Usefulness of chemotherapy beyond the second line for metastatic breast cancer: a therapeutic challenge

Outcome beyond third-line chemotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the French ESME program

Purpose

Among metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients, those with a triple-negative breast cancer phenotype (mTNBC) have the worst prognosis, but the benefit of chemotherapy beyond second line on outcome remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to identify predictive factors of outcome after third- or fourth-line chemotherapy.

Methods

The ESME-MBC database is a French prospective real-life cohort with homogeneous data collection, including patients who initiated first-line treatment for MBC (2008–2016) in 18 cancer centers. After selection of mTNBC cases, we searched for independent predictive factors (Cox proportional-hazards regression models) for overall survival (OS) on third- and fourth-line chemotherapy (OS3, OS4). We built prognostic nomograms based on the main prognostic factors identified.

Results

Of the 22,266 MBC cases in the ESME cohort, 2903 were mTNBC, 1074 (37%) and 598 (20%) of which had received at least 3 or 4 lines of chemotherapy. PFS after first- and second-line chemotherapy (PFS1, PFS2) and number of metastatic sites ≥3 at baseline were identified by multivariate analysis as prognostic factors for both OS3 (HR = 0.76 95%CI[0.66–0.88], HR = 0.55 95%CI[0.46–0.65], HR = 1.36 95%CI[1.14–1.62], respectively), and OS4 (HR = 0.76 95%CI[0.63–0.91], HR = 0.56 95%CI[0.45–0.7], HR = 1.37 95%CI[1.07–1.74]), respectively. In addition, metastasis-free interval was identified as a prognostic factor for OS3 (p = 0.01), while PFS3 influenced OS4 (HR = 0.75 95%CI[0.57–0.98]). Nomograms predicting OS3 and OS4 achieved a C-index of 0.62 and 0.61, respectively.

Conclusion

The duration of each previous PFS is a major prognostic factor for OS in mTNBC patients receiving third- or fourth-line chemotherapy. The clinical utility of nomograms including this information was not demonstrated.

•

After 3rd- or 4th-line therapy, PFS remained linear in the majority of women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

•

The duration of each previous PFS had an impact on the OS associated with subsequent lines.

•

PFS2 was more strongly predictive of outcome than PFS1 for third-line therapy.

•

PFS2 and PFS3 had an impact on outcome irrespective of PFS1 for fourth-line therapy.

•

The clinical utility of nomograms including duration of each previous PFS to predict OS was not sufficient.

Secondary analyses of the randomized phase III Stop&Go study: efficacy of second-line intermittent versus continuous chemotherapy in HER2-negative advanced breast cancer

Background: Previously, we showed that reintroduction of the same (first-line) chemotherapy at progression could only partially make up for the loss in efficacy as compared to continuously delivered first-line chemotherapy. Here, we report the probability of starting second-line study chemotherapy in the Stop&Go trial, and the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients who received both the first- and second-line treatment in an intermittent versus continuous schedule.Methods: First-line chemotherapy comprised paclitaxel plus bevacizumab, second-line capecitabine or non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, given per treatment line as two times four cycles (intermittent) or as eight consecutive cycles (continuous).Results: Of the 420 patients who started first-line treatment within the Stop&Go trial (210:210), a total of 270 patients continued on second-line study treatment (64% of all), which consisted of capecitabine in 201 patients and of non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in 69 patients, evenly distributed between the treatment arms. Median PFS was 3.7 versus 5.0 months (HR 1.07; 95% CI: 0.82-1.38) and median OS 10.9 versus 12.4 months (HR 1.27; 95% CI: 0.98-1.66) for intermittent versus continuous second-line chemotherapy. Second-line PFS was positively influenced by prior hormonal therapy for metastatic disease and longer first-line PFS duration, while triple-negative tumor status had a negative influence. Patients with a shorter time to progression (TTP) in first-line (≤10 months) had a higher probability of starting second-line treatment if they received intermittent compared to continuous chemotherapy (OR 1.97; 95% CI: 1.02-3.80).Conclusion: We recommend continuous scheduling of both the first- and second-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

The role of chemotherapy in treatment of advanced breast cancer: an overview for clinical practice

This review aims to evaluate the role of chemotherapy-containing regimens in the treatment of advanced breast cancer (ABC), with the purpose to optimize selection, sequencing and duration of treatment with the currently available agents for clinical practice. Data from observational as well as randomized phase II and III studies were included. Chemotherapy yielded a median overall survival (OS) of 2 years in registration studies, with comparable efficacy of different agents. Combining chemotherapy agents did not yield OS improvement and caused greater toxicity compared with single-agent chemotherapy. Continuing chemotherapy till progression or unacceptable toxicity generated greater efficacy without detrimental impact on quality of life compared with a limited amount of cycles. In real-world studies, benefits after third-line chemotherapy were modest compared with first- and second-line. Furthermore, effects of previous chemotherapy predicted effects of next-line therapy in real-world. Physicians increasingly prescribed capecitabine or taxanes as first- or second-line chemotherapy over time.

Current treatment of HER 2+ metastatic breast cancer

Historically, HER2-positive breast cancer had a poor prognosis. The development of molecul ar ther apies that target the HER2 receptor has TR ansformed outcomes. Here, the evidence on Anti-HER2 therapies is summarised.

Effects of adjuvant tamoxifen over three decades on breast cancer-free and distant recurrence-free interval among premenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer randomised in the Swedish SBII:2pre trial

AIMS

The primary aim was to compare 2 years of adjuvant tamoxifen versus no systemic treatment in premenopausal patients with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumours, regarding breast cancer-free interval (BCFi) and distant recurrence-free interval (D-RFi), with 30 years of follow-up and for specified intervals. Moreover, we aimed to investigate the effects of adjuvant tamoxifen on the incidence of secondary malignancies and survival after distant recurrence.

METHODS

Premenopausal patients with primary breast cancer were randomised to 2 years of tamoxifen (n = 277) or no systemic treatment (n = 287), irrespective of ER status. Information regarding events was collected by a review of medical records and from national registers.

RESULTS

The median follow-up for all patients without events was 28 years, and only four of the patients alive had a follow-up of <20 years. With 30 years of follow-up, tamoxifen prolonged BCFi in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.94, p = 0.011) compared with no treatment. In patients with ER-positive tumours (n = 362), tamoxifen prolonged BCFi (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.82, p = 0.001) and D-RFi (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.99, p = 0.043). The positive effect on BCFi was significant also for the interval >15-30 years (HR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-0.98, p = 0.042). For patients with ER-positive tumours who were diagnosed with distant recurrence (n = 165), survival after distant recurrence was shorter among tamoxifen-treated patients (median, 29 months versus 43 months). The incidence of contralateral breast cancer was 42% lower in the tamoxifen group (HR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.96, p = 0.035), whereas no differences were observed regarding other secondary malignancies.

CONCLUSIONS

With three decades of follow-up, 2 years of adjuvant tamoxifen reduced the incidence of breast cancer-related events and distant recurrence, and the carryover effect seems to extend beyond 15 years. Moreover, adjuvant tamoxifen seems to be associated with shorter survival after diagnosis of distant recurrence.

Foreword

Delivering multifaceted, quality care to women living with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) demands professional competence and an advanced level of practice. The breast cancer nursing community is evolving to meet this need as more nurses are appointed specifically for the advanced disease setting, while nurses who previously worked only in early stage disease are now delivering care across the disease trajectory, fulfilling a 'diagnosis to death' nursing model. The MBC nursing community, linked by UK charity Breast Cancer Care and the Roche Nursing Matters programme, offers forums for learning, and provides ongoing support to this group of nurses. This supplement has been commissioned by Roche Products Ltd to continue supporting nurses who treat patients with MBC by sharing learning and best practice, with a view to encouraging innovation in service delivery.

Improving patient care: expert nursing and service development

Early access to a clinical nurse specialist will ensure that patients receive the interventions and support they need. Optimum outcomes will be achieved if specialists work in collaboration with a wider team.

Introduction

Metastatic breast cancer (MBC), also known as secondary breast cancer (SBC), occurs when cells from the primary breast tumour metastasise from the breast to other parts of the body via the blood or lymphatic systems. The disease may range from limited bone metastases to widespread and life-threatening metastases in visceral organs such as the liver, lung and brain (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), 2009; 2014). MBC is incurable, and the primary goal of treatment is to extend life and palliate symptoms, while preserving quality of life (NICE, 2009; 2014).

Defining what matters most to patients

Advanced communication skills are needed to identify patients' needs and provide the psychological and social support they require. Meanwhile, early access to palliative care will improve symptom control.

Targeted T-cell Therapy in Stage IV Breast Cancer: A Phase I Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

This study reports a phase I immunotherapy trial in 23 women with metastatic breast cancer consisting of eight infusions of anti-CD3 × anti-HER2 bispecific antibody (HER2Bi) armed anti-CD3-activated T cells (ATC) in combination with low-dose IL-2 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor to determine safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), technical feasibility, T-cell trafficking, immune responses, time to progression, and overall survival (OS).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

ATC were expanded from leukapheresis product using IL2 and anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody and armed with HER2Bi. In 3+3 dose escalation design, groups of 3 patients received 5, 10, 20, or 40 × 10(9) armed ATC (aATC) per infusion.

RESULTS

There were no dose-limiting toxicities and the MTD was not defined. It was technically feasible to grow 160 × 10(9) ATC from a single leukapheresis. aATC persisted in the blood for weeks and trafficked to tumors. Infusions of aATC induced anti-breast cancer responses and increases in immunokines. At 14.5 weeks after enrollment, 13 of 22 (59.1%) evaluable patients had stable disease and 9 of 22 (40.9%) had progressive disease. The median OS was 36.2 months for all patients, 57.4 months for HER2 3+ patients, and 27.4 months for HER2 0-2+ patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeting HER2(+) and HER2(-) tumors with aATC infusions induced antitumor responses, increases in Th1 cytokines, and IL12 serum levels that suggest that aATC infusions vaccinated patients against their own tumors. These results provide a strong rationale for conducting phase II trials.

Which patients with metastatic breast cancer benefit from subsequent lines of treatment? An update for clinicians

The outcome of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has clearly improved over the past decades and the proportion of women living with their disease for several years is increasing. However, the usefulness of multiple lines of treatment is still debated and under evaluation. The available data from both randomized trials and large retrospective series are reviewed and discussed in order to analyze management practices, with emphasis on potential prognostic and predictive factors for clinical outcome. At present, evidence-based medicine provides some support for the use of second-line and to a lesser degree and in selected cases, third-line chemotherapy in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative MBC. Beyond third-line treatment, messages from recently reported retrospective studies also suggest a clear potential gain for women receiving further therapies after disease progression, since each line can contribute to a longer survival. In HER2-positive disease, the data from observational and retrospective studies support a clinical benefit from the use of trastuzumab beyond disease progression and emerging evidences from randomized controlled trials are leading to the introduction of newer HER2-targeted therapies in multiple lines. The question 'How many lines of treatment should we give patients?' clearly needs further research through prospective, high-quality clinical trials, aiming for a better definition of factors with prognostic and predictive role. In the meantime, the 'optimal' treatment strategy should probably be to use as many therapeutic options as possible, either in sequence or combination, to keep the best efficacy/toxicity balance, considering MBC as a chronic disease.

Adjuvant therapy reduces the benefit of palliative treatment in disseminated breast cancer - own findings and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant treatment concepts have improved the 10-year cure rate of breast and colon cancer, but new treatments for metastatic disease have yielded only incremental benefit. If treatments for disseminated cancer were actually prolonging life rather than only increasing remission rates, this effect should have been documented over the last 30+ years. However, published data concerning advances in treatment for disseminated cancer have been contradictory.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

To add data-based information, we analyzed 2 sources: a regional population-based cancer registry (Hamburgisches Krebsregister, HKR), and a research cancer registry (Projektgruppe Internistische Onkologie, PIO). We compared the survival of several thousand patients with metastatic disease who received treatment only after dissemination with that of patients who received initial adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

After adjuvant treatment, survival in patients with disseminated breast cancer is up to a third shorter than that of patients without adjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In accordance with published evidence, we conclude that ineffective adjuvant treatment shortens survival after documentation of metastatic disease. This is probably due to the elimination of chemo-sensitive tumor cells or to the induction of resistance in remaining micrometatases. This negative effect on survival after dissemination has been shown clearly for breast cancer and is also probable for cancer of the colon and other sites.