Fulvestrant plus goserelin versus anastrozole plus goserelin versus goserelin alone for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative tamoxifen-pretreated premenopausal women with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (KCSG BR10-04): a multicentre, open-label, three-arm, randomised phase II trial (FLAG study)

Tumorigenic mechanisms of estrogen and Helicobacter pylori cytotoxin-associated gene A in estrogen receptor α-positive diffuse-type gastric adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Diffuse-type gastric cancer (DGC), for which Helicobacter pylori infection is a causal factor, is associated with poor prognosis among young women, possibly due to female hormones such as estrogen. We aimed to identify the carcinogenesis induced by estrogen and H. pylori in DGC.

METHODS

We screened and selected estrogen receptor alpha (ERα)-positive (MKN45) and ERα-negative (SNU5) DGC cell lines. H. pylori strain 60190 and its isogenic mutant strain lacking cytotoxin-associated gene A (60190ΔCagA) were used to infect MKN45 cells. And the cytotoxin-related gene A (CagA) cDNA which was cloned into pSP65-SR-HA (cagA-pSP65SRa) vector was used to transfect MKN45 cells. Tumor samples were used for DGC organoid culture.

RESULTS

In MKN45 cells, we found that estradiol promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and stemness phenotypes via HOTAIR expression. These effects were further enhanced by the addition of CagA secreted by H. pylori but were reversed by co-treatment with fulvestrant (ICI 182,780), a selective ER degrader. We also validated the effect of estrogen on DGC organoids. ERα expression was associated with tumor invasion and HOTAIR expression in DGC patients with overt H. pylori infection.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings may explain the rapid DGC progression in young women with physiologically high levels of estrogen and suggest that fulvestrant with ovarian function suppression could serve as a tumor-suppressive agent in premenopausal patients with DGC.

Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies

In the era of rapid development of new, expensive cancer therapies, value frameworks have been developed to quantify clinical benefit (CB). We assessed the evolution of CB since the 2015 introduction of The American Society of Clinical Oncology and The European Society of Medical Oncology value frameworks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing systemic therapies for solid malignancies from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated and CB (Δ) in 2010–2014 (pre-value frameworks (PRE)) were compared to 2015–2020 (POST) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QoL). In the 485 studies analyzed (12% PRE and 88% POST), the most common primary endpoint was PFS (49%), followed by OS (20%), RR (12%), and QoL (6%), with a significant increase in OS and decrease in RR as primary endpoints in the POST era (p = 0.011). Multivariable analyses revealed significant improvement in ΔOS POST (OR 2.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.26, p = 0.02) while controlling for other variables. After the development of value frameworks, median ΔOS improved minimally. The impact of value frameworks has yet to be fully realized in RCTs. Efforts to include endpoints shown to impact value, such as QoL, into clinical trials are warranted.

Optimizing treatment selection, and sequencing decisions for Management of HR-Positive, HER2-Negative advanced breast cancer - Proceedings from breast cancer expert group meeting

PURPOSE

The therapeutic landscape of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) has evolved considerably with the introduction of newer targeted agents and their combinations with endocrine therapies. In this scenario, optimizing treatment selection and sequencing is daunting for clinicians. The purpose of this review is to provide evidence-based answers to key clinical questions on treatment selection and sequencing for the management of HR + HER2 - mBC.

DESIGN

A panel of nine key opinion leaders from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Moscow, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and UAE convened in October 2018. They reviewed the literature and formulated answers to clinical questions on optimizing the management of HR + HER2 - mBC.

RESULTS

Evidence-based answers were formulated for: (1) optimal initial treatment choice; (2) ovarian function suppression, optimal endocrine partner, and role of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors (in premenopausal women); (3) better first-line standard of care than aromatase inhibitors; (4) preferred second-line treatment; (5) treatment of oligometastatic disease; (6) factors influencing first-line single-agent endocrine therapy choice; (7) influence of endocrine resistance on treatment selection; (8) optimal maintenance regimen in visceral crisis; and (9) need for a breast cancer registry for patients with HR + HER2 - mBC. The panel also proposed a treatment-sequencing algorithm for the management of HR + HER2 - mBC.

CONCLUSION

The current article will serve as a comprehensive guide for optimizing the management of HR + HER2 - mBC. The proposed breast cancer registry will help identify unmet needs and develop strategic regional policies to help improve access to optimized care for HR + HER2 - mBC.

Endocrine-Based Treatments in Clinically-Relevant Subgroups of Hormone Receptor-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A precise assessment of the efficacy of first-/second-line endocrine therapies (ET) ± target therapies (TT) in clinically-relevant subgroups of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has not yet been conducted. To improve our current knowledge and support clinical decision-making, we thus conducted a systematic literature search to identify all first-/second-line phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCT) of currently approved or most promising ET ± TT. Then, we performed a meta-analysis to assess progression-free (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) benefit in several clinically-relevant prespecified subgroups. Thirty-five RCT were included (17,595 patients). Pooled results show significant reductions in the risk of relapse or death of 26-41% and 12-27%, respectively, depending on the clinical subgroup. Combination strategies proved to be more effective than single-agent ET (PFS hazard ratio (HR) range for combinations: 0.60-0.65 vs. HR range for single agent ET: 0.59-1.37; OS HR range for combinations: 0.74-0.87 vs. HR range for single agent ET: 0.68-0.98), with CDK4/6-inhibitors(i) + ET being the most effective regimen. Single agent ET showed comparable efficacy with ET+TT combinations in non-visceral (p = 0.63) and endocrine sensitive disease (p = 0.79), while mTORi-based combinations proved to be a valid therapeutic option in endocrine-resistant tumors, as well as PI3Ki + ET in PIK3CA-mutant tumors. These results strengthen international treatment guidelines and can aid therapeutic decision-making.

Comparison of Endocrine Therapies in Hormone Receptor-Positive and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

We aimed to explore what kind of endocrine treatments are optimal for hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer in some specific clinical situations. We searched randomized controlled trials in Embase, Medline, the Cochrane library, and PubMed from inception to April 1, 2020 and performed a network meta-analysis based on a Bayesian fixed-effects model. Progression-free survival (PFS) with hazard ratios and corresponding 95% confidence interval was defined as the primary endpoint, while overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate and serious adverse events were used as secondary endpoints. A total of 35 studies involving 12,285 patients and 24 treatment options were included. In general, most co-treatment options prolonged PFS compared to single-agent therapy, of which aromatase inhibitor (AI) plus everolimus and fulvestrant plus palbociclib were probably the most effective agents, and the latter had the best safety record. However, despite the superior efficacy of fulvestrant plus capecitabine for PFS and OS, palpable toxic effects have been demonstrated for this treatment, so its application must be scrupulously considered. The results of subgroup analysis indicated that fulvestrant combined with palbociclib improved prognosis for phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-mutated patients, PI3K-unmutated patients, patients with endocrine therapy resistance, and visceral metastatic patients, while no obvious improvement was detected in OS. Moreover, the efficacy of fulvestrant plus cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors was slightly better than that of AI plus CDK4/6 inhibitors, while AI plus everolimus was more efficacious than fulvestrant combined with everolimus in terms of PFS, OS, and ORR. In conclusion, our results provide moderate evidence that fulvestrant plus palbociclib and AI plus everolimus were the most effective treatments, while the efficacy and safety of fulvestrant plus palbociclib was obviously superior in some specific clinical situations.

Endocrine therapy-based treatments in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several endocrine therapy (ET)-based treatments are available for patients with advanced breast cancer. We assessed the efficacy of different ET-based treatments in patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with endocrine-sensitive or endocrine-resistant disease.

METHODS

We searched Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 15 October 2019 and abstracts from major conferences from 2016 to October 2019. We included phase II/III randomised trials, comparing ≥2 ET-based treatments. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed by network meta-analyses using MTC Bayesian models based on both fixed-effect and random-effect models; relative treatment effects were measured as HRs and 95% credibility intervals (CrI). All statistical tests were two-sided. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed and this systematic review is registered in the PROSPERO database.

RESULTS

55 publications reporting on 32 trials (n=12 293 patients) were included. Regarding PFS in the endocrine sensitive setting (n=5200; 12 trials), the combination of cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK)4/6-inhibitors (CDK4/6i)+fulvestrant 500 mg (F500) was likely the most effective treatment (surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA)=97.3%), followed by CDK4/6i+aromatase inhibitor ±goserelin; there was no significant difference between them (HR 0.82; 95% CrI 0.54-1.25). Regarding OS (n=2157; five trials), the most effective treatment was probably CDK4/6i+F500 (SUCRA=97.3%); comparing CDK4/6i+F500 versus F500 held a HR of 0.77 (95% CrI 0.63-0.95). Regarding PFS in the endocrine-resistant setting (n=6635; 20 trials), CDK4/6i+F500 was likely the most effective treatment (SUCRA=95.7%), followed by capivasertib+F500, without significant difference between them (HR 0.91; 95% CrI 0.60-1.36). For OS (n=4377; 11 trials), the most effective treatments were capivasertib+F500 (SUCRA=84.7%) and CDK4/6i+F500 (SUCRA=69.9%). Comparing CDK4/6i+F500 versus F500 held a HR of 0.77 (95% CrI 0.67-0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

CDK4/6i+F500 is likely the best treatment option in both endocrine-sensitive and endocrine-resistant diseases for PFS, and in endocrine-sensitive patients for OS. Concerning OS in endocrine-resistant patients, capivasertib+F500 and CDK4/6i+F500 are likely the best treatments.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018104628.

Treatment of Breast Cancer With Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Analogs

Although significant progress has been made in the implementation of new breast cancer treatments over the last three decades, this neoplasm annually continues to show high worldwide rates of morbidity and mortality. In consequence, the search for novel therapies with greater effectiveness and specificity has not come to a stop. Among the alternative therapeutic targets, the human gonadotropin-releasing hormone type I and type II (hGnRH-I and hGnRH–II, respectively) and its receptor, the human gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor type I (hGnRHR-I), have shown to be powerful therapeutic targets to decrease the adverse effects of this disease. In the present review, we describe how the administration of GnRH analogs is able to reduce circulating concentrations of estrogen in premenopausal women through their action on the hypothalamus–pituitary–ovarian axis, consequently reducing the growth of breast tumors and disease recurrence. Also, it has been mentioned that, regardless of the suppression of synthesis and secretion of ovarian steroids, GnRH agonists exert direct anticancer action, such as the reduction of tumor growth and cell invasion. In addition, we discuss the effects on breast cancer of the hGnRH-I and hGnRH-II agonist and antagonist, non-peptide GnRH antagonists, and cytotoxic analogs of GnRH and their implication as novel adjuvant therapies as antitumor agents for reducing the adverse effects of breast cancer. In conclusion, we suggest that the hGnRH/hGnRHR system is a promising target for pharmaceutical development in the treatment of breast cancer, especially for the treatment of advanced states of this disease.

Endocrine and Targeted Therapy for Hormone-Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Insights to Sequencing Treatment and Overcoming Resistance Based on Clinical Trials

Background: Advanced hormone-receptor positive HER2 negative breast cancer is a common and a very heterogeneous disease. Hormone therapy is the main first line treatment of choice, given alone or in combination with other agents that have shown to improve patient outcomes, Nevertheless, treatment remains generally palliative rather than curative. Sequencing of such treatment remains challenging, especially with resurgence of variable resistance patterns. Multiple attempts have been made to overcome resistance and improve patient survival, yet resistance remains not very well understood and metastatic cancer remains a disease with dismal prognosis.

Methods: In this paper, we searched pubmed database as well as local and international meetings for all studies discussing advanced and metastatic hormone-receptor-positive, her2-negative breast cancer, hormonal treatment, resistance to hormonal treatment, mechanism of resistance, and means to overcome such resistance.

Conclusion: There does not exist an optimal treatment sequence for hormone-receptor-positive, her2-negative advanced breast cancer. However, after review of literature, a reasonable approach may be starting with tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, or fulvestrant in absence of visceral crisis, in addition to ensuring adequate ovarian function suppression in pre/peri-menopausal women. Aromatase inhibitors and fulvestrant seem to be superior. Resistance to such agents is increasing, mostly attributed to genetic and molecular changes. Multiple modalities are addressed to overcome such resistance including use of CKD4/6 inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors and PI3K inhibitors in addition to other agents under study, all with promising results. CDK4/6 inhibitors work best when used in frontline setting. Finally, treatment of breast cancer remains a growing field, and more studies are to be awaited.