Breast Cancer

SAN ANTONIO — Second-line treatment with imlunestrant improved progression-free survival compared with standard endocrine monotherapy in patients with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer who had ESR1 mutations, according to recent findings from the EMBER-3 trial.

This progression-free survival benefit with imlunestrant did not extend to the overall population, but a combination of imlunestrant plus abemaciclib did lead to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with imlunestrant alone, regardless of patients’ ESR1 mutation status.

Lead author Komal Jhaveri, MD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, called the findings “encouraging.”

The phase 3 results raise the possibility of a second-line all-oral targeted therapy option for patients with ER–positive, HER2–negative advanced breast cancer, said Jhaveri, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

However, outside experts provided a note of caution that the trial design may limit how relevant the findings are to clinical practice.

First-line treatment for advanced ER–positive, HER2–negative breast cancer includes an aromatase inhibitor, such as exemestane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor, such as abemaciclib. However, an ESR1 mutation may develop, which can undermine the effectiveness of the aromatase inhibitor. These patients may swap in a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) — typically, the injectable fulvestrant — in place of the aromatase inhibitor.

Over the past several years, researchers have searched for a better agent than fulvestrant because this injectable drug has limited efficacy in patients with ESR1 mutations, and the monthly intramuscular shots are painful and inconvenient for patients.

The oral SERD imlunestrant is one such candidate.

The EMBER-3 trial initially randomized 661 patients after progression/recurrence evenly to either imlunestrant monotherapy (400 mg once daily) or a standard treatment arm that included either exemestane or fulvestrant, with 90% of these patients receiving fulvestrant. Investigators added a third combination arm shortly after the trial started, which included 213 patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

About 60% of the overall population had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, primarily palbociclib and ribociclib. About 37% of the study population had ESR1 mutations.

Among patients with ESR1 mutations, imlunestrant monotherapy led to a significant improvement in median progression-free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months in the standard care arm (P < .001). Among all patients, however, progression-free survival was no different between the two arms — 5.6 months in the imlunestrant group vs 5.5 months in the standard care group.

When comparing the two treatment arms in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was significantly better in patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib — 9.4 months vs 5.5 months in the imlunestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.57; P < .001). The progression-free survival benefit held across most patient subgroups, regardless of ESR1 mutation status, as well as among patients who had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously.

Data from other studies presented at SABCS indicate that another SERD, elacestrant, in combination with abemaciclib, may provide a similar progression-free survival benefit in this patient population. Elacestrant was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2023 for second-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer and ESR1 mutations.

The EMBER trial also reported early overall survival findings. Although immature, overall survival trends favored imlunestrant over the standard treatment. The estimated overall survival at 18 months was 77% in the imlunestrant group and 58.6% in the standard therapy group among patients with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.55), and 78.6% in the imlunestrant group vs 71.8% in the standard-therapy group for all patients (HR, 0.69).

Common all-grade adverse events with imlunestrant vs standard therapy included fatigue (22.6% vs 13.3%), diarrhea (21.4% vs 11.7%), and nausea (17% vs 13%). Grade 3 or higher anemia and neutropenia were low and similar in both arms.

All-grade diarrhea (86%) and nausea (49%) were more common with the combination of imlunestrant and abemaciclib.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher events was 17% with imlunestrant monotherapy, 21% for standard treatment, and 49% for imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

EMBER-3 discussant Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said that, overall, oral SERDs are starting to “break out from the ESR1 mutation box,” perhaps reflecting the idea that an agent more active than fulvestrant in combination with a non-cross–resistant CDK4/6 inhibitor like abemaciclib might lead to a better long-term outcome, regardless of ESR1 status.

A major limit of EMBER-3, however, is that it did not compare imlunestrant/abemaciclib with fulvestrant/abemaciclib, which would have been a true standard-of-care control, said Burstein.

Kathy Miller, MD, a breast oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, agreed.

She was also concerned about the use of monotherapy in the standard care arm.

“Monotherapy hormone therapy is not what people would be treated with,” Miller said. Patients would typically get fulvestrant with either a targeted therapy or everolimus.

Without appropriate controls, “the data are impossible to interpret” in the context of current practice, Miller told Medscape Medical News.

Eli Lilly, maker of imlunestrant, funded, designed, and largely conducted the trial. Jhaveri is a consultant and researcher for the company. Burstein and Miller had no disclosures. Miller is an editorial advisor for Medscape Oncology.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Second-line treatment with imlunestrant improved progression-free survival compared with standard endocrine monotherapy in patients with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer who had ESR1 mutations, according to recent findings from the EMBER-3 trial.

This progression-free survival benefit with imlunestrant did not extend to the overall population, but a combination of imlunestrant plus abemaciclib did lead to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with imlunestrant alone, regardless of patients’ ESR1 mutation status.

Lead author Komal Jhaveri, MD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, called the findings “encouraging.”

The phase 3 results raise the possibility of a second-line all-oral targeted therapy option for patients with ER–positive, HER2–negative advanced breast cancer, said Jhaveri, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

However, outside experts provided a note of caution that the trial design may limit how relevant the findings are to clinical practice.

First-line treatment for advanced ER–positive, HER2–negative breast cancer includes an aromatase inhibitor, such as exemestane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor, such as abemaciclib. However, an ESR1 mutation may develop, which can undermine the effectiveness of the aromatase inhibitor. These patients may swap in a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) — typically, the injectable fulvestrant — in place of the aromatase inhibitor.

Over the past several years, researchers have searched for a better agent than fulvestrant because this injectable drug has limited efficacy in patients with ESR1 mutations, and the monthly intramuscular shots are painful and inconvenient for patients.

The oral SERD imlunestrant is one such candidate.

The EMBER-3 trial initially randomized 661 patients after progression/recurrence evenly to either imlunestrant monotherapy (400 mg once daily) or a standard treatment arm that included either exemestane or fulvestrant, with 90% of these patients receiving fulvestrant. Investigators added a third combination arm shortly after the trial started, which included 213 patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

About 60% of the overall population had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, primarily palbociclib and ribociclib. About 37% of the study population had ESR1 mutations.

Among patients with ESR1 mutations, imlunestrant monotherapy led to a significant improvement in median progression-free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months in the standard care arm (P < .001). Among all patients, however, progression-free survival was no different between the two arms — 5.6 months in the imlunestrant group vs 5.5 months in the standard care group.

When comparing the two treatment arms in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was significantly better in patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib — 9.4 months vs 5.5 months in the imlunestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.57; P < .001). The progression-free survival benefit held across most patient subgroups, regardless of ESR1 mutation status, as well as among patients who had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously.

Data from other studies presented at SABCS indicate that another SERD, elacestrant, in combination with abemaciclib, may provide a similar progression-free survival benefit in this patient population. Elacestrant was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2023 for second-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer and ESR1 mutations.

The EMBER trial also reported early overall survival findings. Although immature, overall survival trends favored imlunestrant over the standard treatment. The estimated overall survival at 18 months was 77% in the imlunestrant group and 58.6% in the standard therapy group among patients with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.55), and 78.6% in the imlunestrant group vs 71.8% in the standard-therapy group for all patients (HR, 0.69).

Common all-grade adverse events with imlunestrant vs standard therapy included fatigue (22.6% vs 13.3%), diarrhea (21.4% vs 11.7%), and nausea (17% vs 13%). Grade 3 or higher anemia and neutropenia were low and similar in both arms.

All-grade diarrhea (86%) and nausea (49%) were more common with the combination of imlunestrant and abemaciclib.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher events was 17% with imlunestrant monotherapy, 21% for standard treatment, and 49% for imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

EMBER-3 discussant Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said that, overall, oral SERDs are starting to “break out from the ESR1 mutation box,” perhaps reflecting the idea that an agent more active than fulvestrant in combination with a non-cross–resistant CDK4/6 inhibitor like abemaciclib might lead to a better long-term outcome, regardless of ESR1 status.

A major limit of EMBER-3, however, is that it did not compare imlunestrant/abemaciclib with fulvestrant/abemaciclib, which would have been a true standard-of-care control, said Burstein.

Kathy Miller, MD, a breast oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, agreed.

She was also concerned about the use of monotherapy in the standard care arm.

“Monotherapy hormone therapy is not what people would be treated with,” Miller said. Patients would typically get fulvestrant with either a targeted therapy or everolimus.

Without appropriate controls, “the data are impossible to interpret” in the context of current practice, Miller told Medscape Medical News.

Eli Lilly, maker of imlunestrant, funded, designed, and largely conducted the trial. Jhaveri is a consultant and researcher for the company. Burstein and Miller had no disclosures. Miller is an editorial advisor for Medscape Oncology.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Second-line treatment with imlunestrant improved progression-free survival compared with standard endocrine monotherapy in patients with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer who had ESR1 mutations, according to recent findings from the EMBER-3 trial.

This progression-free survival benefit with imlunestrant did not extend to the overall population, but a combination of imlunestrant plus abemaciclib did lead to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with imlunestrant alone, regardless of patients’ ESR1 mutation status.

Lead author Komal Jhaveri, MD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, called the findings “encouraging.”

The phase 3 results raise the possibility of a second-line all-oral targeted therapy option for patients with ER–positive, HER2–negative advanced breast cancer, said Jhaveri, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

However, outside experts provided a note of caution that the trial design may limit how relevant the findings are to clinical practice.

First-line treatment for advanced ER–positive, HER2–negative breast cancer includes an aromatase inhibitor, such as exemestane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor, such as abemaciclib. However, an ESR1 mutation may develop, which can undermine the effectiveness of the aromatase inhibitor. These patients may swap in a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) — typically, the injectable fulvestrant — in place of the aromatase inhibitor.

Over the past several years, researchers have searched for a better agent than fulvestrant because this injectable drug has limited efficacy in patients with ESR1 mutations, and the monthly intramuscular shots are painful and inconvenient for patients.

The oral SERD imlunestrant is one such candidate.

The EMBER-3 trial initially randomized 661 patients after progression/recurrence evenly to either imlunestrant monotherapy (400 mg once daily) or a standard treatment arm that included either exemestane or fulvestrant, with 90% of these patients receiving fulvestrant. Investigators added a third combination arm shortly after the trial started, which included 213 patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

About 60% of the overall population had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, primarily palbociclib and ribociclib. About 37% of the study population had ESR1 mutations.

Among patients with ESR1 mutations, imlunestrant monotherapy led to a significant improvement in median progression-free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months in the standard care arm (P < .001). Among all patients, however, progression-free survival was no different between the two arms — 5.6 months in the imlunestrant group vs 5.5 months in the standard care group.

When comparing the two treatment arms in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was significantly better in patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib — 9.4 months vs 5.5 months in the imlunestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.57; P < .001). The progression-free survival benefit held across most patient subgroups, regardless of ESR1 mutation status, as well as among patients who had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously.

Data from other studies presented at SABCS indicate that another SERD, elacestrant, in combination with abemaciclib, may provide a similar progression-free survival benefit in this patient population. Elacestrant was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2023 for second-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer and ESR1 mutations.

The EMBER trial also reported early overall survival findings. Although immature, overall survival trends favored imlunestrant over the standard treatment. The estimated overall survival at 18 months was 77% in the imlunestrant group and 58.6% in the standard therapy group among patients with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.55), and 78.6% in the imlunestrant group vs 71.8% in the standard-therapy group for all patients (HR, 0.69).

Common all-grade adverse events with imlunestrant vs standard therapy included fatigue (22.6% vs 13.3%), diarrhea (21.4% vs 11.7%), and nausea (17% vs 13%). Grade 3 or higher anemia and neutropenia were low and similar in both arms.

All-grade diarrhea (86%) and nausea (49%) were more common with the combination of imlunestrant and abemaciclib.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher events was 17% with imlunestrant monotherapy, 21% for standard treatment, and 49% for imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

EMBER-3 discussant Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said that, overall, oral SERDs are starting to “break out from the ESR1 mutation box,” perhaps reflecting the idea that an agent more active than fulvestrant in combination with a non-cross–resistant CDK4/6 inhibitor like abemaciclib might lead to a better long-term outcome, regardless of ESR1 status.

A major limit of EMBER-3, however, is that it did not compare imlunestrant/abemaciclib with fulvestrant/abemaciclib, which would have been a true standard-of-care control, said Burstein.

Kathy Miller, MD, a breast oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, agreed.

She was also concerned about the use of monotherapy in the standard care arm.

“Monotherapy hormone therapy is not what people would be treated with,” Miller said. Patients would typically get fulvestrant with either a targeted therapy or everolimus.

Without appropriate controls, “the data are impossible to interpret” in the context of current practice, Miller told Medscape Medical News.

Eli Lilly, maker of imlunestrant, funded, designed, and largely conducted the trial. Jhaveri is a consultant and researcher for the company. Burstein and Miller had no disclosures. Miller is an editorial advisor for Medscape Oncology.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with BRCA mutations and a history of early-onset breast cancer benefited from risk-reducing surgeries, according to new data presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

Having a risk-reducing mastectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with significantly improved overall survival and disease-free survival in BRCA-mutation carriers who had been diagnosed with a first breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years.

“This global study provides the first evidence that risk-reducing surgeries improve survival outcomes among young BRCA-mutation carriers with a prior history of early-onset breast cancer,” study investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, oncologist with the University of Genova–IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genoa, Italy, said in a statement from the SABCS, where he presented the findings. “Considering the unique traits and needs of this younger population, and their high risk for secondary malignancies, it is critical to understand how risk-reducing surgeries affect patient outcomes, so that the risks and benefits of these procedures can be carefully weighed.”

“We hope these findings may help to improve the counseling on cancer-risk management strategies for BRCA carriers with young-onset of breast cancer below the age of 40 years,” Lambertini added during a press briefing. 

Various risk-reducing strategies, including risk-reducing surgeries, are recommended for BRCA-mutation carriers without a prior history of cancer, but the impact of these surgeries among younger populations with a history of early-onset breast cancer has been less clear.

The new findings come from the BRCA BCY Collaboration, an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 5290 patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations who were diagnosed with stages I-III breast cancer at ≤ 40 years. The risk-reducing mastectomy analysis included 2910 patients (55%) who underwent the surgery less than 1 year from diagnosis and 2380 who opted not to have the surgery. 

Primary endpoint was overall survival, and disease-free survival and breast cancer-free interval were secondary endpoints. Overall survival models were adjusted for the development of distant recurrences or second primary malignancies.

During median follow-up of 5.1 years, patients who underwent risk-reducing mastectomy had a 35% lower risk of dying (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.65) as well as a significant improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.58) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.55). The improved outcomes were seen in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, Lambertini reported. 

The risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy analysis included 2782 patients who underwent this surgery a median of 3 years from diagnosis and 2508 who did not. 

During median follow up of 4.9 years, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a 42% lower risk for death (aHR, 0.58) as well as an improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.68) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.65).

For risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, there was an interaction based on breast cancer subtype and BRCA mutation.

“Specifically, the benefit of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was greater for patients with BRCA1 pathogenic variants and for those with triple-negative disease, as compared to those with BRCA2 pathogenic variants or luminal disease,” Lambertini reported.

Overall survival results were similar in patients who underwent one or both surgeries.

Briefing moderator Kate Lathrop, MD, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, noted that this study provides valuable information for counseling younger patients. Having datasets like this helps us give patients “potentially our best estimate of the amount of reduction of risk you could have by having the surgery now.”

In an interview, Freya Schnabel, MD, director of breast surgery at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York City, emphasized the importance of early, well-informed decision-making upfront at the time of diagnosis in this patient population.

The benefit of “risk-reducing oophorectomy cannot be overemphasized, even in the presence of a known breast cancer because, as my colleagues and I say — we don’t want to cure their breast cancer and then have them die of ovarian cancer,” said Schnabel, who was not involved in the study.

In terms of prophylactic contralateral mastectomy, Schnabel noted that BRCA-mutation carriers have a “very high” risk for a second primary breast cancer. In her experience, “that’s what drives patients frequently at the time of diagnosis to have bilateral mastectomy because who wants to go through this more than once?” 

This is especially true for BRCA1 carriers who have a higher risk for triple-negative breast cancer, which is associated with a worse prognosis and is harder to treat, Schnabel said. 

“For these patients, having surgery prevents the patient from getting into a situation where their second primary tumor winds up being biologically more aggressive and then affects their survival,” Schnabel said.

The study was supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research and the European Society for Medical Oncology. Lambertini reported advisory roles for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini. Lathrop consults for TeraSera Pharmaceuticals. Schnabel had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with BRCA mutations and a history of early-onset breast cancer benefited from risk-reducing surgeries, according to new data presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

Having a risk-reducing mastectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with significantly improved overall survival and disease-free survival in BRCA-mutation carriers who had been diagnosed with a first breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years.

“This global study provides the first evidence that risk-reducing surgeries improve survival outcomes among young BRCA-mutation carriers with a prior history of early-onset breast cancer,” study investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, oncologist with the University of Genova–IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genoa, Italy, said in a statement from the SABCS, where he presented the findings. “Considering the unique traits and needs of this younger population, and their high risk for secondary malignancies, it is critical to understand how risk-reducing surgeries affect patient outcomes, so that the risks and benefits of these procedures can be carefully weighed.”

“We hope these findings may help to improve the counseling on cancer-risk management strategies for BRCA carriers with young-onset of breast cancer below the age of 40 years,” Lambertini added during a press briefing. 

Various risk-reducing strategies, including risk-reducing surgeries, are recommended for BRCA-mutation carriers without a prior history of cancer, but the impact of these surgeries among younger populations with a history of early-onset breast cancer has been less clear.

The new findings come from the BRCA BCY Collaboration, an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 5290 patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations who were diagnosed with stages I-III breast cancer at ≤ 40 years. The risk-reducing mastectomy analysis included 2910 patients (55%) who underwent the surgery less than 1 year from diagnosis and 2380 who opted not to have the surgery. 

Primary endpoint was overall survival, and disease-free survival and breast cancer-free interval were secondary endpoints. Overall survival models were adjusted for the development of distant recurrences or second primary malignancies.

During median follow-up of 5.1 years, patients who underwent risk-reducing mastectomy had a 35% lower risk of dying (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.65) as well as a significant improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.58) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.55). The improved outcomes were seen in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, Lambertini reported. 

The risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy analysis included 2782 patients who underwent this surgery a median of 3 years from diagnosis and 2508 who did not. 

During median follow up of 4.9 years, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a 42% lower risk for death (aHR, 0.58) as well as an improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.68) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.65).

For risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, there was an interaction based on breast cancer subtype and BRCA mutation.

“Specifically, the benefit of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was greater for patients with BRCA1 pathogenic variants and for those with triple-negative disease, as compared to those with BRCA2 pathogenic variants or luminal disease,” Lambertini reported.

Overall survival results were similar in patients who underwent one or both surgeries.

Briefing moderator Kate Lathrop, MD, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, noted that this study provides valuable information for counseling younger patients. Having datasets like this helps us give patients “potentially our best estimate of the amount of reduction of risk you could have by having the surgery now.”

In an interview, Freya Schnabel, MD, director of breast surgery at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York City, emphasized the importance of early, well-informed decision-making upfront at the time of diagnosis in this patient population.

The benefit of “risk-reducing oophorectomy cannot be overemphasized, even in the presence of a known breast cancer because, as my colleagues and I say — we don’t want to cure their breast cancer and then have them die of ovarian cancer,” said Schnabel, who was not involved in the study.

In terms of prophylactic contralateral mastectomy, Schnabel noted that BRCA-mutation carriers have a “very high” risk for a second primary breast cancer. In her experience, “that’s what drives patients frequently at the time of diagnosis to have bilateral mastectomy because who wants to go through this more than once?” 

This is especially true for BRCA1 carriers who have a higher risk for triple-negative breast cancer, which is associated with a worse prognosis and is harder to treat, Schnabel said. 

“For these patients, having surgery prevents the patient from getting into a situation where their second primary tumor winds up being biologically more aggressive and then affects their survival,” Schnabel said.

The study was supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research and the European Society for Medical Oncology. Lambertini reported advisory roles for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini. Lathrop consults for TeraSera Pharmaceuticals. Schnabel had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with BRCA mutations and a history of early-onset breast cancer benefited from risk-reducing surgeries, according to new data presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

Having a risk-reducing mastectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with significantly improved overall survival and disease-free survival in BRCA-mutation carriers who had been diagnosed with a first breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years.

“This global study provides the first evidence that risk-reducing surgeries improve survival outcomes among young BRCA-mutation carriers with a prior history of early-onset breast cancer,” study investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, oncologist with the University of Genova–IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genoa, Italy, said in a statement from the SABCS, where he presented the findings. “Considering the unique traits and needs of this younger population, and their high risk for secondary malignancies, it is critical to understand how risk-reducing surgeries affect patient outcomes, so that the risks and benefits of these procedures can be carefully weighed.”

“We hope these findings may help to improve the counseling on cancer-risk management strategies for BRCA carriers with young-onset of breast cancer below the age of 40 years,” Lambertini added during a press briefing. 

Various risk-reducing strategies, including risk-reducing surgeries, are recommended for BRCA-mutation carriers without a prior history of cancer, but the impact of these surgeries among younger populations with a history of early-onset breast cancer has been less clear.

The new findings come from the BRCA BCY Collaboration, an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 5290 patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations who were diagnosed with stages I-III breast cancer at ≤ 40 years. The risk-reducing mastectomy analysis included 2910 patients (55%) who underwent the surgery less than 1 year from diagnosis and 2380 who opted not to have the surgery. 

Primary endpoint was overall survival, and disease-free survival and breast cancer-free interval were secondary endpoints. Overall survival models were adjusted for the development of distant recurrences or second primary malignancies.

During median follow-up of 5.1 years, patients who underwent risk-reducing mastectomy had a 35% lower risk of dying (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.65) as well as a significant improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.58) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.55). The improved outcomes were seen in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, Lambertini reported. 

The risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy analysis included 2782 patients who underwent this surgery a median of 3 years from diagnosis and 2508 who did not. 

During median follow up of 4.9 years, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a 42% lower risk for death (aHR, 0.58) as well as an improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.68) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.65).

For risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, there was an interaction based on breast cancer subtype and BRCA mutation.

“Specifically, the benefit of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was greater for patients with BRCA1 pathogenic variants and for those with triple-negative disease, as compared to those with BRCA2 pathogenic variants or luminal disease,” Lambertini reported.

Overall survival results were similar in patients who underwent one or both surgeries.

Briefing moderator Kate Lathrop, MD, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, noted that this study provides valuable information for counseling younger patients. Having datasets like this helps us give patients “potentially our best estimate of the amount of reduction of risk you could have by having the surgery now.”

In an interview, Freya Schnabel, MD, director of breast surgery at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York City, emphasized the importance of early, well-informed decision-making upfront at the time of diagnosis in this patient population.

The benefit of “risk-reducing oophorectomy cannot be overemphasized, even in the presence of a known breast cancer because, as my colleagues and I say — we don’t want to cure their breast cancer and then have them die of ovarian cancer,” said Schnabel, who was not involved in the study.

In terms of prophylactic contralateral mastectomy, Schnabel noted that BRCA-mutation carriers have a “very high” risk for a second primary breast cancer. In her experience, “that’s what drives patients frequently at the time of diagnosis to have bilateral mastectomy because who wants to go through this more than once?” 

This is especially true for BRCA1 carriers who have a higher risk for triple-negative breast cancer, which is associated with a worse prognosis and is harder to treat, Schnabel said. 

“For these patients, having surgery prevents the patient from getting into a situation where their second primary tumor winds up being biologically more aggressive and then affects their survival,” Schnabel said.

The study was supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research and the European Society for Medical Oncology. Lambertini reported advisory roles for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini. Lathrop consults for TeraSera Pharmaceuticals. Schnabel had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For patients with early-stage ERBB2 (formerly HER2)–positive breast cancer, injections of increasing doses of autologous conventional type 1 dendritic cells (cDC1) combined with ERBB2-targeted antibodies demonstrate safety and effectiveness in enhancing immune response. The higher dose (100 million cells) shows enhanced immune effector recruitment and significant tumor regression before chemotherapy initiation.

METHODOLOGY:

• ERBB2-positive breast cancer survival has improved with anti-ERBB2 antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab, but for a pathologic complete response, chemotherapy remains necessary, which comes with significant toxic effects.
• A phase 1, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 12 patients with early-stage ERBB2-positive breast cancer in Tampa, Florida, from October 2021 to October 2022.
• Participants received intratumoral (IT) cDC1 injections weekly for 6 weeks at two dose levels (50 million cells for dose level 1 and 100 million cells for dose level 2), with six patients in each group.
• Starting from day 1 of the cDC1 injections, treatment included trastuzumab (8-mg/kg loading dose, then 6 mg/kg) and pertuzumab (840-mg loading dose, then 420 mg) administered intravenously every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) weekly for 12 weeks and surgery with lumpectomy or mastectomy.
• Primary outcomes measured safety and immune response of increasing doses of cDC1 combined with anti-ERBB2 antibodies before neoadjuvant chemotherapy; secondary outcomes assessed antitumor efficacy through breast MRI and residual cancer burden at surgery.

TAKEAWAY:

• IT delivery of ERBB2 cDC1 was safe and not associated with any dose-limiting toxic effects. The most frequent adverse events attributed to cDC1 were grade 1-2 chills (50%), fatigue (41.7%), headache (33%), and injection-site reactions (33%).
• Dose level 2 showed enhanced recruitment of adaptive CD3, CD4, and CD8 T cells and B cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME), along with increased innate gamma delta T cells and natural killer T cells.
• Breast MRI revealed nine objective responses, including six partial responses and three complete responses, with three cases of stable disease.
• Following surgery, 7 of 12 patients (58%) achieved a pathologic complete response, including all 3 hormone receptor–negative patients and 4 of the 9 hormone receptor–positive patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, the clinical data shown here demonstrate the effects of combining ERBB2 antibodies with IT [intratumoral] delivery of targeted cDC1 to enhance immune cell infiltration within the TME [tumor microenvironment] and subsequently induce tumor regression before chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who noted they will be testing the higher dose for an ongoing phase 2 trial with an additional 41 patients.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hyo S. Han, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida. It was published online on December 5, 2024, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Because only two dose levels of cDC1 were tested, it remains unclear whether higher doses or different administration schedules could further enhance immune response. Additionally, the nonrandomized design prevents definitive conclusions about whether the clinical benefits were solely from the anti-ERBB2 antibodies. The small sample size also makes it difficult to determine if the pathologic complete responses were primarily due to the 12 weeks of trastuzumab/pertuzumab/paclitaxel treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Moffitt Breast Cancer Research Fund, Shula Fund, and Pennies in Action. Several authors reported research support and personal and consulting fees from US funding agencies and multiple pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work, as well as related intellectual property and patents.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For patients with early-stage ERBB2 (formerly HER2)–positive breast cancer, injections of increasing doses of autologous conventional type 1 dendritic cells (cDC1) combined with ERBB2-targeted antibodies demonstrate safety and effectiveness in enhancing immune response. The higher dose (100 million cells) shows enhanced immune effector recruitment and significant tumor regression before chemotherapy initiation.

METHODOLOGY:

• ERBB2-positive breast cancer survival has improved with anti-ERBB2 antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab, but for a pathologic complete response, chemotherapy remains necessary, which comes with significant toxic effects.
• A phase 1, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 12 patients with early-stage ERBB2-positive breast cancer in Tampa, Florida, from October 2021 to October 2022.
• Participants received intratumoral (IT) cDC1 injections weekly for 6 weeks at two dose levels (50 million cells for dose level 1 and 100 million cells for dose level 2), with six patients in each group.
• Starting from day 1 of the cDC1 injections, treatment included trastuzumab (8-mg/kg loading dose, then 6 mg/kg) and pertuzumab (840-mg loading dose, then 420 mg) administered intravenously every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) weekly for 12 weeks and surgery with lumpectomy or mastectomy.
• Primary outcomes measured safety and immune response of increasing doses of cDC1 combined with anti-ERBB2 antibodies before neoadjuvant chemotherapy; secondary outcomes assessed antitumor efficacy through breast MRI and residual cancer burden at surgery.

TAKEAWAY:

• IT delivery of ERBB2 cDC1 was safe and not associated with any dose-limiting toxic effects. The most frequent adverse events attributed to cDC1 were grade 1-2 chills (50%), fatigue (41.7%), headache (33%), and injection-site reactions (33%).
• Dose level 2 showed enhanced recruitment of adaptive CD3, CD4, and CD8 T cells and B cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME), along with increased innate gamma delta T cells and natural killer T cells.
• Breast MRI revealed nine objective responses, including six partial responses and three complete responses, with three cases of stable disease.
• Following surgery, 7 of 12 patients (58%) achieved a pathologic complete response, including all 3 hormone receptor–negative patients and 4 of the 9 hormone receptor–positive patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, the clinical data shown here demonstrate the effects of combining ERBB2 antibodies with IT [intratumoral] delivery of targeted cDC1 to enhance immune cell infiltration within the TME [tumor microenvironment] and subsequently induce tumor regression before chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who noted they will be testing the higher dose for an ongoing phase 2 trial with an additional 41 patients.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hyo S. Han, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida. It was published online on December 5, 2024, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Because only two dose levels of cDC1 were tested, it remains unclear whether higher doses or different administration schedules could further enhance immune response. Additionally, the nonrandomized design prevents definitive conclusions about whether the clinical benefits were solely from the anti-ERBB2 antibodies. The small sample size also makes it difficult to determine if the pathologic complete responses were primarily due to the 12 weeks of trastuzumab/pertuzumab/paclitaxel treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Moffitt Breast Cancer Research Fund, Shula Fund, and Pennies in Action. Several authors reported research support and personal and consulting fees from US funding agencies and multiple pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work, as well as related intellectual property and patents.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For patients with early-stage ERBB2 (formerly HER2)–positive breast cancer, injections of increasing doses of autologous conventional type 1 dendritic cells (cDC1) combined with ERBB2-targeted antibodies demonstrate safety and effectiveness in enhancing immune response. The higher dose (100 million cells) shows enhanced immune effector recruitment and significant tumor regression before chemotherapy initiation.

METHODOLOGY:

• ERBB2-positive breast cancer survival has improved with anti-ERBB2 antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab, but for a pathologic complete response, chemotherapy remains necessary, which comes with significant toxic effects.
• A phase 1, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 12 patients with early-stage ERBB2-positive breast cancer in Tampa, Florida, from October 2021 to October 2022.
• Participants received intratumoral (IT) cDC1 injections weekly for 6 weeks at two dose levels (50 million cells for dose level 1 and 100 million cells for dose level 2), with six patients in each group.
• Starting from day 1 of the cDC1 injections, treatment included trastuzumab (8-mg/kg loading dose, then 6 mg/kg) and pertuzumab (840-mg loading dose, then 420 mg) administered intravenously every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) weekly for 12 weeks and surgery with lumpectomy or mastectomy.
• Primary outcomes measured safety and immune response of increasing doses of cDC1 combined with anti-ERBB2 antibodies before neoadjuvant chemotherapy; secondary outcomes assessed antitumor efficacy through breast MRI and residual cancer burden at surgery.

TAKEAWAY:

• IT delivery of ERBB2 cDC1 was safe and not associated with any dose-limiting toxic effects. The most frequent adverse events attributed to cDC1 were grade 1-2 chills (50%), fatigue (41.7%), headache (33%), and injection-site reactions (33%).
• Dose level 2 showed enhanced recruitment of adaptive CD3, CD4, and CD8 T cells and B cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME), along with increased innate gamma delta T cells and natural killer T cells.
• Breast MRI revealed nine objective responses, including six partial responses and three complete responses, with three cases of stable disease.
• Following surgery, 7 of 12 patients (58%) achieved a pathologic complete response, including all 3 hormone receptor–negative patients and 4 of the 9 hormone receptor–positive patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, the clinical data shown here demonstrate the effects of combining ERBB2 antibodies with IT [intratumoral] delivery of targeted cDC1 to enhance immune cell infiltration within the TME [tumor microenvironment] and subsequently induce tumor regression before chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who noted they will be testing the higher dose for an ongoing phase 2 trial with an additional 41 patients.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hyo S. Han, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida. It was published online on December 5, 2024, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Because only two dose levels of cDC1 were tested, it remains unclear whether higher doses or different administration schedules could further enhance immune response. Additionally, the nonrandomized design prevents definitive conclusions about whether the clinical benefits were solely from the anti-ERBB2 antibodies. The small sample size also makes it difficult to determine if the pathologic complete responses were primarily due to the 12 weeks of trastuzumab/pertuzumab/paclitaxel treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Moffitt Breast Cancer Research Fund, Shula Fund, and Pennies in Action. Several authors reported research support and personal and consulting fees from US funding agencies and multiple pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work, as well as related intellectual property and patents.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Canadian women aged 40-49 years at no or moderate risk for breast cancer who participated in organized mammography screening programs had a significantly greater breast cancer 10-year net survival than that of similar women who did not participate in such programs, according to data presented here at the Family Medicine Forum 2024. 

The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.

 

Overdiagnosis Challenged

Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization. 

To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them. 

“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.

Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths). 

Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%). 

The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).

Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.

Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”

 

Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit

The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.

Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.

The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.

Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.

It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.

Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years. 

The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine. 

Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Canadian women aged 40-49 years at no or moderate risk for breast cancer who participated in organized mammography screening programs had a significantly greater breast cancer 10-year net survival than that of similar women who did not participate in such programs, according to data presented here at the Family Medicine Forum 2024. 

The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.

 

Overdiagnosis Challenged

Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization. 

To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them. 

“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.

Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths). 

Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%). 

The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).

Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.

Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”

 

Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit

The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.

Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.

The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.

Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.

It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.

Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years. 

The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine. 

Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Canadian women aged 40-49 years at no or moderate risk for breast cancer who participated in organized mammography screening programs had a significantly greater breast cancer 10-year net survival than that of similar women who did not participate in such programs, according to data presented here at the Family Medicine Forum 2024. 

The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.

 

Overdiagnosis Challenged

Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization. 

To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them. 

“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.

Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths). 

Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%). 

The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).

Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.

Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”

 

Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit

The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.

Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.

The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.

Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.

It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.

Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years. 

The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine. 

Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

At 1 year, 82% of patients with breast cancer who received a 1-week ultrahypofractionated breast radiotherapy regimen reported no or mild toxicities. Most patients also reported that the reduced treatment time was a major benefit of the 1-week radiotherapy schedule.

METHODOLOGY:

• In March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, international and national guidelines recommended adopting a 1-week ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy schedule for patients with node-negative breast cancer. Subsequently, a phase 3 trial demonstrated that a 1-week regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions led to similar breast cancer outcomes compared with a standard moderately hypofractionated regimen.
• In this study, researchers wanted to assess real world toxicities following ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy and enrolled 135 consecutive patients who received 1-week ultrahypofractionated adjuvant radiation of 26 Gy in five fractions from March to August 2020 at three centers in Ireland, with 33 patients (25%) receiving a sequential boost.
• Researchers recorded patient-reported outcomes on breast pain, swelling, firmness, and hypersensitivity at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Virtual consultations without video occurred at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and video consultations were offered at 1 year for a physician-led breast evaluation.
• Researchers assessed patient perspectives on this new schedule and telehealth workflows using questionnaires.
• Overall, 90% of patients completed the 1-year assessment plus another assessment. The primary endpoint was the worst toxicity reported at each time point.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 76% of patients reported no or mild toxicities at 3 and 6 months, and 82% reported no or mild toxicities 12 months.
• At 1 year, 20 patients (17%) reported moderate toxicity, most commonly breast pain, and only two patients (2%) reported marked toxicities, including breast firmness and skin changes.
• Researchers found no difference in toxicities between patients who received only 26 Gy in five fractions and those who received an additional sequential boost.
• Most patients reported reduced treatment time (78.6%) and infection control (59%) as major benefits of the 1-week radiotherapy regimen. Patients also reported high satisfaction with the use of telehealth, with 97.3% feeling well-informed about their diagnosis, 88% feeling well-informed about treatment side effects, and 94% feeling supported by the medical team. However, only 27% agreed to video consultations for breast inspections at 1 year.

IN PRACTICE:

“Ultrahypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy leads to acceptable late toxicity rates at 1 year even when followed by a hypofractionated tumour bed boost,” the authors wrote. “Patient satisfaction with ultrahypofractionated treatment and virtual consultations without video was high.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jill Nicholson, MBBS, MRCP, FFFRRCSI, St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, St. Luke’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The short follow-up period might not capture all late toxicities. Variability in patient-reported outcomes could affect consistency. The range in boost received (four to eight fractions) could have influenced patients’ experiences.

DISCLOSURES:

Nicholson received funding from the St. Luke’s Institute of Cancer Research, Dublin, Ireland. No other relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

At 1 year, 82% of patients with breast cancer who received a 1-week ultrahypofractionated breast radiotherapy regimen reported no or mild toxicities. Most patients also reported that the reduced treatment time was a major benefit of the 1-week radiotherapy schedule.

METHODOLOGY:

• In March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, international and national guidelines recommended adopting a 1-week ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy schedule for patients with node-negative breast cancer. Subsequently, a phase 3 trial demonstrated that a 1-week regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions led to similar breast cancer outcomes compared with a standard moderately hypofractionated regimen.
• In this study, researchers wanted to assess real world toxicities following ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy and enrolled 135 consecutive patients who received 1-week ultrahypofractionated adjuvant radiation of 26 Gy in five fractions from March to August 2020 at three centers in Ireland, with 33 patients (25%) receiving a sequential boost.
• Researchers recorded patient-reported outcomes on breast pain, swelling, firmness, and hypersensitivity at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Virtual consultations without video occurred at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and video consultations were offered at 1 year for a physician-led breast evaluation.
• Researchers assessed patient perspectives on this new schedule and telehealth workflows using questionnaires.
• Overall, 90% of patients completed the 1-year assessment plus another assessment. The primary endpoint was the worst toxicity reported at each time point.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 76% of patients reported no or mild toxicities at 3 and 6 months, and 82% reported no or mild toxicities 12 months.
• At 1 year, 20 patients (17%) reported moderate toxicity, most commonly breast pain, and only two patients (2%) reported marked toxicities, including breast firmness and skin changes.
• Researchers found no difference in toxicities between patients who received only 26 Gy in five fractions and those who received an additional sequential boost.
• Most patients reported reduced treatment time (78.6%) and infection control (59%) as major benefits of the 1-week radiotherapy regimen. Patients also reported high satisfaction with the use of telehealth, with 97.3% feeling well-informed about their diagnosis, 88% feeling well-informed about treatment side effects, and 94% feeling supported by the medical team. However, only 27% agreed to video consultations for breast inspections at 1 year.

IN PRACTICE:

“Ultrahypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy leads to acceptable late toxicity rates at 1 year even when followed by a hypofractionated tumour bed boost,” the authors wrote. “Patient satisfaction with ultrahypofractionated treatment and virtual consultations without video was high.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jill Nicholson, MBBS, MRCP, FFFRRCSI, St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, St. Luke’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The short follow-up period might not capture all late toxicities. Variability in patient-reported outcomes could affect consistency. The range in boost received (four to eight fractions) could have influenced patients’ experiences.

DISCLOSURES:

Nicholson received funding from the St. Luke’s Institute of Cancer Research, Dublin, Ireland. No other relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

At 1 year, 82% of patients with breast cancer who received a 1-week ultrahypofractionated breast radiotherapy regimen reported no or mild toxicities. Most patients also reported that the reduced treatment time was a major benefit of the 1-week radiotherapy schedule.

METHODOLOGY:

• In March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, international and national guidelines recommended adopting a 1-week ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy schedule for patients with node-negative breast cancer. Subsequently, a phase 3 trial demonstrated that a 1-week regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions led to similar breast cancer outcomes compared with a standard moderately hypofractionated regimen.
• In this study, researchers wanted to assess real world toxicities following ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy and enrolled 135 consecutive patients who received 1-week ultrahypofractionated adjuvant radiation of 26 Gy in five fractions from March to August 2020 at three centers in Ireland, with 33 patients (25%) receiving a sequential boost.
• Researchers recorded patient-reported outcomes on breast pain, swelling, firmness, and hypersensitivity at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Virtual consultations without video occurred at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and video consultations were offered at 1 year for a physician-led breast evaluation.
• Researchers assessed patient perspectives on this new schedule and telehealth workflows using questionnaires.
• Overall, 90% of patients completed the 1-year assessment plus another assessment. The primary endpoint was the worst toxicity reported at each time point.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 76% of patients reported no or mild toxicities at 3 and 6 months, and 82% reported no or mild toxicities 12 months.
• At 1 year, 20 patients (17%) reported moderate toxicity, most commonly breast pain, and only two patients (2%) reported marked toxicities, including breast firmness and skin changes.
• Researchers found no difference in toxicities between patients who received only 26 Gy in five fractions and those who received an additional sequential boost.
• Most patients reported reduced treatment time (78.6%) and infection control (59%) as major benefits of the 1-week radiotherapy regimen. Patients also reported high satisfaction with the use of telehealth, with 97.3% feeling well-informed about their diagnosis, 88% feeling well-informed about treatment side effects, and 94% feeling supported by the medical team. However, only 27% agreed to video consultations for breast inspections at 1 year.

IN PRACTICE:

“Ultrahypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy leads to acceptable late toxicity rates at 1 year even when followed by a hypofractionated tumour bed boost,” the authors wrote. “Patient satisfaction with ultrahypofractionated treatment and virtual consultations without video was high.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jill Nicholson, MBBS, MRCP, FFFRRCSI, St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, St. Luke’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The short follow-up period might not capture all late toxicities. Variability in patient-reported outcomes could affect consistency. The range in boost received (four to eight fractions) could have influenced patients’ experiences.

DISCLOSURES:

Nicholson received funding from the St. Luke’s Institute of Cancer Research, Dublin, Ireland. No other relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) biomarker, a 16-gene molecular signature, can help predict locoregional recurrence in patients with ER-positive early breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery as well as which patients will benefit most from adjuvant radiotherapy. Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
• The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
• The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
• The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
• Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
• Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) biomarker, a 16-gene molecular signature, can help predict locoregional recurrence in patients with ER-positive early breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery as well as which patients will benefit most from adjuvant radiotherapy. Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
• The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
• The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
• The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
• Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
• Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) biomarker, a 16-gene molecular signature, can help predict locoregional recurrence in patients with ER-positive early breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery as well as which patients will benefit most from adjuvant radiotherapy. Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
• The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
• The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
• The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
• Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
• Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.