Tanja Cufer

Trastuzumab Beyond Progression in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Positive Advanced Breast Cancer: A German Breast Group 26/Breast International Group 03-05 Study

PURPOSE Trastuzumab shows clinical activity in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2)-positive early and advanced breast cancer. In the German Breast Group 26/Breast International Group 03-05 trial, we investigated if trastuzumab treatment should be continued beyond progression. METHODS Patients with HER-2-positive breast cancer that progresses during treatment with trastuzumab were randomly assigned to receive capecitabine (2,500 mg/m(2) body-surface area on days 1 through 14 [1,250 mg/m(2) semi-daily]) alone or with continuation of trastuzumab (6 mg/kg body weight) in 3-week cycles. The primary end point was time to progression. RESULTS We randomly assigned 78 patients to capecitabine and 78 patients to capecitabine plus trastuzumab. Sixty-five events and 38 deaths in the capecitabine group and 62 events and 33 deaths in the capecitabine-plus-trastuzumab group occurred during 15.6 months of follow-up. Median times to progression were 5.6 months in the capecitabine group and 8.2 months in the capecitabine-plus-trastuzumab group with an unadjusted hazard ratio of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.48 to 0.97; two-sided log-rank P = .0338). Overall survival rates were 20.4 months (95% CI, 17.8 to 24.7) in the capecitabine group and 25.5 months (95% CI, 19.0 to 30.7) in the capecitabine-plus-trastuzumab group (P = .257). Overall response rates were 27.0% with capecitabine and 48.1% with capecitabine plus trastuzumab (odds ratio, 2.50; P = .0115). Continuation of trastuzumab beyond progression was not associated with increased toxicity. CONCLUSION Continuation of trastuzumab plus capecitabine showed a significant improvement in overall response and time to progression compared with capecitabine alone in women with HER-2-positive breast cancer who experienced progression during trastuzumab treatment.

ESO-ESMO 2nd international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC2)†

Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) is a treatable but still generally incurable disease. The goals of care are to optimize both length and quality of life. Due to continuous research, several advances have been made, particularly for the HER-2-positive and for Luminal-like subtypes. Notwithstanding these advances, median overall survival of patients with ABC is still only 2–3 years, although the range is wide [1–5], and survival may be longer for patients treated in specialized institutions [6]. Implementation of current knowledge is highly variable among countries and within each country.

Multicenter Validation of a Gene Expression–Based Prognostic Signature in Lymph Node–Negative Primary Breast Cancer

PURPOSE We previously identified in a single-center study a 76-gene prognostic signature for lymph node-negative (LNN) breast cancer patients. The aim of this study was to validate this gene signature in an independent more diverse population of LNN patients from multiple institutions. PATIENTS AND METHODS Using custom-designed DNA chips we analyzed the expression of the 76 genes in RNA of frozen tumor samples from 180 LNN patients who did not receive adjuvant systemic treatment. RESULTS In this independent validation, the 76-gene signature was highly informative in identifying patients with distant metastasis within 5 years (hazard ratio, [HR], 7.41; 95% CI, 2.63 to 20.9), even when corrected for traditional prognostic factors in multivariate analysis (HR, 11.36; 95% CI, 2.67 to 48.4). The actuarial 5- and 10-year distant metastasis-free survival were 96% (95% CI, 89% to 99%) and 94% (95% CI, 83% to 98%), respectively, for the good profile group and 74% (95% CI, 64% to 81%) and 65% (53% to 74%), respectively for the poor profile group. The sensitivity for 5-yr distant metastasis-free survival was 90%, and the specificity was 50%. The positive and negative predictive values were 38% (95% CI, 29% to 47%) and 94% (95% CI, 86% to 97%), respectively. The 76-gene signature was confirmed as a strong prognostic factor in subgroups of estrogen receptor-positive patients, pre- and postmenopausal patients, and patients with tumor sizes 20 mm or smaller. The subgroup of patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors was considered too small to perform a separate analysis. CONCLUSION Our data provide a strong methodologic and clinical multicenter validation of the predefined prognostic 76-gene signature in LNN breast cancer patients.

Phase III Study Comparing Exemestane With Tamoxifen As First-Line Hormonal Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Cooperative Group

PURPOSE This phase III randomized open-label clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane versus the antiestrogen tamoxifen as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS The study was conducted at 81 centers and enrolled postmenopausal patients with measurable hormone-sensitive metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer. Prior adjuvant chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen were allowed. One previous chemotherapy regimen and no prior hormone therapy for advanced disease were permitted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive exemestane 25 mg or tamoxifen 20 mg orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS A total of 371 patients enrolled at 79 sites (182 exemestane, 189 tamoxifen) were included in the analysis. Both treatments were generally well tolerated without major toxicity. Overall response rate was greater for exemestane than for tamoxifen treatment (46% v 31%; odds ratio = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.21 to 2.82; P = .005). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer with exemestane (9.9 months; 95% CI, 8.7 to 11.8 months) than with tamoxifen (5.8 months; 95% CI, 5.3 to 8.1 months). However, these early differences (Wilcoxon P = .028) did not translate to a longer-term benefit in PFS, the primary study end point (log-rank P = .121). There was also no difference in survival between both study arms. CONCLUSION Exemestane is an effective and well-tolerated first-line hormonal treatment for postmenopausal women with MBC and offers significant early improvement in time to tumor progression when compared with tamoxifen.

1st International consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC 1)

The 1st international Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 1) took place on November 2011, in Lisbon. Consensus guidelines for the management of this disease were developed. This manuscript summarizes these international consensus guidelines.

Doxorubicin and Paclitaxel Versus Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide as First-Line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10961 Multicenter Phase III Trial

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) with a standard doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients were anthracycline-naive and had bidimensionally measurable metastatic breast cancer. Two hundred seventy-five patients were randomly assigned to be treated with AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. A paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) dose escalation was planned at cycle 2 if no grade >or= 3 neutropenia occurred in cycle 1. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), safety, overall survival (OS), and quality of life. RESULTS A median number of six cycles were delivered in the two treatment arms. The relative dose-intensity and delivered cumulative dose of doxorubicin were lower in the AT arm. Dose escalation was only possible in 17% and 20% of the AT and AC patients, respectively. Median PFS was 6 months in the two treatments arms. RR was 58% versus 54%, and median OS was 20.6 versus 20.5 months in the AT and AC arms, respectively. The AT regimen was characterized by a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia, 32% versus 9% in the AC arm. CONCLUSION No differences in the efficacy study end points were observed between the two treatment arms. Treatment-related toxicity compromised doxorubicin-delivered dose-intensity in the paclitaxel-based regimen

Final Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Cyclophosphamide, Epirubicin, and Fluorouracil With a Dose-Intensified Epirubicin and Cyclophosphamide + Filgrastim as Neoadjuvant Treatment in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: An EORTC-NCIC-SAKK Multicenter Study

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy of a standard anthracycline-based regimen to a dose-intensified anthracycline regimen in locally advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Locally advanced breast cancer patients were randomly assigned onto a study comparing cyclophosphamide (C; 75 mg/m(2) orally days 1 to 14), epirubicin (E; 60 mg/m(2) intravenously [IV] days 1, 8), and fluorouracil (F; 500 mg/m(2) IV days 1, 8) six cycles every 28 days versus E (120 mg/m(2) IV day 1), C (830 mg/m(2) IV day 1), and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim; 5 micro g/kg/d subcutaneously days 2 to 13) six cycles every 14 days. The study was designed to detect a 15% improvement; that is, from 50% to 65% in median progression-free survival (PFS) in favor of the dose-intensified regimen. RESULTS A total of 448 patients were enrolled over a period of 3 years. The median dose intensity delivered for C and E reached, respectively, 85% and 87% of that planned in the CEF arm and 96% and 95% of that planned in the EC arm. The dose-intensified arm was slightly more emetogenic and generated more grade 3 to 4 anemia but less febrile neutropenia episodes. After a median follow-up of 5.5 years, 277 events have been reported. The median PFS was 34 and 33.7 months for CEF and EC, respectively (P =.68), and the 5-year survival rate was 53% and 51% for CEF and EC, respectively (P =.94). CONCLUSION Dose-intensified EC does not provide a measurable therapeutic benefit over CEF as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for unselected locally advanced breast cancer patients.

International Guidelines for Management of Metastatic Breast Cancer: Can Metastatic Breast Cancer Be Cured?

A distinctive subset of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is oligometastatic disease, which is characterized by single or few detectable metastatic lesions. The existing treatment guidelines for patients with localized MBC include surgery, radiotherapy, and regional chemotherapy. The European School of Oncology–Metastatic Breast Cancer Task Force addressed the management of these patients in its first consensus recommendations published in 2007. The Task Force endorsed the possibility of a more aggressive and multidisciplinary approach for patients with oligometastatic disease, stressing also the need for clinical trials in this patient population. At the sixth European Breast Cancer Conference, held in Berlin in March 2008, the second public session on MBC guidelines addressed the controversial issue of whether MBC can be cured. In this commentary, we summarize the discussion and related recommendations regarding the available therapeutic options that are possibly associated with cure in these patients. In particular, data on local (surgery and radiotherapy) and chemotherapy options are discussed. Large retrospective series show an association between surgical removal of the primary tumor or of lung metastases and improved long-term outcome in patients with oligometastatic disease. In the absence of data from prospective randomized studies, removal of the primary tumor or isolated metastatic lesions may be an attractive therapeutic strategy in this subset of patients, offering rapid disease control and potential for survival benefit. Some improvement in outcome may also be achieved with optimization of systemic therapies, possibly in combination with optimal local treatment.

International Guidelines for Management of Metastatic Breast Cancer: Combination vs Sequential Single-Agent Chemotherapy

Compared with treatment options for early-stage breast cancer, few data exist regarding the optimal use of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The choice of using a combination of cytotoxic chemotherapies vs sequential single agents is controversial. At the 6th European Breast Cancer Conference, the European School of Oncology Metastatic Breast Cancer Task Force convened an open debate on the relative benefits of combination vs sequential therapy. Based on the available data, the Task Force recommends sequential monotherapy as the preferred choice in advanced disease, in the absence of rapid clinical progression, life-threatening visceral metastases, or the need for rapid symptom and/or disease control. Patient- and disease-related factors should be used to choose between combination and sequential single-agent chemotherapy for MBC. Additional research is needed to determine the impact of therapy on patient-rated quality of life and to identify predictive factors that can be used to guide therapy.

Trastuzumab beyond progression: overall survival analysis of the GBG 26/BIG 3-05 phase III study in HER2-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND Continuation of trastuzumab plus capecitabine (XH) showed a significantly improved overall response rate and time to progression compared with capecitabine (X) alone in women with HER2-positive breast cancer progressing during trastuzumab treatment. Here, we report the final analysis on overall survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer who progressed during treatment with trastuzumab with or without 1st-line metastatic chemotherapy were prospectively randomised to X (2500mg/m(2) on days 1-14, q3w) or XH (6 (8)mg/kg, q3w). Overall survival was a pre-specified secondary end-point. RESULTS Median follow-up at June 2010 was 20.7months. Fifty nine of 74 and 60 of 77 patients died in the X and XH arm, respectively. Median overall survival was 20.6 and 24.9months with X and XH, respectively (HR=0.94 [0.65-1.35]; p=0.73). Performance status and metastatic site were independent prognosticators for overall survival. No difference between treatment arms was observed for patients who achieved clinical response or clinical benefit, respectively. Patients who continued/restarted anti-HER2 treatment (trastuzumab or lapatinib) after 2nd progression (N=52) had a post-progression survival of 18.8 compared with 13.3months for those who did not receive 3rd line treatment with anti-HER2 agents (N=88) (HR 0.63; p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS Final overall survival analysis of the GBG-26 study did not demonstrate a significant survival benefit for treatment beyond progression with trastuzumab. However, in a post-hoc analysis, patients receiving anti-HER2 treatment as 3rd line therapy showed a better post-progression survival than those not receiving this targeted treatment.