A Multicentre Retrospective Study of Fulvestrant Use and Efficacy in Advanced/Metastatic Breast Cancer.

AIMS: Fulvestrant is a selective oestrogen receptor (ER) degrader used in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. The study aim was to analyse demographics and outcomes of UK patients treated with fulvestrant monotherapy at nine representative centres. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of 459 patients with locally advanced or metastatic ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer treated with fulvestrant between August 2011 and November 2018 at nine UK centres were reviewed. Data were collated on demographics, progression-free survival, overall survival and disease response at first radiological assessment following fulvestrant initiation. Patients still alive by December 2018 were censored. RESULTS: Data from 429 of the 459 patients identified were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. The median age was 69 (range 21-95) and 64% (n = 275) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Bone was the most commonly involved metastatic site (72%, n = 306). However, 295 (69%) patients had visceral involvement. Patients had received a median 2 (range 0-5) prior lines of endocrine therapy and median 0 (range 0-6) prior chemotherapies. Fulvestrant was first-line therapy in 43 patients (10%). The median duration of treatment was 5 months (range 1-88). The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months. In 51% of 350 patients radiologically assessed, there was evidence of disease response to fulvestrant. Fifteen per cent of these had a complete/partial response. Fulvestrant was discontinued predominantly due to disease progression, with 3% discontinued solely due to adverse events. The median overall survival for the whole cohort was 22.5 months (range 0-88). CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest studied cohorts of breast cancer patients treated with fulvestrant. This heavily endocrine-pretreated population reflects real-life use in the UK. Within this context, our retrospective data show that patients can experience maintained disease response when treated with fulvestrant, supporting the importance of equitable availability for all UK patients.

Adjuvant bevacizumab for melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence: survival analysis of the AVAST-M trial.

Background: Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanised monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor shown to improve survival in advanced solid cancers. We evaluated the role of adjuvant bevacizumab in melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence. Patients and methods: Patients with resected AJCC stage IIB, IIC and III cutaneous melanoma were randomised to receive either adjuvant bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg i.v. 3 weekly for 1 year) or standard observation. The primary end point was detection of an 8% difference in 5-year overall survival (OS) rate; secondary end points included disease-free interval (DFI) and distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI). Tumour and blood were analysed for prognostic and predictive markers. Results: Patients (n=1343) recruited between 2007 and 2012 were predominantly stage III (73%), with median age 56 years (range 18-88 years). With 6.4-year median follow-up, 515 (38%) patients had died [254 (38%) bevacizumab; 261 (39%) observation]; 707 (53%) patients had disease recurrence [336 (50%) bevacizumab, 371 (55%) observation]. OS at 5 years was 64% for both groups [hazard ratio (HR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.16, P = 0.78). At 5 years, 51% were disease free on bevacizumab versus 45% on observation (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74-0.99, P = 0.03), 58% were distant metastasis free on bevacizumab versus 54% on observation (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.07, P = 0.25). Forty four percent of 682 melanomas assessed had a BRAFV600 mutation. In the observation arm, BRAF mutant patients had a trend towards poorer OS compared with BRAF wild-type patients (P = 0.06). BRAF mutation positivity trended towards better OS with bevacizumab (P = 0.21). Conclusions: Adjuvant bevacizumab after resection of high-risk melanoma improves DFI, but not OS. BRAF mutation status may predict for poorer OS untreated and potential benefit from bevacizumab. Clinical Trial Information: ISRCTN 81261306; EudraCT Number: 2006-005505-64.

Metastatic melanoma: prognostic factors and survival in patients with brain metastases.

Brain metastases from malignant melanoma carry a poor prognosis. Novel systemic agents have improved overall survival (OS), but the value of whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) remains uncertain. The melanoma-specific graded prognostic assessment (msGPA) provides useful prognostic information, but the relevance to the modern-day population has not been validated. Since 2011, 53 patients received treatment for brain metastases from malignant melanoma at the Rosemere Cancer Centre medical oncology clinic. Data were collated on demographic factors and survival. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox regression was used to identify prognostic factors on univariate and multivariate analysis. OS from the date of diagnosis of brain metastases was 4.83 months (range 0.27-30.4 months). On univariate analysis, BRAF, performance status and msGPA were significant prognostic indicators for OS (p = 0.0056, p = 0.0039 and p = 0.0001 respectively). msGPA remained significant on multivariate analysis (p = 0.0006). OS for BRAF-positive patients receiving targeted treatment (n = 22) was significantly better than for BRAF-negative patients (n = 26), with median survival times of 8.2 and 3.7 months respectively (p = 0.0039, HR 2.36). SRS combined with systemic agents (n = 16) produced an OS of 13.5 months. Patients receiving WBRT alone (n = 21) had a poor prognosis (2.2 months). The msGPA remains a valid prognostic indicator in the era of novel systemic treatments for melanoma. BRAF-positive patients receiving targeted agents during their treatment had favorable survival outcomes. WBRT alone should be use with caution in the active management of melanoma brain metastases.

Current status and future potential of somatic mutation testing from circulating free DNA in patients with solid tumours.

Genetic alterations can determine the natural history of cancer and its treatment response. With further advances in DNA sequencing technology, multiple novel genetic alterations will be discovered which could be exploited as prognostic, predictive and pharmacodynamic biomarkers in the development and use of cancer therapeutics. As such, the importance in clinical practice of efficient and robust somatic mutation testing in solid tumours cannot be overemphasized in the current era of personalized medicine. However, significant challenges remain regarding the testing of genetic biomarkers in clinical practice. Reliance on archived formalin fixed, paraffin embedded tumour, obtained from diagnostic biopsies, for testing somatic genetic alterations could restrict the scientific community in asking relevant questions about a patient's cancer biology. Problems inherent with using formalin fixed, archival tissue are well recognized and difficult to resolve. It could be argued that to achieve rapid and efficient incorporation of genetic biomarkers into clinical practice, somatic mutation testing in cancer patients should be simpler, less invasive using a readily available clinical sample, whilst maintaining robustness and reproducibility. In this regard, use of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) from plasma or serum as an alternative and/or additional source of DNA to test cancer specific genetic alterations is an attractive proposition. In light of encouraging results from recent studies, this mini review will discuss the current role and future potential of somatic mutation testing from circulating or cell free DNA derived from the blood of patients with solid tumours.

Detection of BRAF mutations in the tumour and serum of patients enrolled in the AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) advanced melanoma phase II study.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the potential clinical utility of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) as a source of BRAF mutation detection in patients enrolled into a phase II study of AZD6244, a specific MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: BRAF mutations were detected using Amplification Refractory Mutation System allele-specific PCR. BRAF mutation status was assessed in serum-derived cfDNA from 126 patients enrolled into the study and from 94 matched tumour samples. RESULTS: Of 94 tumour samples, 45 (47.9%) were found to be BRAF mutation positive (BRAF+). Serum-derived cfDNA was BRAF+ in 33 of 126 (26.2%) samples, including in five samples for which tumour data were unavailable. Of BRAF+ tumours, 25 of 45 (55.6%) were BRAF+ in cfDNA. In three cases in which the tumour was negative, cfDNA was BRAF+. Progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with BRAF+ tumour and cfDNA was not significantly different compared with tumour BRAF+ but cfDNA BRAF-negative patients, indicating that cfDNA BRAF detection is not associated with poorer prognosis on PFS in stage III/IV advanced melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate the feasibility of BRAF mutation detection in cfDNA of patients with advanced melanoma. Future studies should aim to incorporate BRAF mutation testing in cfDNA to further validate this biomarker for patient selection.

The prophylaxis and treatment of heterotopic ossification following lower limb arthroplasty.

Heterotopic ossification following joint replacement in the lower limb occurs in 3% to 90% of cases. Higher grades of heterotopic ossification can result in significant limitation of function and can negate the benefits of joint replacement. The understanding of the pathophysiology of this condition has improved in recent years. It would appear to be related to a combination of systemic and local factors, including over-expression of bone morphogenetic protein-4. There is currently little evidence to support the routine use of prophylaxis for heterotopic ossification in arthroplasty patients, but prophylaxis is recommended by some for high-risk patients. Radiotherapy given as one dose of 7 Gy to 8 Gy, either pre-operatively (< four hours before) or post-operatively (within 72 hours of surgery), appears to be more effective than indometacin therapy (75 mg daily for six weeks). In cases of prophylaxis against recurrent heterotopic ossification following excision, recent work has suggested that a combination of radiotherapy and indometacin is effective. Advances in our understanding of this condition may permit the development of newer, safer treatment modalities.

Stage- and CA125-related survival in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer treated at a cancer center.

Current accepted prognostic indicators in ovarian cancer include performance status, surgical (FIGO) staging, and residual disease after operation. Here we present data from a prospective analysis of patients with ovarian cancer treated at the Christie Hospital. We confirm the independent prognostic effects of FIGO staging, performance status, and residual disease in our group of patients and furthermore show that CA125 levels at presentation to the oncology service are of independent prognostic significance (P= 0.02). We present survival data and show that the 3-year, cancer-specific survival for stage I disease is 90%. We postulate that this good survival may in part be due to the use of computed tomography scanning at presentation to allow accurate staging. Further clinical trials are needed to test whether combinations of surgical, histologic, biochemical, and radiologic parameters can be used to identify a population with such a good prognosis that adjuvant therapy is not required.