Predicting response and survival in chemotherapy-treated triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND In this study, we evaluated the ability of gene expression profiles to predict chemotherapy response and survival in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS Gene expression and clinical-pathological data were evaluated in five independent cohorts, including three randomised clinical trials for a total of 1055 patients with TNBC, basal-like disease (BLBC) or both. Previously defined intrinsic molecular subtype and a proliferation signature were determined and tested. Each signature was tested using multivariable logistic regression models (for pCR (pathological complete response)) and Cox models (for survival). Within TNBC, interactions between each signature and the basal-like subtype (vs other subtypes) for predicting either pCR or survival were investigated. RESULTS Within TNBC, all intrinsic subtypes were identified but BLBC predominated (55-81%). Significant associations between genomic signatures and response and survival after chemotherapy were only identified within BLBC and not within TNBC as a whole. In particular, high expression of a previously identified proliferation signature, or low expression of the luminal A signature, was found independently associated with pCR and improved survival following chemotherapy across different cohorts. Significant interaction tests were only obtained between each signature and the BLBC subtype for prediction of chemotherapy response or survival. CONCLUSIONS The proliferation signature predicts response and improved survival after chemotherapy, but only within BLBC. This highlights the clinical implications of TNBC heterogeneity, and suggests that future clinical trials focused on this phenotypic subtype should consider stratifying patients as having BLBC or not.

Traiter ou ne pas traiter?

La décision de traiter ou non repose sur le risque fracturaired'un patient, son adhésion à la prise en charge, l'efficacité dutraitement et son profil d'effets indésirables, et sur le remboursementde ce dernier. Différents algorithmes, dont l'outil FRAX,permettent d'évaluer le risque fracturaire. Ce dernier outil aquelques limites: absence de quantification du type de fracturesantérieures, mauvaise appréciation du risque lié à une corticothérapiesystémique active, absence de validation prospective.Le seuil thérapeutique peut être fixe indépendant de l'âgeou varier avec l'âge. Les analyses coût-efficacité montrent quepour un même profil de risque, plus la personne est âgée, plusgrand est le bénéfice économique. Le jugement clinique peutnous guider dans certaines situations. La fracture non traumatique,l'âge avancé, la corticothérapie, un T-score abaissé sontles principaux facteurs de risque utilisés en pratique. Dans l'approchediagnostique, la recherche de la fracture vertébrale sousjacenteest impérative, idéalement par IVA. Les quelques exemplesci-dessous montrent les limites des algorithmes et dujugement clinique.Sans facteur de risque pour l'ostéoporose, mais avec un T-scoreà -3.2 DS, à quel âge va-t-on débuter un traitement chez cettefemme ? Avant ou après 60 ans ? Certaines situations cliniquessemblent claires et posent l'indication à traiter: la fracture de lahanche, la fracture vertébrale spontanée, la corticothérapie aulong cours. Mais si pour ces trois situations la densitométrieosseuse donne un T-score à -0.5 DS, ou si le patient a 35 ans,est-ce que chaque clinicien sera d'accord de traiter ? On saitpar exemple que le risque fracturaire sous corticothérapie aulong cours semble faible chez la femme préménopausée et chezl'homme avant 50 ans. Que faire après une fracture du poignetà 50 ans : ne pas traiter si le T-score est à -1.5 DS et traiter si leT-score est à -3 DS ? L'antécédent de fracture du poignet n'estpas un facteur de risque aussi fort de la fracture subséquenteque la hanche, la vertèbre ou l'humérus. Et chez cette femme de80 ans ayant eu une fracture de côte sur un effort de toux, avecun T-score à -2.5 DS ? Ou cette autre femme de 83 ans, sansfacteur de risque particulier pour l'ostéoporose mais avec unT-score à -3.1 DS ? Ces deux dernières femmes bénéficient d'untraitement en terme économique et le praticien respecte les indicationsau remboursement. Mais certains modèles préconisentde ne pas traiter les personnes très âgées si leur risque fracturairen'est pas très élevé.Dans toutes ces situations, le partage de la décision entre lepraticien et son patient prime sur les éventuelles propositionsissues d'algorithmes qui doivent encore être améliorés.

IVA in addition to BMD can change the osteoporosis management in 25% of clinical routine patients

Introduction Vertebral fracture is one of the major osteoporoticfractures which are unfortunately very often undetected. In addition,it is well known that prevalent vertebral fracture increases dramaticallythe risk of future additional fracture. Instant Vertebral Assessment(IVA) has been introduced in DXA device a couple of years ago toease the detection of such fracture when routine DXA are performed.To correctly use such tool, ISCD provided clinical recommendationon when and how to use it. The aim of our study was to evaluate theISCD guidelines in clinical routine patients and see how often itmay change of patient management.Methods During two months (March and April 2010), a medicalquestionnaire was systematically given to our clinical routine patientto check the validity of ISCD IVA recommendations in our population.In addition, all women had BMD measurement at AP spine,femur and 1/3 radius using a Discovery A System (Hologic, Waltham,USA). When appropriate, IVA measurement had been performedon the same DXA system and had been centrally evaluated by twotrained doctors for fracture status according to the semi-quantitativemethod of Genant. The reading had been performed when possiblebetween L5 and T4.Results Out of 210 women seen in the consultation, 109 (52 %)of them (mean age 68.2 ± 11.5 years) fulfilled the necessary criteriato have an IVA measurement. Out of these 109 women, 43 (incidence39.4 %) had osteoporosis at one of the three skeletal sitesand 31 (incidence 28.4 %) had at least one vertebral fracture. 14.7 %of women had both osteoporosis and at least one vertebral fractureclassifying them as "severe osteoporosis" while 46.8 % did not haveosteoporosis and no vertebral fracture. 24.8 % of the women hadosteoporosis but no vertebral fracture while 13.8 % of women didhave osteoporosis but vertebral fracture (clinical osteoporosis).Conclusions In 52 % of our patients, IVA was needed accordingto ISCD criteria. In half of them the IVA test influenced of patientmanagement either may changing the type of treatment of simplyby classifying patient as "clinical osteoporosis". IVA appears to bean important tool in clinical routine but unfortunately is not yetvery often use in most of the centers.

Utilité clinique des ultrasons osseux quantitatifs dans le dépistage de l'ostéoporose [Clinical utility of quantitative bone ultrasonography in the staging of osteoporosis]

Osteoporosis is well recognized as a public health problem in industrialized countries. Because of the efficiency of new treatments to decrease fracture risk, it is of a major interest to detect the patients who should benefit from such treatments. A diagnosis of osteoporosis is necessary before to start a specific treatment. This diagnosis is based on the measurement of the skeleton (hip and spine) with dual X-ray absorptiometry, using diagnostic criteria established by the World Health Organisation (WHO). In Switzerland, indications for bone densitometry are limited to precise situations. This technique cannot be applied for screening. For this purpose, peripheral measurements and particularly quantitative ultrasounds of bone seem to be promising. Indeed, several prospective studies clearly showed their predictive power for hip fracture risk in women aged more than 65 years. In order to facilitate the clinical use of bone ultrasounds, thresholds of risk of fracture and osteoporosis of the hip will be shortly published. This will integrate bone ultrasound in a global concept including bone densitometry and its indications, but also other risk factors for osteoporosis recognized by the Swiss association against osteoporosis (ASCO).

LAPATAX: A randomized phase II trial of FEC-docetaxel combined with lapatinib and/or trastuzumab as neoadjuvant therapy of HER2- positive breast cancer-EORTC 10054 trial.

Background: Patients with HER2 +ve breast cancer suitable for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have been shown in a series of clinical trials to have the best outcome when treated with anthracyclines (A), taxanes (T), and trastuzumab (Tz). Recent evidence confirms that adjuvant Tz is more effective when given concomitantly rather than sequentially with T (Perez SABCS 2009). Whilst there remains uncertainty as to the most efficacious A-T regimen and duration of Tz, there is widespread use in Europe of FEC-D [3 cycles of 5-FU 500 mg/m2, epirubicin 100 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 (FEC100) followed by 3 cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (D) q3w] following the results of PACS-01. The advent of TKI anti-HER2 agents such as L could offer superior outcomes if combined with NAC. However, a phase I study in heavily pre-treated advanced breast cancer reported difficulties in combining lapatinib (L) with D 100 mg/m2 (LoRusso JCO 2008). Methods: EORTC 10054 is designed as a two-part study to compare FEC-D with either Tz, L or their combination as NAC for patients with HER2 +ve large operable or locally advanced breast cancer. Before and on-treatment frozen tumor and blood samples will be taken to better define which tumours are particularly sensitive to either Tz and/or L. Stage 1: (complete) a dose- finding study has confirmed that with primary prophylactic G-CSF, D 100 mg/m2 can be safely and effectively given with L 1,250 mg daily continuously. The dose-limiting toxicity was myelosuppression, and there was no significant diarrhoea or cardiac toxicity (ESMO 2009 abstr P- 5073). Stage 2: (opening Q1 2010) will enroll 150 patients from European centres into a 3-arm randomized trial whose primary endpoint is pathological complete response. All patients will receive FEC-D before primary surgery: 3 cycles of FEC (without anti-HER2 therapy) followed by 3 cycles of D plus either Tz (conventional weekly schedule), monotherapy L, or the combination of Tz and L, using doses based on the EGF100161 dose-finding study in 1st line metastatic therapy of D+L+Tz. After surgery all patients will receive standard 3-weekly Tz, radiotherapy and endocrine therapy as per local guidelines.

Cetuximab in combination with chemoradiotherapy prior to surgery in patients with resectable, locally advanced esophageal carcinoma : a prospective, multicenter phase lb-ll trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK 75/06) : 4570

Background: Cetuximab significantly enhances efficacy of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in head and neck cancer. We investigated the safety and feasibility of adding cetuximab to neoadjuvant chemoradiation of locally advanced esophageal cancer. Methods: Pts with resectable, locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma (AC) of the thoracic esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (staged by EUS, CT and PET scan) were treated with 2 cycles of induction chemotherapy (docetaxel 75mg/m2, cisplatin 75mg/m2 q3w and weekly cetuximab 250mg/m2), followed by concomitant chemo- immuno-radiation therapy (CIRT: docetaxel 20mg/m2, cisplatin 25mg/m2 and cetuximab 250mg/m2 weekly five times concomitant with 45 Gy radiotherapy in 25 fractions); followed by surgery 4-8 weeks later. The phase I part consisted of 2 cohorts of 7 patients each, without and with docetaxel during CIRT, respectively. Interpatient dose-escalation (adding docetaxel during CIRT) was possible if < 2 out of 7 pts of the 1st cohort experienced limiting toxicity. Having finished the phase 1 part, 13 additional patients were treated with docetaxel-containing CIRT in a phase II part. Pathological response was evaluated according to the Mandard classification. Results: 27 pts from 12 institutions were included. As of today, results from 20 pts are available (cohort 1: 7, cohort 2: 7, phase ll : 6). Median age was 64yrs (range 47-71). 11 AC; 9 SCC. 19 pts (95%) completed CIRT (1 pt stopped treatment during induction therapy due to sepsis). 17 pts underwent resection (no surgery: 1pt for PD, 1pt for cardiac reasons). Grade 3 toxicities during CIRT included anorexia 15%, dysphagia/esophagitis 15%, fatigue 10%, nausea 10%, pruritus 5%, dehydration 5%, nail changes 5% and rash 5% .1 pt suffered from pulmonary embolism. 13 pts (65%, intention-to-treat) showed a complete or near complete pathological remission (cohort 1: 5, cohort 2: 4, phase II: 4). Conclusions: Adding cetuximab to preoperative chemoradiation for esophageal cancer is safe and feasible in a community-based multicenter setting. Antineoplastic activity is encouraging with 65% pathological responders.

Sorafenib fourth-line treatment in imatinib-, sunitinib-, and nilotinib-resistant metastatic GIST : a retrospective analysis : 10564

Background: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare mesenchymal tumors usually caused by mutations in the KIT or PDGFRA gene. Advanced disease generally cannot be cured by surgery nor by tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), but TKIs have considerably improved outcome for patients (pts) with advanced GIST. Patients failing TKI treatment with imatinib (IM), sunitinib (SU) or nilotinib (NI) have a poor prognosis. Sorafenib is a multi kinase inhibitor that blocks not only receptor tyrosine kinases such as KIT, VEGFR and PDGFR but also serine/threonine kinases along the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. Recently, clinical activity of sorafenib in third-line treatment in patients with GIST after IM and SU failure has been shown (Wiebe et al. ASCO 2008, #10502). Methods: We report herein preliminary data of 32 pts treated with sorafenib in nine European centers. Centers were selected based on their previous and known experience in GIST and reported all pts treated. Pts received sorafenib after failure of IM, SU and NI in fourth-line treatment. Baseline characteristics and treatment details have been retrieved via questionary. Results: Median age at sorafenib treatment start was 62 years (range 33-81 y), and the majority of pts were male (63 %). Primary tumor site was gastric or small intestine in 25% and 41% of pts, respectively. All pts had failed IM, SU, NI. 19 % of pts achieved partial remission and 44% disease stabilization. Approximately half of the pts had an improvement of symptoms and/or performance. Half of the pts were on treatment longer than 4 months (actuarial data) and 41% of pts continue to receive sorafenib. Median progression-free survival is 20 weeks and median overall survival 42 weeks (Kaplan-Meier), at a median follow-up of 22 weeks (range 3-54). Conclusions: This is the largest series assessing efficacy of sorafenib fourth-line treatment for IM, SU and NI refractory GIST reported yet. Sorafenib displays significant clinical activity in this heavily pretreated group of patients.

Continuous sunitinib treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): A multicenter phase II trial (SAKK 77/06 and SASL 23)

Background: Sunitinib (SU) is a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor with antitumor and antiangiogenetic activity. Evidence for clinical activity in HCC was reported in 2 phase II trials [Zhu et al and Faivre et al, ASCO 2007] using either a 37.5 or a 50 mg daily dose in a 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off regimen. The objective of this trial was to demonstrate antitumor activity of continuous SU treatment in patients (pts) with HCC. Methods: Key eligibility criteria included unresectable or metastatic HCC, no prior systemic anticancer treatment, measurable disease and Child- Pugh A or B liver dysfunction. Pts received 37.5 mg SU daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression free survival at 12 weeks (PFS12) defined as 'success' if the patient was alive and without tumor progression assessed by 12 weeks (±7 days) after registration. A PFS12 of _20% was considered uninteresting and promising if _40%. Using the Simon-two minimax stage design with 90% power and 5% significance the sample size was 45 pts. Secondary endpoints included safety assessments, measurement of serum cobalamin levels and tumor density. Results: From September 2007 to August 2008 45 pts, mostly male (87%), were enrolled in 10 centers. Median age was 63 years, 89% had Child-Pugh A and 47% had distant metastases. Median largest lesion diameter was 84mm (range: 18-280) and 18% had prior TACE. Reasons for stopping therapy were: PD 60%, symptomatic deterioration 16%, toxicity 11%, death 2% (due to tumor), and other reasons 4%; 7% remain on therapy. PFS12 was rated as success in 15 pts (33%) (95% CI: 20%, 49%) and failure in 27 (60%); 3 were not evaluable (due to refusal). Over the whole trial period 1 CR and 40% SD as best response were achieved. Median PFS, duration of disease stabilization, TTP and OS were 2.8, 3.2, 2.8 and 9.3 months, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were infrequent and all deaths due to the tumor. Conclusions: Continuous SU treatment with 37.5 mg/d daily is feasible and demonstrates moderate activity in pts with advanced HCC and mild to moderately impaired liver dysfunction. Under this trial design the therapy is considered promising (>13 PFS12 successes).

Radiation therapy and concurrent plus adjuvant temsirolimus (CCI-779) versus chemoirradiation with temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma without methylation of the MGMT gene promoter.

Background: Preclinical data indicate activity of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and synergistic activity together with radiotherapy in glioblastoma. The aim of this trial is to assess the therapeutic activity of temsirolimus (CCI-779), an intravenous mTOR inhibitor, in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with unmethylated O6 methlyguanine-DNA-methlytransferase (MGMT)promoter. Methods: Patients (n=257) with newly diagnosed glioblastoma after open surgical biopsy or resection fulfilling basic eligibility criteria underwent a central MGMT promoter analysis using quantitative methylation specific PCR. Patients with glioblastoma harboring an unmethylated MGMT promoter (n=111) were randomized 1:1 between radiotherapy (60 Gy; 5 times 2 Gy per week) plus concomitant and six cycles of maintenance temozolomide or radiotherapy plus weekly temsirolimus at 25 mg flat dose to be continued until progression or undue toxicity. Primary endpoint was overall survival at 12 months (OS12). Sample size of the investigational treatment arm required 54 patients to assess adequacy of temsirolimus activity set at 80%. More than 38 patients alive at 12 months in the per protocol population was considered a positive signal. A control arm of 54 patients treated with the standard of care was implemented to evaluate the assumptions on OS12. Results: Between December 2009 and October 2012, 111 pts in 14 centers were randomized and treated. Median age was 55 and 58 years in the temsirolimus and standard arm, respectively. Most patients (95.5%) had a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Both therapies were properly administered with a median of 13 cycles of maintenance temsirolimus. In the per protocolpopulation, exactly 38 patients treated with temsirolimus (out of 54 eligible) reached OS12. In the intention to treat population OS12 was 72.2% [95% CI (58.2, 82.2)] in the temozolomide arm and 69.6% [95% CI (55.8, 79.9) in the temsirolimus arm [HR=1.16 95% CI (0.77, 1.76), p=0.47]. Conclusions: The therapeutic activity of temsirolimus in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with an unmethylated MGMT promoter is too low.

Novel Chemotherapy Combinations in Advanced Gastric Cancer: an Updated Meta-Analysis

Combination chemotherapy is widely accepted for patients with advanced gastric cancer, but uncertainty remains regarding the choice of the regimen. Objectives: To assess the effect of: Comparison 1) irinotecan versus non-irinotecancontaining regimens, comparison 2) docetaxel versus non-docetaxel-containing regimens, comparison 3) regimens including oral 5-FU prodrugs versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines, comparison 4) oxaliplatin versus cisplatin-containing regimens on overall survival. Search Strategy: We searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, proceedings from ECCO, ESMO, ASCO until December 2009. Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials on the above mentioned chemotherapy regimens in advanced or metastatic denocarcinoma of the stomach or GE-junction. Results: The meta-analysis of overall survival for comparison 1) included 4 trials, 640 patients, and results in a HR of 0.86 (95% CI 0.73-1.02) in favour of the irinotecancontaining regimens. For comparison 2) 4 trials with a total of 924 patients have been included in the analysis of overall survival. The resulting HR is 0.93 (95% CI 0.79-1.09) in favour of the docetaxel-containing regimens, with moderate heterogeneity (I2 =7%). For comparison 3 and 4, one major relevant study (Cunningham 2008) could not be included in this meta-analysis after discussion because it included patients with squamous cell cancer of the esophagus as well. Thus, for comparison 3) one relevant study (Kang 2009; 316 patients) comparing capecitabine versus 5-FU in combination with cisplatin is eligible. The resulting HR is 0.85 (95%CI 0.65-1.11) in favour of the oral regimen. For comparison 4) two eligible trials were identified (Al Batran 2008, Popov 2008; 292 patients) with a resulting HR of 0.82 (95% CI 0.47-1.45) in favour of the oxaliplatin-based regimens. For three further trials data is incomplete at present. Conclusions: Chemotherapy combinations including irinotecan, oxaliplatin, docetaxel or oral 5-FU prodrugs are alternative treatment options to cisplatin/5-FU or cisplatin/ 5-FU/anthracycline-combinations, but do not provide significant advantages in overall survival. Supported by: KKS Halle, grant number [BMBF/FKZ 01GH01GH0105]. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.