health status both before and after Prosigna testing. RESULTS: The present study population consisted predominantly of low-to-intermediate risk patients (N = 198). Prosigna had 29.3% discordance in intrinsic subtyping with local immunohistochemistry test results. After Prosigna test results, a change in the adjuvant therapy recommendation occurred in 36 (18.2%) patients; 22 (11.1%) patients switched from no chemotherapy to chemotherapy. After Prosigna test results, physicians expressed increased confidence in their prognostic assessment in 87.9% of patients, and increased confidence in their treatment recommendation in 89.4%. Patients reported improved anxiety and emotional/functional well-being after receiving Prosigna test results. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Prosigna assay led to a change in 18.2% of adjuvant treatment decisions. Prosigna testing was associated with increased patient and physician confidence in treatment decisions, and with decreased patient anxiety and improved well-being. Any comparison of the therapeutic decision-making impacts of different genomic assays must account for potential confounding factors.