Mastro, Lucia Del

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 monarchE is a phase 3, open-label study evaluating abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) compared to ET alone in patients with node positive, HR+, HER2-, high risk early breast cancer (EBC) that resulted in a statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) at a pre-planned interim analysis. Following the positive interim analysis, patients continued to be followed for IDFS, distant recurrence, and overall survival. Methods After surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, 5,637 patients with HR+, HER2-, high risk EBC were randomized (1:1) to standard of care adjuvant ET with or without abemaciclib (150 mg BD for 2 years). Patients with ≥4 positive nodes, or 1-3 nodes and either grade 3 disease, tumor size ≥5 cm, or central Ki-67 ≥20% were eligible. Here we present results of the primary outcome IDFS analysis which was planned after approximately 390 IDFS events. Results At the primary outcome analysis, median follow-up was approximately 19 months in both arms (an increase of 3.5 months from the interim analysis). A total of 1437 (25.5%) patients had completed the 2-year treatment period; 3281 (58.2%) were still in the 2-year treatment period. With 395 IDFS events observed in the intent-to-treat population, abemaciclib plus ET continued to demonstrate superior IDFS versus ET alone, with a 28.7% reduction in the risk of developing invasive disease (p=.0009; HR = 0.713; 95% CI = 0.583, 0.871). Two-year IDFS rates were 92.3% in the abemaciclib plus ET arm and 89.3% in the ET alone arm. There was a consistent benefit of abemaciclib in all prespecified subgroups. The addition of abemaciclib to ET also resulted in an improvement in distant relapse-free survival (DRFS). Overall survival was immature at the time of analysis. A key secondary endpoint was efficacy in patients with centrally assessed high Ki-67 (≥20%) (Ki-67H) (n=2498). Disease characteristics were well balanced between the arms of this population. Abemaciclib plus ET demonstrated superior IDFS vs ET alone, with a 30.9% reduction in risk of developing invasive disease (p=.0111; HR = 0.691; 95% CI = 0.519, 0.920) and 2-year IDFS rates of 91.6% and 87.1%, respectively. An improvement in DRFS treatment effect was also observed in the Ki-67H population. At the time of data cutoff, the median treatment duration of abemaciclib was 17.3 months and the median duration of ET was balanced between the arms (18.3 months in the abemaciclib arm and 18.7 months in the ET alone arm). Safety was consistent with the results at the interim IDFS analysis and with the known safety profile of abemaciclib. Conclusions At the primary outcome analysis, with a median follow-up of approximately 19 months, abemaciclib combined with ET continued to demonstrate a clinically meaningful improvement in IDFS in patients with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high risk, EBC with a statistically significant improvement in IDFS in patients with central Ki-67 ≥20%. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03155997 Table 1: PrimaryOutcome EfficacyIntent-to-Treat PopulationIntent-to-Treat PopulationKi-67 ≥20% (Ki-67H) PopulationKi-67 ≥20% (Ki-67H) PopulationEndpointAbemaciclib + ET N=2808ET alone N=2829Abemaciclib + ET N=1262ET alone N=1236IDFS# events, n (%)163 (5.8)232 (8.2)82 (6.5)115 (9.3)log rank P value, HR (95% CI)p=.0009 0.713 (0.583, 0.871)p=.0111 0.691 (0.519, 0.920)Rate (%) at 2 years (95% CI)92.3 (90.9, 93.5)89.3 (87.7, 90.7)91.6 (89.4, 93.4)87.1 (84.3, 89.5)Difference (%) in 2-year rates (95% CI)3 (1.1, 5.0)4.5 (1.2, 7.7)DRFS# events, n (%)131 (4.7)193 (6.8)65 (5.2)102 (8.3)log rank P value, HR (95% CI)p=.0009 0.687 (0.551, 0.858)0.609 (0.445, 0.833)Rate (%) at 2 years (95% CI)93.8 (92.6, 94.9)90.8 (89.3, 92.1)93.6 (91.6, 95.1)88.5 (85.7, 90.7)Difference (%) in 2-year rates (95%CI)3 (1.2, 4.8)5.1 (2.1, 8.1) Citation Format: Joyce A. O'Shaughnessy, Stephen Johnston, Nadia Harbeck, Masakazu Toi, Young-Hyuck Im, Mattea Reinisch, Zhimin Shao, Pirkko Liisa Kellokumpu Lehtinen, Chiun-Sheng Huang, Alexey Tryakin, Matthew Goetz, Hope S Rugo, Elzbieta Senkus, Laura Testa, Michael Andersson, Kenji Tamura, Guenther G. Steger, Lucia Del Mastro, Joanne Cox, Tammy Forrester, Sarah Sherwood, Xuelin Li, Ran Wei, Miguel Martin, Priya Rastogi. Primary outcome analysis of invasive disease-free survival for monarchE: abemaciclib combined with adjuvant endocrine therapy for high risk early breast cancer [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 GS1-01.

TPS653 Background: Pertuzumab (P) is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the dimerization domain of HER2: it prevents HER2 heterodimerization and thus activation of downstream signaling. Since P targets a different epitope than trastuzumab (H), a more comprehensive HER2 blockade is achieved by combining the two agents. Data from CLEOPATRA showed improved efficacy for P and H plus docetaxel. The combination of P and H has not yet been assessed with other chemotherapy partners in the metastatic setting. H plus vinorelbine (V) has shown comparable efficacy to H plus docetaxel but with a superior safety profile. VELVET will assess the overall response rate (ORR) of P with H+V in first-line patients (pts) with HER2-positive MBC. Co-administration of P and H within the same infusion bag will also be investigated as this could increase pt convenience by reducing administration and observation time. Methods: VELVET is a multicenter, open-label, two-cohort, Phase II trial. Pts with HER2-positive LABC or MBC not previously treated in the metastatic setting with non-hormonal anticancer therapy are eligible. Pts must have an LVEF >55% at baseline and an ECOG PS of 0 or 1. Study enrollment started in January 2012. A total of 210 pts will be included. Based on statistical assumptions, 95 pts must be evaluable per cohort, which assumes a withdrawal rate around 10%. Pts in Cohort 1 (the first 105 pts enrolled) will receive P and H sequentially and pts in Cohort 2 (the next 105 pts) will receive P and H in the same infusion bag at Cycle 2 onwards if drug administration in Cycle 1 was well tolerated. V will be given in both cohorts. Treatment duration is until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Study dose: P: 840 mg loading dose, 420 mg q3w (iv); H: 8 mg/kg loading dose, 6 mg/kg q3w (iv), and V: 25 mg/m2 Day 1 and 8 (first cycle) then 30−35 mg/m2 Day 1 and 8 q3w (iv) (dose escalation at investigator’s discretion). The primary endpoint is ORR by independent assessment. Secondary endpoints include investigator assessment of ORR, time to response, duration of response, PFS, time to progression, overall survival, safety and tolerability, and QoL.

Abstract Background: HER2 overexpression or amplification, occuring in ∼15-20% of breast cancers (BC), is associated with a poor prognosis. Trastuzumab (T) and pertuzumab (P) are humanized monoclonal antibodies that bind to different HER2 epitopes, inhibiting HER2 signaling. It was previously shown that first-line (1L) treatment of patients (pts) with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with vinorelbine (V)+T had similar efficacy to docetaxel+T, but with fewer adverse events (AEs) (HERNATA). In a recent study, P+T+docetaxel significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with T+docetaxel in pts with HER2-positive 1L MBC (CLEOPATRA). The objective of the VELVET study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of P+T+V for 1L treatment of HER2-positive MBC. Methods: This is a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, two-cohort, Phase II study. The recruitment target is 105 pts per cohort. Pts in Cohort 1 receive P+T+V as separate infusions. Pts in Cohort 2 receive P+T from a single infusion bag followed by V. The initial dose of P is 840 mg, followed by 420 mg q3w; the initial dose of T is 8 mg/kg, followed by 6 mg/kg q3w; V is administered at 25 mg/m2 in Cycle 1, followed by 30-35 mg/m2, on Days 1 and 8 of each cycle, q3w. Pts must have HER2-positive MBC or locally advanced BC (LABC) and a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≥55%. Previous treatment with systemic nonhormonal anticancer therapy in the metastatic setting is not allowed. The primary endpoint is independently assessed overall response rate. Secondary endpoints include PFS, OS, and safety. Results: Interim safety data are presented for Cohort 1; 106 pts were enrolled. Median age at screening was 56 years. Median interval between initial BC diagnosis and enrollment was 2.6 years. 33% of pts had Stage IV BC at initial BC diagnosis. At diagnosis of advanced disease, 13% and 87% of pts had LABC and MBC, respectively. 54% of pts had previously received chemotherapy, including taxane (38%) and anthracycline (36%). 41% had prior T exposure. A median of 6 cycles of P, T, and V was received at the time of this analysis. An AE overview is shown in the table. Pts, n(%)N = 106Any AE102(96)Grade 338(36)Grade 417(16)Grade 52(2)aAny serious AE25(24)Most frequent (≥4 pts) grade ≥3 AEs Neutropeniab21(20)Febrile neutropenia6(6)Leukopenia5(5)Asthenia4(4)Constipation4(4)Diarrhea4(4)a Myocardial infarction and septic shock; b Covers ‘neutropenia’ and ‘neutrophil count decreased’ Grade ≥3 neutropenia/febrile neutropenia was experienced by 8% of pts in Cycle 1 and by 14% of pts in Cycle 2; this proportion decreased during subsequent cycles. There was no overall decrease in mean LVEF from baseline. Conclusions: The combination of P+T+V was well tolerated; no new safety signals were observed. The incidences of grade ≥3 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and leukopenia were lower than those previously observed in pts with HER2-positive MBC treated with 1L P+T+docetaxel in CLEOPATRA or those treated with T+V in HERNATA; however, it should be noted that the treatment period in these two studies was longer. Efficacy data for Cohorts 1 and 2 will be reported at the end of the study. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P2-16-10.