Exercise in cancer patients: assistance levels and referral pathways-a position statement from the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology.

There is growing evidence about how physical activity can improve cancer care. Unfortunately, exercise is still not widely prescribed to oncology patients, despite the benefit it brings. For this to occur, it is necessary for a multidisciplinary approach involving different types of healthcare professionals, given that each treatment be tailored for each single case. Besides incorporating appropriate infrastructures and referral pathways, we need to integrate exercise into healthcare practice, which ameliorates patients' quality of life and treatment side effects. From the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), and through the Exercise and Cancer Working Group, we indicate considerations, analyze patient care scenarios, and propose a referral pathway algorithm for exercise prescription, taking in account the patient's needs. In later sections of this paper, we describe how this algorithm could be implemented, and how the exercise programs should be built, including the physical activity contents, the settings, and the delivery mode. We conclude that professionals, infrastructures, and organizations should be available at every assistance level to create programs providing adequate exercise training for cancer patients.

Totality of Scientific Evidence in the Development of ABP 980, a Biosimilar to Trastuzumab.

ABP 980 was developed as a biosimilar to trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), that is indicated for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, early breast cancer (EBC), and metastatic gastric cancer. ABP 980 is approved in the United States, European Union, and Japan for all the indications of trastuzumab, based on the totality of evidence (TOE) gathered by the systematic step-wise accumulation of comparative analytical, preclinical, and clinical (pharmacokinetics [PK], efficacy, safety and immunogenicity) data for ABP 980 and trastuzumab reference product (RP). As a key first step of the ABP 980 biosimilar program, comprehensive analytical characterization of critical quality attributes established that ABP 980 is structurally and functionally similar to trastuzumab RP. Complementing these data, results of non-clinical pharmacology, toxicology, and toxicokinetic studies supported similarity between ABP 980 and trastuzumab RP. A randomized study in healthy subjects demonstrated clinical PK equivalence of ABP 980 relative to trastuzumab RP in these subjects. In the final clinical evaluation step, a randomized comparative study (LILAC) confirmed the lack of clinically meaningful differences between ABP 980 and trastuzumab RP in efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in women with HER2-positive EBC in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant setting. Neoadjuvant EBC represented a sensitive homogenous population for biosimilar demonstrations, and the primary endpoint of pathologic complete response served as a sensitive surrogate endpoint. An important aspect of the LILAC study design is that it is the only study that evaluated the effect of switching from the trastuzumab RP to a trastuzumab biosimilar during the adjuvant phase. No new or unexpected safety signals emerged in the clinical evaluations, with the safety profile of ABP 980 consistent with that previously described for trastuzumab. Overall, the TOE data generated for ABP 980 support the conclusion that it is highly similar to trastuzumab RP, thus providing the scientific justification for extrapolation to all the approved indications of trastuzumab.

Trebananib (AMG 386) plus weekly paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab as first-line therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: A phase 2 randomized study.

INTRODUCTION: This phase 2 randomized study evaluated trebananib (AMG 386), a peptide-Fc fusion protein that inhibits angiogenesis by neutralizing the interaction of angiopoietin-1 and -2 with Tie2, in combination with paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab in previously untreated patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Patients received paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) once weekly (3-weeks-on/1-week-off) and were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to also receive blinded bevacizumab 10 mg/kg once every 2 weeks plus either trebananib 10 mg/kg once weekly (Arm A) or 3 mg/kg once weekly (Arm B), or placebo (Arm C); or open-label trebananib 10 mg/kg once a week (Arm D). Progression-free survival was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: In total, 228 patients were randomized. Median estimated progression-free survival for Arms A, B, C, and D was 11.3, 9.2, 12.2, and 10 months, respectively. Hazard ratios (95% CI) for Arms A, B, and D versus Arm C were 0.98 (0.61-1.59), 1.12 (0.70-1.80), and 1.28 (0.79-2.09), respectively. The objective response rate was 71% in Arm A, 51% in Arm B, 60% in Arm C, and 46% in Arm D. The incidence of grade 3/4/5 adverse events was 71/9/4%, 61/14/5%, 62/16/3%, and 52/4/7% in Arms A/B/C/D. In Arm D, median progression-free survival was 12.8 and 7.4 months for those with high and low trebananib exposure (AUCss ≥ 8.4 versus < 8.4 mg·h/mL), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There was no apparent prolongation of estimated progression-free survival with the addition of trebananib to paclitaxel and bevacizumab at the doses tested. Toxicity was manageable. Exposure-response analyses support evaluation of combinations incorporating trebananib at doses > 10 mg/kg in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00511459.

Current status of hormone therapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer.

The natural history of HR+ breast cancer tends to be different from hormone receptor-negative disease in terms of time to recurrence, site of recurrence and overall aggressiveness of the disease. The developmental strategies of hormone therapy for the treatment of breast cancer have led to the classes of selective estrogen receptor modulators, selective estrogen receptor downregulators, and aromatase inhibitors. These therapeutic options have improved breast cancer outcomes in the metastatic setting, thereby delaying the need for chemotherapy. However, a subset of hormone receptor-positive breast cancers do not benefit from endocrine therapy (intrinsic resistance), and all HR+ metastatic breast cancers ultimately develop resistance to hormonal therapies (acquired resistance). Considering the multiple pathways involved in the HR network, targeting other components of pathologically activated intracellular signaling in breast cancer may prove to be a new direction in clinical research. This review focuses on current and emerging treatments for HR+ metastatic breast cancer.

Fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) versus FAC followed by weekly paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer: results from the GEICAM/2003-02 study.

PURPOSE: Adding taxanes to anthracycline-based adjuvant therapy improves survival outcomes of patients with node-positive breast cancer (BC). Currently, however, most patients with BC are node negative at diagnosis. The only pure node-negative study (Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group 9805) reported so far showed a docetaxel benefit but significant toxicity. Here we tested the efficacy and safety of weekly paclitaxel (wP) in node-negative patients, which is yet to be established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with BC having T1-T3/N0 tumors and at least one high-risk factor for recurrence (according to St. Gallen 1998 criteria) were eligible. After primary surgery, 1,925 patients were randomly assigned to receive fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) × 6 or FAC × 4 followed by wP × 8 (FAC-wP). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS) after a median follow-up of 5 years. Secondary end points included toxicity and overall survival. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 63.3 months, 93% and 90.3% of patients receiving FAC-wP or FAC regimens, respectively, remained disease free (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.99; log-rank P = .04). Thirty-one patients receiving FAC-wP versus 40 patients receiving FAC died (one and seven from cardiovascular diseases, respectively; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.26; log-rank P = .31). The most relevant grade 3 and 4 adverse events in the FAC-wP versus the FAC arm were febrile neutropenia (2.7% v 3.6%), fatigue (7.9% v 3.4%), and sensory neuropathy (5.5% v 0%). CONCLUSION: For patients with high-risk node-negative BC, the adjuvant FAC-wP regimen was associated with a small but significant improvement in DFS compared with FAC therapy, in addition to manageable toxicity, especially regarding long-term cardiac effects.