Citations

PURPOSE This guideline updates recommendations of the ASCO guideline on chemotherapy and targeted therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) that is either endocrine-pretreated or hormone receptor (HR)–negative. METHODS An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review guided by a signals approach to identify new, potentially practice-changing data that might translate into revised guideline recommendations. RESULTS The Expert Panel reviewed abstracts from the literature review and retained 14 articles. RECOMMENDATIONS Patients with triple-negative, programmed cell death ligand-1–positive MBC may be offered the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy as first-line therapy. Patients with triple-negative, programmed cell death ligand-1–negative MBC should be offered single-agent chemotherapy rather than combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment, although combination regimens may be offered for life-threatening disease. Patients with triple-negative MBC who have received at least two prior therapies for MBC should be offered treatment with sacituzumab govitecan. Patients with triple-negative MBC with germline BRCA mutations previously treated with chemotherapy may be offered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rather than chemotherapy. Patients with HR-positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative MBC for whom chemotherapy is being considered should be offered single–agent chemotherapy rather than combination chemotherapy, although combination regimens may be offered for highly symptomatic or life-threatening disease. Patients with HR-positive MBC with disease progression on an endocrine agent may be offered treatment with either endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy or single-agent chemotherapy. Patients with HR-positive MBC with germline BRCA mutations no longer benefiting from endocrine therapy may be offered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rather than chemotherapy. No recommendation regarding when a patient's care should be transitioned to hospice or best supportive care alone is possible. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Abstract Purpose: This open-label, multicenter, phase IB/II study evaluated sapanisertib, a dual inhibitor of mTOR kinase complexes 1/2, plus exemestane or fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2-negative (HER2−) advanced/metastatic breast cancer. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had previously progressed on everolimus with exemestane/fulvestrant and received ≤3 (phase IB) or ≤1 (phase II) prior chemotherapy regimens. Patients received sapanisertib 3 to 5 mg every day (phase IB), or 4 mg every day (phase II) with exemestane 25 mg every day or fulvestrant 500 mg monthly in 28-day cycles. Phase II enrolled parallel cohorts based on prior response to everolimus. The primary objective of phase II was to evaluate antitumor activity by clinical benefit rate at 16 weeks (CBR-16). Results: Overall, 118 patients enrolled in phase IB (n = 24) and II (n = 94). Five patients in phase IB experienced dose-limiting toxicities, at sapanisertib doses of 5 mg every day (n = 4) and 4 mg every day (n = 1); sapanisertib 4 mg every day was the MTD in combination with exemestane or fulvestrant. In phase II, in everolimus-sensitive versus everolimus-resistant cohorts, CBR-16 was 45% versus 23%, and overall response rate was 8% versus 2%, respectively. The most common adverse events were nausea (52%), fatigue (47%), diarrhea (37%), and hyperglycemia (33%); rash occurred in 17% of patients. Molecular analysis suggested positive association between AKT1 mutation status and best treatment response (complete + partial response; P = 0.0262). Conclusions: Sapanisertib plus exemestane or fulvestrant was well tolerated and exhibited clinical benefit in postmenopausal women with pretreated everolimus-sensitive or everolimus-resistant breast cancer.

Abstract Background: TAK-228 is an investigational, oral and highly selective ATP-competitive inhibitor of TORC1/2. Targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway with the dual TORC1/2 inhibitor TAK-228 may restore sensitivity to endocrine therapies in patients (pts) with breast cancer who have progressed on the combination of an endocrine agent plus a TORC1 inhibitor. Here we report data from the phase 2 portion of a phase 1b/2 study of TAK-228 plus exemestane (E) or fulvestrant (F). Methods: Postmenopausal women with ER+ and HER2-, inoperable or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) following everolimus (EVE) plus E or F after progression, received oral TAK-228 (4 mg QD) plus E (25 mg QD) or F (500 mg monthly) for 28-day cycles until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity (NCT02049957). Pts were enrolled into parallel cohorts based on prior response to EVE plus E or F and were given the same prior therapy (E or F) at their established dose: EVE-sensitive, defined as disease progression after complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or ≥6 mos stable disease (SD); or EVE-resistant, defined as disease progression without a CR or PR, or after <6 mos SD. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate at 16 wks (CR, PR, or SD at 16 wks; CBR-16). Secondary endpoints included CBR at 24 wks (CBR-24), overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: From Oct 2015 to Dec 2017, 94 pts were enrolled. Median age was 58 y (range 32–83). At baseline, most pts (67%) had stage IV disease and others were stage IA–IIIC (24%), other (3%) or unknown (5%); 94% of EVE-sensitive (93% E vs 100% F) and 88% of EVE-resistant pts (91% E vs 75% F) had received ≥4 prior lines of therapy. Pts received a median of 3 cycles (1–15) of TAK-228. At data cutoff (24 Apr 2018), 98% of pts had discontinued treatment, mainly due to PD (76%) or adverse events (AEs; 14%). CBR-16 was 41% (n=21) in EVE-sensitive and 26% (n=11) in EVE-resistant pts (table). CBR-24 was 24% in EVE-sensitive (19% E vs 50% F) and 23% in EVE-resistant (23% E vs 25% F) pts. Eleven of 21 pts who achieved CBR-16 also achieved CBR-24 (6 SD, 5 PR) in the EVE-sensitive cohort and 8 of 11 pts in the EVE-resistant cohort (6 SD, 2 PR). The ORR was 12% in EVE-sensitive pts and 9% in EVE-resistant pts (table). Median PFS (95% CI) was 4.1 mos (2.2–5.5) and 3.4 mos (1.9–5.4), and median OS (95% CI) was 15.9 mos (14.1–19.5) and 14.0 mos (13.0–16.0) in the EVE-sensitive and -resistant cohorts, respectively. Drug-related any grade and grade ≥3 AEs were seen in 90% and 29% of pts, respectively. Most common drug-related any grade AEs were nausea (50%), fatigue (38%), hyperglycemia and diarrhea (each 29%); 22% of pts reported a serious AE. No deaths were reported. Treatment is ongoing in two pts. Conclusion: TAK-228 plus E or F showed modest clinical benefit in pts with previously treated, EVE-sensitive or -resistant MBC, with an acceptable safety profile. EVE-sensitive (N=51)EVE-resistant (N=43) TAK-228+TAK-228+Best response, n (%)E (n=43)F (n=8)E (n=35)F (n=8)ORR=CR+PR4 (9)2 (25)3 (9)1 (13)CR001 (3)0PR4 (9)2 (25)2 (6)1 (13)CBR-1617 (40)4 (50)9 (26)2 (25) Citation Format: Diamond JR, Potter D, Salkeni M, Silverman P, Haddad T, Forget F, Awada A, Canon J-L, Danso M, Lortholary A, Bourgeois H, Tan-Chiu E, Patel C, Neuwirth R, Leonard EJ, Lim B. Phase 2 safety and efficacy results of TAK-228 in combination with exemestane or fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer previously treated with everolimus [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 PD1-09.

Abstract Purpose: Patients with hormone receptor–negative breast cancer generally do not benefit from endocrine-targeted therapies. However, a subset with androgen receptor (AR) expression is predicted to respond to antiandrogen therapies. This phase II study explored bicalutamide in AR-positive, estrogen receptor (ER), and progesterone receptor (PgR)-negative metastatic breast cancer. Experimental Design: Tumors from patients with ER/PgR-negative advanced breast cancer were tested centrally for AR [immunohistochemistry (IHC) > 10% nuclear staining considered positive]. If either the primary or a metastatic site was positive, patients were eligible to receive the AR antagonist bicalutamide at a dose of 150 mg daily. Clinical benefit rate (CBR), the primary endpoint, was defined as the total number of patients who show a complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) > 6 months; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity. Correlative studies included measurement of circulating endocrine markers and IHC surrogates for basal-like breast cancer. Results: Of 424 patients with ER/PgR-negative breast cancer, 12% tested AR-positive. The 6-month CBR was 19% [95% confidence interval (CI), 7%–39%] for bicalutamide. The median PFS was 12 weeks (95% CI, 11–22 weeks). Bicalutamide was well-tolerated with no grade 4/5 treatment-related adverse events observed. Conclusion: AR was expressed in 12% of patients with ER/PgR-negative breast cancer screened for this trial. The CBR of 19% observed with bicalutamide shows proof of principle for the efficacy of minimally toxic androgen blockade in a select group of patients with ER/PgR-negative, AR-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 19(19); 5505–12. ©2013 AACR.

Giant-cell tumor of the bone (GCTB) is a rare neoplasm that affects young adults. The tumor is generally benign but sometimes can be locally aggressive. There are no standardized approaches to the treatment of GCTB. Recently, the RANKL inhibitor denosumab has shown activity in this tumor type. We present the case of a young female who presented with locally advanced disease and was successfully managed with the neoadjuvant use of denosumab allowing for surgical resection of the tumor that was previously deemed unresectable. Following surgery, the patient is being managed with continued use of denosumab as ‘maintenance,’ and she continues to be free of disease. Our case highlights a novel approach for the management of locally advanced and aggressive giant cell tumor of the bone.