Vaz-Luís, Inês

Importance Molecular analyses of biospecimens collected from study participants are essential for identifying biomarkers that can tailor treatments to specific subsets of patients who are most likely to benefit. Sharing of data and biospecimens from clinical trials enables personalized, patient-centric use of cancer therapies and accelerates the development of new treatments. Objective To describe obstacles to sharing data and biospecimens and to propose strategies to enhance access and collaboration. Evidence Review This is a Special Communication authored by 53 academic investigators and patient representatives from the breast cancer community with extensive experience in conducting clinical and translational research. The article also evaluates the impact of biomarker research on specifying responsive subpopulations in the 29 registrational clinical trials that have led to approval of a new drug for treatment of breast cancer between 2017 and 2024. Findings Clinical trial participants are increasingly asked to provide tissue and/or body fluid biospecimens for biomarker research that is typically controlled by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company, but published biomarker studies are rare. Among 29 breast cancer registrational studies reported in the past 8 years, none resulted in biomarker research that restricted a drug’s approved indication. Herein, strategies to maximize the value of clinical data and biospecimens contributed by participants are proposed, thereby supporting the shared goals of the pharmaceutical industry and academia to improve patient care. These strategies include (1) establishing coleadership structures involving academia and patients in clinical trial design and conduct, (2) ensuring that informed consent forms state that data and biospecimens will be shared with academia for future research, (3) requiring the sharing of clinical data as a condition for regulatory approval, and (4) enabling access to biospecimens and translational research data for independent studies on biomarkers that may indicate drug efficacy and toxicity. Conclusions and Relevance Data and biospecimen sharing from registrational trials has been suboptimal. Improving clinical data, biospecimens, and biospecimens’ related data sharing requires concrete actions and a multidimensional stakeholder approach to accelerate the impact of clinical cancer research on the quality of patient care.

PURPOSE Many patients and physicians remain concerned about the potential detrimental effects of pregnancy after breast cancer (BC) in terms of reproductive outcomes and maternal safety. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at providing updated evidence on these topics. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies including patients with a pregnancy after BC (PROSPERO number CRD42020158324). Likelihood of pregnancy after BC, their reproductive outcomes, and maternal safety were assessed. Pooled relative risks, odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using random effects models. RESULTS Of 6,462 identified records, 39 were included involving 8,093,401 women from the general population and 112,840 patients with BC of whom 7,505 had a pregnancy after diagnosis. BC survivors were significantly less likely to have a subsequent pregnancy compared with the general population (relative risk, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.49). Risks of caesarean section (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.25), low birth weight (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.73), preterm birth (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.88), and small for gestational age (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.33) were significantly higher in BC survivors, particularly in those with previous chemotherapy exposure, compared with the general population. No significantly increased risk of congenital abnormalities or other reproductive complications were observed. Compared to patients with BC without subsequent pregnancy, those with a pregnancy had better disease-free survival (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.89) and overall survival (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.68). Similar results were observed after correcting for potential confounders and irrespective of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, pregnancy outcome, and timing of pregnancy. CONCLUSION These results provide reassuring evidence on the safety of conceiving in BC survivors. Patients' pregnancy desire should be considered a crucial component of their survivorship care plan.

Abstract Background: Pregnancy-related issues are a priority for young breast cancer (BC) patients. Increasing evidence has shown that pregnancy after prior BC diagnosis is feasible. Nevertheless, few BC survivors conceive following anticancer treatment completion and many physicians remain concerned about the potentially detrimental effects of pregnancy after BC in terms of fetal/obstetrical outcomes and maternal prognosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims at providing updated and solid evidence on these important issues. Methods: A systematic literature review up to January 31, 2020 with no language restriction was conducted to identify studies including patients with a pregnancy after prior BC diagnosis. Chances of pregnancy after BC, fetal and obstetrical outcomes, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Pooled relative risks (RRs), hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratio (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random effects models. The study is registered with the PROSPERO registration number CRD42020158324. Results: Overall, 39 studies were included. Out of the 8,265,713 young women included in these studies, 8,093,401 were from the general population, 57,739 had cancers other than BC, 114,573 had BC. Among the 114,573 BC patients, 7,505 had a pregnancy after BC diagnosis and 107,068 did not. Compared to women from the general population, BC patients had 60% reduced chances of having a pregnancy following anticancer treatment completion (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32-0.49). Among other cancer patients, only women with prior cervical cancer had lower pregnancy rates (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.31-0.35) than BC patients. Compared to the general population, BC survivors had significantly increased risks of low birth weight (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.31-1.73), small for gestational age (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01-1.33), preterm delivery (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.11-1.88) and caesarean section (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25). No significant increased risk of congenital abnormalities (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.89-2.98) or other pregnancy or delivery complications (spontaneous or induced abortion, gestosis, antepartum or postpartum hemorrhage) was observed. Prior chemotherapy exposure or short pregnancy interval (defined as <2 or <5 years after BC diagnosis) were not associated with additional increased risk of complications. Pregnancy after BC was not associated with a negative impact on patients’ outcomes. Compared to BC patients without subsequent pregnancy, those with pregnancy after BC had better OS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.67) and DFS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.94). Similar results were observed in the studies correcting for the potential “healthy mother effect” (OS: HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.42-0.65; DFS: HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.96). No detrimental prognostic effect of pregnancy after BC was observed in patients with hormone-receptor positive disease (DFS: HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.73-1.66), while better outcomes were observed for those with hormone-receptor negative disease (DFS: HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.95). The safety of pregnancy after BC was observed irrespective of BRCA status, nodal status, previous chemotherapy exposure, pregnancy interval and pregnancy outcomes. Conclusions: This large meta-analysis provides solid evidence on the safety of pregnancy after prior BC diagnosis. The increased risk of fetal and obstetrical complications (but not of congenital abnormalities) calls for ensuring a closer monitoring of these pregnancies. The significantly reduced chances of conceiving as compared to the general population and other cancer patients should raise further awareness on the need to improve the oncofertility counseling of young BC patients wishing to complete their family planning following anticancer treatment completion. Citation Format: Eva Blondeaux, Marta Perachino, Marco Bruzzone, Richard A. Anderson, Evandro De Azambuja, Philip D. Poorvu, Hee Jeong Kim, Cynthia Villarreal-Garza, Barbara Pistilli, Ines Vaz-Luis, Cristina Saura, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Maria Alice Franzoi, Chiara Sertoli, Marcello Ceppi, Hatem A. Azim, Jr., Frederic Amant, Isabelle Demeestere, Lucia Del Mastro, Ann H. Partridge, Olivia Pagani, Fedro A. Peccatori, Matteo Lambertini. Chances of pregnancy after breast cancer, reproductive and disease outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS3-09.

Abstract Background We investigated the clinical outcomes and behavior of HER2+ EBC according to centrally tested HR status in pts treated with modern chemotherapy (CT) and trastuzumab (T)-based regimens. Patients and methods ALTTO is an international phase 3 trial in HER2+ EBC pts randomized to 4 adjuvant anti-HER2 treatment arms: T alone, lapatinib (L) alone, their sequence (T->L) or their combination (T+L). Pts in the L alone arm were excluded from the present analysis. HER2 and HR status were centrally tested for all patients. HER2 status was defined based on the 2007 ASCO/CAP guidelines. HR-positive (HR+) was defined as ≥1% tumor cells with expression of estrogen (ER) and/or progesterone receptors.We investigated the prognosis of pts with HR+ or negative (HR-) HER2+ EBC, the risk of developing early (years 0-5) and late (years 6-8) recurrences, the factors impacting this risk, and the patterns of relapse according to HR status. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare hazard rates within the HR subgroups; a conditional landmark analysis was conducted to investigate late recurrences. For the hazard ratios for HR status, an interaction between log(time) and HR status was included as proportional hazard assumption was not satisfied. Results This analysis included 6,271 HER2+ pts of whom 3,601 (57%) had HR+ and 2,670(43%) HR- EBC. Median follow-up was 6.93 years (range 6.81-6.96). 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 86% (85-87) in HR+ and 83% (82-85) in HR- pts; 8-year DFS was 80% (78-81) in HR+ and 79% (77-81) in HR- pts. The mean annual hazards of recurrence in years 0-5 were 3% in HR+ and 4% in HR- pts, while in years 6-8 they were 3% in HR+ and 2% in HR- pts. The hazard ratios for HR status (ref=HR-) were 0.60 (0.51-0.72) overall, 0.74 (0.65-0.85) for years 0-5 and 1.61 (1.17-2.24) for years 6-8. In HR+ pts, risk factors for recurrence overall were age ≥65 (p=0.01), tumor size pT3-4 (p<0.001), nodal status pN1-3 (p<0.001), tumor grade 2 or 3 (p<0.001), anthracycline-only CT (p<0.001), no use of aromatase inhibitors (p<0.001), and ER<10% (p=0.01). Main risk factors for recurrence in both years 0-5 and years 6-8 were pN2-3 (p=0.04 for both) and high (≥5) HER2 FISH ratio (p=0.02 for both). In HR- pts, risk factors for recurrence overall were BMI (obesity or underweight; p=0.01), pT3-4 (p<0.001), pN1-3 (p<0.001) and anthracycline-only CT (p<0.001). No significant risk factors for recurrence in years 0-5 were identified. Main risk factor for recurrence in years 6-8 was BMI (obesity; p=0.002). HR+ pts had lower incidence of visceral disease (58.8% vs. 69.6%; p=0.005) and lung metastasis (18.5% vs. 27.8%; p=0.006); bone was the most common site of first recurrence (30%). Conclusions This large analysis of centrally tested HR+ and HR- HER2+ EBC provides strong evidence on the existence of two different diseases within the HER2+ population based on HR expression. These up-to-date estimates of pts outcomes after modern CT and T-based regimens may be used as “historical control” for the design of future de-escalation or escalation trials separately in HR+ and HR- HER2+ EBC pts. Citation Format: Lambertini M, Campbell C, Gelber RD, Viale G, McCullough A, Tonghua L, Hilbers F, Korde LA, Werner O, Chumsri S, Jackisch C, Wolff AC, Vaz-Luis I, Ferreira AR, Prat A, Moreno Aspitia A, Piccart M, Loi S, de Azambuja E. Dissecting the effect of hormone receptor (HR) status expression in patients (pts) with HER2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer (EBC): Exploratory analysis from the ALTTO (BIG 2-06) trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-08-14.

Abstract Background: Pre-clinical data and results from early phase clinical trials point to synergistic antitumor activity and potential efficacy of palbociclib when given in combination with anti-HER2 therapy (tx). The aim of PATINA is to determine the effect of adding palbociclib to anti-HER2 and ET maintenance after induction tx in the 1st line setting for HR+/HER2+ MBC. Trial Design: The PATINA trial (AFT-38/NCT02947685) is a pivotal, open-label, international, phase III study. Following 6-8 cycles of chemotherapy (taxane or vinorelbine) with anti-HER2 tx for MBC participants will be randomized 1:1 to standard anti-HER2 tx (trastuzumab +/- pertuzumab) in combination with ET with or without palbociclib until disease progression. ET options are either an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant. Premenopausal patients (pts) must receive ovarian suppression. The trial is open to men or women with histologically confirmed HR+/HER2+ MBC provided they are without evidence of disease progression by local assessment after induction tx. Total planned accrual is 496 pts. Primary objective is to demonstrate that the combination of palbociclib with anti-HER2 tx plus ET is superior to anti-HER2 tx plus ET alone in prolonging progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary objectives are measures of tumor control, overall survival, safety and Quality of Life. The main translational science objective is to compare PFS estimates according to PIK3CA mutation status. The study has a 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.667 in favor of the palbociclib arm. All pts approached to participate in PATINA will be asked to share remaining biospecimens and clinical data with the Mastering Breast Cancer Initiative. This initiative was created in order to understand the natural history of MBC and how it envolves over time with the aim to develop new treatments for this patient population. Recruitment has started in 07/2017 and is planned for approximately 22 months in 140 sites in Australia, Germany, Italy, France, New Zealand, Spain, and the US. 69 pts have been recruited so far. The study is sponsored by Alliance Foundation Trials (AFT) and financially supported by Pfizer Citation Format: Metzger O, Mandrekar S, Loibl S, Mundhenke C, Seiler S, Valagussa P, Lim E, Tripathy D, Winer EP, Huang C, Carey L, Francis P, Miller K, Goetz MP, Prat A, Loi S, Krop I, Gianni L, Delalogue S, Vaz-Luis I, Dockter T, Lanzillotti J, Ciruelos E, DeMichele AM. PATINA: A randomized, open label, phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of palbociclib + anti-HER2 therapy + endocrine therapy (ET) vs. anti-HER2 therapy + ET after induction treatment for hormone receptor positive (HR+)/HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT3-02-07.

BACKGROUNDPublished studies have suggested that most patients with early stage breast cancer are willing, for modest survival benefits, to receive 6 months of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5‐fluorouracil, an older regimen that is used infrequently today. We examined preferences regarding the survival benefit needed to justify 6 months of a contemporary chemotherapy regimen.METHODSThe Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Protocol 5103 was a phase 3 trial that randomized breast cancer patients to receive standard adjuvant doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel with either bevacizumab or placebo. Serial surveys to assess quality of life were administered to patients enrolled between January 1, 2010, and June 8, 2010. Survival benefit needed to justify 6 months of chemotherapy by patients was collected at the 18‐month assessment. A parallel survey was sent to physicians who had enrolled patients in the study.RESULTSOf 519 patients who had not withdrawn at a time point earlier than 18 months, 87.8% responded to this survey. A total of 175 physicians participated. We found considerable variation in patient preferences, particularly for modest survival benefits: for 2 months of benefit, 57% would consider 6 months of chemotherapy, whereas 96% of patients would consider 6 months of chemotherapy for 24 months. Race and education were associated with the choices. Physicians who responded were less likely to accept chemotherapy for modest benefit.CONCLUSIONSAmong patients who received contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy in a randomized controlled trial, we found substantial variation in preferences regarding benefits that justified undergoing chemotherapy. Differences between patients' and physicians' choices were also apparent. Eliciting preferences regarding risks and benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy is critical. Cancer 2017;123:2821–28. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Abstract Background: Data regarding patients (pts) and physicians' preferences for modern adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) are limited. Prior studies suggested that most pts with early stage breast cancer were willing to receive 6 months of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) for modest survival benefits (e.g. most women would have accepted 3-6 months extension of life). Methods: E5103 was a phase III trial which randomized node positive or high risk node negative breast cancer pts to receive adjuvant CT (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel) with either placebo or bevacizumab. Telephone based surveys were administered to all pts enrolled on E5103 between 01/Jan/10 and 08/Jun/10, as part of a Decision-Making/Quality of Life component. Results presented here are part of the 18 months post-enrollment follow-up. Pts were asked to rate the survival benefit needed to justify 6 months of CT. A complementary survey was sent to all physicians who registered at least one pt on E5103. Results: 465 out of 519 eligible pts (90%) responded to this survey at 18 months. Main reasons for non response were: inability to reach the patient (6%) or patient refusal (2%). Median pts age was 51 (25-76); 42% of pts had at least a college degree. The majority had at least Stage II cancer. 179 (16%) physicians participated, among whom median age was 50 (35-70). The median years in practice was 17 (3-38); 78% of physicians worked on large size practices, 72% saw at least 5 new breast cancer pts/month, and 77% enroll between 1-4 pts on trials/month. We found considerable variation in pts preferences particularly for modest survival benefits: a substantial minority of pts (24%) would consider 6 months of CT definitely worthwhile for 1 month survival benefit, 18% would possibly consider it and 56% would not. The percentage considering CT definitely worthwhile increased with greater benefit, but did not reach 100%, even with 24 months survival benefit. About half of pts considered 6 months of CT definitely worthwhile for 9 months benefit, 70% for 12 months and 84% for 24 months. Physicians were less likely to accept CT for a small chance of benefit (34% of pts vs. 5% of physicians would definitely consider CT worthwhile for 2 months of benefit). For longer benefit, pts and physicians choices were similar (84% of pts vs. 92% of physicians would definitely consider CT worthwhile for 24 months benefit). Table Yes, definitely worthwhileYes, maybeNo, not worthwhileNo answerConsider 6 months of CT to live:PtsPhysiciansPtsPhysiciansPtsPhysiciansPts/Physicians*1 month longer24%3%18%15%56%80%2%2 months longer34%5%23%32%41%60%2%6 months longer44%32%35%54%19%12%2%9 months longer53%51%34%42%11%5%2%12 months longer70%75%23%22%5%1%2%24 months longer84%92%12%5%2%1%2%n Pts= 465; n Physicians= 179; * equal results in both groups Conclusions: This subgroup of pts who had undergone modern adjuvant CT in a large multicenter randomized controlled trial and these physicians who registered pts on the same trial had different cutoffs for acceptable levels of benefits and risks when considering adjuvant chemotherapy. It is important to engage pts in determining whether CT is or is not a "reasonable" option for treatment. Citation Format: Vaz Luis I, O'Neill A, Sepucha K, Miller KD, Baker E, Dang CT, Northfelt DW, Winer EP, Sledge GW, Schneider BP, Partridge A. Survival benefit needed to undergo chemotherapy: Patients and physicians preferences. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-11-02.