Real world data on the demographic and clinicopathological profile and management of patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer and residual disease treated with adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (KARMA study).

INTRODUCTION: Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) significantly improves invasive disease-free survival and reduces the risk of recurrence in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC) with residual disease (RD). The KARMA study aimed to describe the characteristics and management of these patients in clinical practice in Spain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective study in patients with HER2-positive EBC with RD following neoadjuvant treatment (NeoT) and who had received ≥1 dose of T-DM1 as adjuvant treatment. The primary endpoint was the evaluation of sociodemographic and clinicopathological characteristics of these patients. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were included (March-July 2020). At diagnosis, most tumours were infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) (93.9 %), grade 2 (56.1 %), and hormone receptor (HR)-positive (79.8 %). Over 75 % of patients had disease in operable clinical stages (T1-3 N0-1). In the neoadjuvant setting, 86.8 % of patients received trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, and 23.6 % achieved radiological complete response. Breast-conserving surgery was performed in 55.8 % of patients. Surgical specimens showed that 89.5 % of patients had IDC, 49.1 % grade 2, 84.1 % HR-positive, and 8.3 % HER2-negative disease. Most patients had RD classified as RCB-II and Miller/Payne grade 3/4. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) occurred in 5.3 % of patients. No grade 4/5 AEs occurred. Over 95 % of patients were free of invasive-disease during T-DM1 adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSION: The KARMA study describes the characteristics of patients with HER2-positive EBC with RD after NeoT and the real-life management of a T-DM1 adjuvant regimen, which showed a manageable safety profile in line with the KATHERINE trial data.

Palbociclib combined with endocrine therapy in heavily pretreated HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer patients: Results from the compassionate use program in Spain (PALBOCOMP).

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated efficacy and safety of palbociclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, in heavily-pretreated hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients during the compassionate use program in Spain from February 2015 to November 2017. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient data were collected retrospectively from 35 hospitals in Spain. Patients with HR+/HER2- mBC who had progressed on ≥4 treatments for advanced disease were eligible. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients received palbociclib in combination with aromatase inhibitors (110; 50.2%), fulvestrant (87; 39.7%), tamoxifen (8; 3.6%) or as single agent (10; 4.6%). Mean age of the patients was 58 years; 31 patients (16.1%) were premenopausal and 162 (83.9%) were postmenopausal at the beginning of treatment with palbociclib. Patients had received a median of 3 previous lines of endocrine therapy (ET) for advanced disease. Real-world tumor response (rwTR) and clinical benefit rate were 5.9% (n = 13) and 46.2% (n = 101), respectively. The median real world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was 6.0 months (95% CI 5.7-7.0) and the median overall survival was 19.0 months (95% CI 16.4-21.7). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in median rwPFS in patients treated with palbociclib plus fulvestrant depending on the duration of prior treatment with fulvestrant monotherapy (>6 versus ≤6 months; HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.37-2.73, p < 0.001). The most frequently reported toxicities were neutropenia, asthenia, thrombopenia and anemia. CONCLUSIONS: Palbociclib can be an effective and safe treatment option in patients with heavily pretreated endocrine-sensitive mBC, especially in those with longer PFS to previous ET.

A phase II Study Evaluating Combined Neoadjuvant Cetuximab and Chemotherapy Followed by Chemoradiotherapy and Concomitant Cetuximab in Locoregional Oesophageal Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Pre-operative chemoradiotherapy using a 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/cisplatin backbone is widely used to improve surgical outcomes in locoregional oesophageal cancer patients, despite a non-negligible failure rate. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated intensification of this approach to improve patient outcomes by adding cetuximab to induction 5-FU/cisplatin/docetaxel (TPF) and to chemoradiotherapy in a phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 2006 and April 2009, 50 patients with stage II-IVa squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction initiated three TPF/cetuximab cycles. Six weeks later, patients with response or stabilisation initiated 6 weeks of cisplatin/cetuximab/radiotherapy, followed by surgery. The primary objective was the clinical complete response (cCR) rate after induction therapy plus chemoradiotherapy in intent-to-treat patients. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were evaluable after chemoradiotherapy, 84% of whom showed disease control. Six patients (12%) achieved a cCR, with a 54% overall response rate. Twenty-seven patients underwent surgery, 11 of whom (22%; nine SCC, two adenocarcinoma) had a pathological CR (41%). Fifteen patients were alive after a median follow-up of 23.2 months. Median progression-free survival was 12.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-22.8). Median overall survival was 23.4 months (95% CI 12.2-36.6) and was significantly longer among the 22 patients with complete resection than in the five patients without (42.1 vs. 24.9 months; p = 0.02, hazard ratio: 3.6, 95% CI 1.1-11.6). The toxicity profile was acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant cetuximab/TPF followed by chemoradiotherapy in locoregional oesophageal carcinoma patients is feasible and offers a modest response rate in this trial. The results of combining trimodality neoadjuvant treatment with cetuximab are consistent with the literature. Registration: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00733889).

Correction to: A Phase II Study Evaluating Combined Neoadjuvant Cetuximab and Chemotherapy Followed by Chemoradiotherapy and Concomitant Cetuximab in Locoregional Oesophageal Cancer Patients.

Errors were subsequently identified in the article and the following corrections should be noted.

Quality of life in MAP.3 (Mammary Prevention 3): a randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating exemestane for prevention of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Exemestane, a steroidal aromatase inhibitor, reduced invasive breast cancer incidence by 65% among 4,560 postmenopausal women randomly assigned to exemestane (25 mg per day) compared with placebo in the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) Clinical Trials Group MAP.3 (Mammary Prevention 3) trial, but effects on quality of life (QOL) were not fully described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Menopause-specific and health-related QOL were assessed by using the four Menopause-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MENQOL) domains and the eight Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scales at baseline, 6 months, and yearly thereafter. MENQOL questionnaire completion was high (88% to 98%) in both groups at each follow-up visit. Change scores for each MENQOL and SF-36 scale, calculated at each assessment time relative to baseline, were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Clinically important worsened QOL was defined as a MENQOL change score increase of more than 0.5 (of 8) points and an SF-36 change score decrease of more than 5 (of 100) points from baseline. RESULTS: Exemestane had small negative effects on women's self-reported vasomotor symptoms, sexual symptoms, and pain, which occurred mainly in the first 6 months to 2 years after random assignment. However, these changes represented only a small excess number of women being given exemestane with clinically important worsening of QOL at one time or another; specifically, 8% more in the vasomotor domain and 4% more each in the sexual domain and for pain. No other between-group differences were observed. Overall, slightly more women in the exemestane arm (32%) than in the placebo arm (28%) discontinued assigned treatment. CONCLUSION: Exemestane given for prevention has limited negative impact on menopause-specific and health-related QOL in healthy postmenopausal women at risk for breast cancer.

Recalibration of the Gail model for predicting invasive breast cancer risk in Spanish women: a population-based cohort study.

The Gail model for predicting the absolute risk of invasive breast cancer has been validated extensively in US populations, but its performance in the international setting remains uncertain. We evaluated the predictive accuracy of the Gail model in 54,649 Spanish women aged 45-68 years who were free of breast cancer at the 1996-1998 baseline mammographic examination in the population-based Navarre Breast Cancer Screening Program. Incident cases of invasive breast cancer and competing deaths were ascertained until the end of 2005 (average follow-up of 7.7 years) through linkage with population-based cancer and mortality registries. The Gail model was tested for calibration and discrimination in its original form and after recalibration to the lower breast cancer incidence and risk factor prevalence in the study cohort, and compared through cross-validation with a Navarre model fully developed from this cohort. The original Gail model overpredicted significantly the 835 cases of invasive breast cancer observed in the cohort (ratio of expected to observed cases 1.46, 95 % CI 1.36-1.56). The recalibrated Gail model was well calibrated overall (expected-to-observed ratio 1.00, 95 % CI 0.94-1.07), but it tended to underestimate risk for women in low-risk quintiles and to overestimate risk in high-risk quintiles (P = 0.01). The Navarre model showed good cross-validated calibration overall (expected-to-observed ratio 0.98, 95 % CI 0.92-1.05) and in different cohort subsets. The Navarre and Gail models had modest cross-validated discrimination indexes of 0.542 (95 % CI 0.521-0.564) and 0.544 (95 % CI 0.523-0.565), respectively. Although the original Gail model cannot be applied directly to populations with different underlying rates of invasive breast cancer, it can readily be recalibrated to provide unbiased estimates of absolute risk in such populations. Nevertheless, its limited discrimination ability at the individual level highlights the need to develop extended models with additional strong risk factors.

Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer according to tumor characteristics and mode of detection: a Spanish population-based case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: It is not clear whether high mammographic density (MD) is equally associated with all subtypes of breast cancer (BC). We investigated the association between MD and subsequent BC, considering invasiveness, means of detection, pathologic subtype, and the time elapsed since mammographic exploration and BC diagnosis. METHODS: BC cases occurring in the population of women who attended screening from 1997 through 2004 in Navarre, a Spanish region with a fully consolidated screening program, were identified via record linkage with the Navarre Cancer Registry (n = 1,172). Information was extracted from the records of their first attendance at screening in that period. For each case, we randomly selected four controls, matched by screening round, year of birth, and place of residence. Cases were classified according to invasiveness (ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) versus invasive tumors), pathologic subtype (considering hormonal receptors and HER2), and type of diagnosis (screen-detected versus interval cases). MD was evaluated by a single, experienced radiologist by using a semiquantitative scale. Data on BC risk factors were obtained by the screening program in the corresponding round. The association between MD and tumor subtype was assessed by using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: MD was clearly associated with subsequent BC. The odds ratio (OR) for the highest MD category (MD >75%) compared with the reference category (MD <10%) was similar for DCIS (OR = 3.47; 95% CI = 1.46 to 8.27) and invasive tumors (OR = 2.95; 95% CI = 2.01 to 4.35). The excess risk was particularly high for interval cases (OR = 7.72; 95% CI = 4.02 to 14.81) in comparison with screened detected tumors (OR = 2.17; 95% CI = 1.40 to 3.36). Sensitivity analyses excluding interval cases diagnosed in the first year after MD assessment or immediately after an early recall to screening yielded similar results. No differences were seen regarding pathologic subtypes. The excess risk associated with MD persisted for at least 7 to 8 years after mammographic exploration. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that MD is an important risk factor for all types of breast cancer. High breast density strongly increases the risk of developing an interval tumor, and this excess risk is not completely explained by a possible masking effect.

Exemestane versus anastrozole as front-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer: final results from the Spanish Breast Cancer Group 2001-03 phase 2 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Several aromatase inhibitor studies have reported variations in the inhibitory potency of these agents that could lead to differences in clinical outcomes. In the current study, the authors formally evaluated the activity of anastrozole and exemestane in postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive, advanced breast cancer. METHODS: Postmenopausal women who had measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and had not received previous endocrine therapy for advanced breast cancer were randomized to receive either oral exemestane 25 mg daily or oral anastrozole 1 mg daily until they had disease progression. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR), and secondary endpoints included the clinical benefit rate (CBR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival, and safety. Crossover to the other aromatase inhibitor was permitted at the time of disease progression; ORR, CBR, and TTP after second-line treatment also were explored. RESULTS: In total, 103 patients were enrolled. The median patient age was 71.6 years, 52.4% of patients had visceral disease, and 75.8% of patients had ≥ 2 disease sites. Half of the patients had received previous tamoxifen, and 60% had received previous chemotherapy. The efficacy observed in the exemestane and anastrozole groups was an ORR of 36.2% and 46%, respectively; a CBR of 59.6% and 68%, respectively, and a TTP of 6.1 months and 12.1 months, respectively. At progression, 28 patients crossed over to the other aromatase inhibitor, including 16 patients who switched to exemestane (CBR, 43.7%; TTP, 4.4 months) and 12 patients who switched to anastrozole (CBR, 8.3%; TTP, 2 months). Both drugs were generally well tolerated, and no study drug-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 2 randomized trial, no significant differences in clinical activity were observed in favor of exemestane to justify a superiority phase 3 trial design in the first-line setting.

Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen and raloxifene have limited patient acceptance for primary prevention of breast cancer. Aromatase inhibitors prevent more contralateral breast cancers and cause fewer side effects than tamoxifen in patients with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of exemestane designed to detect a 65% relative reduction in invasive breast cancer, eligible postmenopausal women 35 years of age or older had at least one of the following risk factors: 60 years of age or older; Gail 5-year risk score greater than 1.66% (chances in 100 of invasive breast cancer developing within 5 years); prior atypical ductal or lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ; or ductal carcinoma in situ with mastectomy. Toxic effects and health-related and menopause-specific qualities of life were measured. RESULTS: A total of 4560 women for whom the median age was 62.5 years and the median Gail risk score was 2.3% were randomly assigned to either exemestane or placebo. At a median follow-up of 35 months, 11 invasive breast cancers were detected in those given exemestane and in 32 of those given placebo, with a 65% relative reduction in the annual incidence of invasive breast cancer (0.19% vs. 0.55%; hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.70; P=0.002). The annual incidence of invasive plus noninvasive (ductal carcinoma in situ) breast cancers was 0.35% on exemestane and 0.77% on placebo (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.79; P=0.004). Adverse events occurred in 88% of the exemestane group and 85% of the placebo group (P=0.003), with no significant differences between the two groups in terms of skeletal fractures, cardiovascular events, other cancers, or treatment-related deaths. Minimal quality-of-life differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Exemestane significantly reduced invasive breast cancers in postmenopausal women who were at moderately increased risk for breast cancer. During a median follow-up period of 3 years, exemestane was associated with no serious toxic effects and only minimal changes in health-related quality of life. (Funded by Pfizer and others; NCIC CTG MAP.3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00083174.).