Road Map to Safe and Well-Designed De-escalation Trials of Systemic Adjuvant Therapy for Solid Tumors

Understanding Patient Experiences to Inform Future Studies to Optimize Personalization of Treatment for Early Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer treatment is multimodal, but not all patients benefit from each treatment, and many experience morbidities significantly impacting quality of life. There is increasing interest in tailoring breast cancer treatments to optimize oncological outcomes and reduce treatment burden, but it is vital that future trials focus on treatments that most impact patients. This study was designed to explore patient experiences of treatment to inform future research.

METHODS

An online survey was co-developed with patient advocates to explore respondents' experiences of breast cancer treatment. Questions included simple demographics, treatments received, and views regarding omitting treatments if that is deemed safe. The survey was circulated via social media and patient advocacy groups. Responses were summarized by using simple statistics; free text was analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Of the 235 participants completing the survey, 194 (82.6%) would choose to omit a specific treatment if safe to do so. The most commonly selected treatments were chemotherapy (n = 69, 35.6%) and endocrine therapy (n = 61, 31.4%) mainly due to side effects. Fewer respondents would choose to omit surgery (n = 40, 20.6%) or radiotherapy (n = 20, 10.3%). Several women commented that survival was their "absolute priority" and that high-quality evidence to support the safety of reducing treatment would be essential.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with breast cancer are individuals who may wish to optimize different components of their treatment. A portfolio of studies co-designed with patients is needed to establish an evidence base for greater treatment personalization with studies focused on reducing avoidable chemotherapy and endocrine therapy a priority.

Less is more: Exploring neoadjuvant immunotherapy as a de-escalation strategy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treatment

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) constitutes a significant global cancer burden, given its high prevalence and associated mortality. Despite substantial progress in survival rates due to the enhanced multidisciplinary approach to treatment, these methods often lead to severe tissue damage, compromised function, and potential toxicity. Thus, there is an imperative need for novel, effective, and minimally damaging treatment modalities. Neoadjuvant treatment, an emerging therapeutic strategy, is designed to reduce tumor size and curtail distant metastasis prior to definitive intervention. Currently, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has optimized the treatment approach for a subset of HNSCC patients, yet it has not produced a noticeable enhancement in overall survival (OS). In the contemporary cancer therapeutics landscape, immunotherapy is gaining traction at an accelerated pace. Notably, neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NAIT) has shown promising radiological and pathological responses, coupled with encouraging efficacy in several clinical trials. This potentially paves the way for a myriad of possibilities in treatment de-escalation of HNSCC, which warrants further exploration. This paper reviews the existing strategies and efficacies of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), along with potential de-escalation strategies. Furthermore, the challenges encountered in the context of the de-escalation strategies of NAIT are explored. The aim is to inform future research directions that strive to improve the quality of life (QoL) for patients battling HNSCC.

A multidisciplinary team and patient perspective on omission of surgery after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for early breast cancer: A European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) Research Academy survey

BACKGROUND

Surgical de-escalation aims to reduce morbidity without compromising oncological outcomes. Trials to de-escalate breast cancer (BC) surgery among exceptional responders after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) are ongoing. Combined patient and clinician insights on this strategy are unknown.

METHODS

The European Society of Surgical Oncology Young Surgeons Alumni Club (EYSAC) performed an online survey to evaluate the perspective of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) on omission of surgery ("no surgery") following complete response to NST for early BC. The aim was to identify MDT considerations and perceived barriers to omission of BC surgery. Patient insights were obtained through a focused group discussion (FGD) with four members of the patient advocacy group, Guiding Researchers and Advocates to Scientific Partnerships (GRASP).

RESULTS

The MDT survey had 248 responses, with 229 included for analysis. Criteria for a "no surgery" approach included: patient's tumor and nodal status before (39.7 %) and after (45.9 %) NST and comorbidities (44.3 %). The majority chose standard surgery for hypothetical cases with a complete response to NST. Barriers for implementation were lack of definitive trials (55.9 %), "no surgery" not being discussed in MDTs (28.8 %) and lack of essential diagnostic or therapeutic options (24 %). Patients expressed communication gaps about BC surgery, lack of trust regarding accuracy of imaging, fear of regret and psychosocial burden of choosing less extensive surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Before accepting "no surgery" after complete response to NST, MDTs and patients need level 1 evidence from clinical trials, access to standard diagnostic modalities and treatments. Patient's fear of regretting less surgery need to be acknowledged and addressed.

Hit it hard: qualitative patient perspectives on the optimisation of immune checkpoint inhibition

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have transformed the treatment landscape of many cancers, including melanoma and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Randomised trials are evaluating outcomes from reduced ICI treatment schedules with the aim of improving quality of life, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness. This study aims to provide insight into patient and carer's perspectives of these trials.

METHODS

Seven focus groups were conducted with 31 people with stage IV melanoma, RCC, or caregivers for people receiving ICI. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were generated: 1) "Treatment and clinic visits provide reassurance": reducing hospital visits may not improve quality of life. 2) "Assessment of personal risk versus benefit": the decision to participate in an ICI optimisation trial is influenced by treatment response, experience of toxicity and perceived logistical benefits based on the individual's circumstances. 3) "Pre-existing experience and beliefs about how treatment and trials work", including the belief that more treatment is better, influence views around ICI optimisation trials.

CONCLUSION

This study provides insight into recruitment challenges and recommends strategies to enhance recruitment for ongoing ICI optimisation trials. These findings will influence the design of future ICI optimisation trials ensuring they are acceptable to patients.

Ductal carcinoma in situ and cause-specific mortality among younger and older postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative

BACKGROUND

Whether DCIS is associated with higher breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality is unclear with few studies in older women. Therefore, we examined DCIS and breast cancer-specific, cardiovascular (CVD)-specific, and all-cause mortality among Women's Health Initiative (WHI) Clinical Trial participants overall and by age (< 70 versus ≥ 70 years).

METHODS

Of 68,132 WHI participants, included were 781 postmenopausal women with incident DCIS and 781 matched controls. Serial screening mammography was mandated with high adherence. DCIS cases were confirmed by central medical record review. Adjusted multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Kaplan Meier (KM) plots were used to assess 10-year and 20-year mortality rates.

RESULTS

After 20.3 years total, and 13.2 years median post-diagnosis follow-up, compared to controls, DCIS was associated with higher breast cancer-specific mortality (HR 3.29; CI = 1.32-8.22, P = 0.01). The absolute difference in 20-year breast cancer mortality was 1.2% without DCIS and 3.4% after DCIS, log-rank P = 0.026. Findings were similar by age (< 70 versus ≥ 70 years) with no interaction (P interaction = 0.80). Incident DCIS was not associated with CVD-specific mortality (HR 0.77; CI-0.54-1.09, P = 0.14) or with all-cause mortality (HR 0.96; CI = 0.80-1.16, P = 0.68) with similar findings by age.

CONCLUSIONS

In postmenopausal women, incident DCIS was associated with over three-fold higher breast cancer-specific mortality, with similar findings in younger and older postmenopausal women. These finding suggest caution in using age to adjust DCIS clinical management or research strategies.

Optimizing Postneoadjuvant Treatment in Patients With Early Breast Cancer Achieving Pathologic Complete Response

pCR should be integrated with other prognostic factors to optimize postneoadjuvant treatments in BC.

Real-world data on neoadjuvant chemotherapy with dual-anti HER2 therapy in HER2 positive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with dual-targeted therapy is the standard treatment for human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer. Although the dual-targeted therapy has significantly improved the pathological complete response (pCR) rate, further investigation is needed to identify biomarkers that predict the response to neoadjuvant therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed 353 patients with HER2-positive breast invasive ductal carcinoma. The correlation between clinicopathological factors and pCR rate was evaluated. A nomogram was constructed based on the results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis to predict the probability of pCR.

RESULTS

The breast pCR (b-pCR) rate was 56.1% (198/353) and the total pCR (t-pCR) rate was 52.7% (186/353). Multivariate analysis identified ER status, PR status, HER2 status, Ki-67 index, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens as independent indicators for both b-pCR and t-pCR. The nomogram had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.68-0.78). According to the nomogram, the t- pCR rate was highest in the ER-PR- HER2-positive patients (131/208) and lowest in the ER + PR + HER2-positive patients (19/73). The subgroup analyses showed that there was no significant difference in pCR rate among the neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens in ER positive, PR positive, HER2 IHC 2 + , Ki67 index < 30% population. However, for ER-PR-HER2-positive patients, the neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen has a great influence on the pCR rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ER-negative, PR-negative, HER2 3 + and high KI-67 index were more likely to achieve pCR. THP may be used as an alternative to AC-THP or TCbHP in selected HER2-positive patients.

Low RNA disruption during neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts pathologic complete response absence in patients with breast cancer

In previously reported retrospective studies, high tumor RNA disruption during neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicted for post-treatment pathologic complete response (pCR) and improved disease-free survival at definitive surgery for primary early breast cancer. The BREVITY (Breast Cancer Response Evaluation for Individualized Therapy) prospective clinical trial (NCT03524430) seeks to validate these prior findings. Here we report training set (Phase I) findings, including determination of RNA disruption index (RDI) cut points for outcome prediction in the subsequent validation set (Phase II; 454 patients). In 80 patients of the training set, maximum tumor RDI values for biopsies obtained during neoadjuvant chemotherapy were significantly higher in pCR responders than in patients without pCR post-treatment (P = .008). Moreover, maximum tumor RDI values ≤3.7 during treatment predicted for a lack of pCR at surgery (negative predictive value = 93.3%). These findings support the prospect that on-treatment tumor RNA disruption assessments may effectively predict post-surgery outcome, possibly permitting treatment optimization.

A randomised phase 2 study of intermittent versus continuous dosing of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma (INTERIM)

BACKGROUND

BRAF+MEK inhibitors extend life expectancy of patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma. Acquired resistance limits duration of benefit, but preclinical and case studies suggest intermittent dosing could overcome this limitation. INTERIM was a phase 2 trial evaluating an intermittent dosing regimen.

METHODS

Patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma due to start dabrafenib+trametinib were randomised to receive either continuous (CONT), or intermittent (INT; dabrafenib d1-21, trametinib d1-14 every 28 days) dosing. A composite primary endpoint included progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary endpoints included response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). Mutant BRAFV600E ctDNA was measured by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), using mutant allele frequency of > 1 % as the detection threshold.

RESULTS

79 patients (39 INT, 40 CONT) were recruited; median age 67 years, 65 % AJCC (7th ed) stage IV M1c, 29 % had brain metastases. With 19 months median follow-up, INT was inferior in all efficacy measures: median PFS 8.5 vs 10.7mo (HR 1.39, 95 %CI 0.79-2.45, p = 0.255); median OS 18.1mo vs not reached (HR 1.69, 95 %CI 0.87-3.28, p = 0.121), ORR 57 % vs 77 %. INT patients experienced fewer treatment-related AEs (76 % vs 88 %), but more grade > 3 AEs (53 % vs 42 %). QoL favoured CONT. Detection of BRAFV600E ctDNA prior to treatment correlated with worse OS (HR 2.55, 95 %CI 1.25-5.21, p = 0.01) in both arms. A change to undetected during treatment did not significantly predict better OS.

CONCLUSION

INTERIM findings are consistent with other recent clinical trials reporting that intermittent dosing does not improve efficacy of BRAF+MEK inhibitors.

Targeted randomization dose optimization trials enable fractional dosing of scarce drugs

Administering drug at a dose lower than that used in pivotal clinical trials, known as fractional dosing, can stretch scarce resources. Implementing fractional dosing with confidence requires understanding a drug's dose-response relationship. Clinical trials aimed at describing dose-response in scarce, efficacious drugs risk underdosing, leading dose-finding trials to not be pursued despite their obvious potential benefit. We developed a new set of response-adaptive randomized dose-finding trials and demonstrate, in a series of simulated trials across diverse dose-response curves, these designs' efficiency in identifying the minimum dose that achieves satisfactory efficacy. Compared to conventional designs, these trials have higher probabilities of identifying lower doses while reducing the risks of both population- and subject-level underdosing. We strongly recommend that, upon demonstration of a drug's efficacy, pandemic drug development swiftly proceeds with response-adaptive dose-finding trials. This unified strategy ensures that scarce effective drugs produce maximum social benefits.

Assessing the Clinical Utility of Liquid Biopsies Across 5 Potential Indications From Therapy Selection to Population Screening: A Review

Importance

There has been great enthusiasm for the emerging technology of molecular-based tests to detect and quantify tumor DNA circulating in the bloodstream, colloquially known as a liquid biopsy. However, less attention has been given to how their clinical utility depends on the indication for testing, which includes a range of clinical situations, each presenting unique challenges.

Observations

Five indications for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) blood testing were considered. (1) For therapy selection, ctDNA tests can identify genetic alterations in patients with cancer amenable to targeted therapy, but most patients do not have a targetable alteration. (2) For response to therapy, the absence of residual tumor DNA following cancer surgery could reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, but it is unclear that this will happen in practice. (3) For disease surveillance following cancer treatment, ctDNA tests may well detect cancer recurrence before symptoms appear, yet earlier intervention may have no effect on mortality. (4) For diagnosis of suspected cancer, ctDNA tests are able to identify some symptomatic cancers, but how they add to the conventional diagnostic evaluation is unknown. (5) For screening for cancer, multicancer tests can detect many types of cancer, but their low sensitivity for early-stage tumors raises questions as to whether screening can help patients live longer or live better.

Conclusions and Relevance

Circulating tumor DNA tests are being promoted for multiple indications. Numerous studies are ongoing, but randomized clinical trials of their effect on patient-centered outcomes are rare. While these tests have the potential to improve care in selected indications, this must be proven, as they will add cost, complexity, and unintended adverse effects for patients.

Systemic therapy de-escalation in advanced ovarian cancer: a new era on the horizon?

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) have sculpted the current landscape of advanced ovarian cancer treatment. With the advent of targeted maintenance therapies, improved survival rates have led to a timely interest in exploring de-intensified strategies with the goal of improving quality of life without compromising oncologic outcomes. The emerging concept of systemic treatment de-escalation would represent a new frontier in personalizing therapy in ovarian cancer. PARPi are so effective that properly selected patients treated with these agents might require less chemotherapy to achieve the same oncologic outcomes. The fundamental key is to limit de-escalation to a narrow subpopulation with favorable prognostic factors, such as patients with BRCA-mutated and/or homologous recombination-deficient tumors without macroscopic residual disease after surgery or other high-risk clinical factors. Potential de-escalation strategies include shifting PARPi in the neoadjuvant setting, de-escalating adjuvant chemotherapy after primary debulking surgery, reducing PARPi maintenance therapy duration, starting PARPi directly after interval debulking surgery, omitting maintenance therapy, and continuing PARPi beyond oligoprogression (if combined with locoregional treatment). Several ongoing trials are currently investigating the feasibility and safety of de-escalating approaches in ovarian cancer and the results are eagerly awaited. This review aims to discuss the current trends, drawbacks, and future perspectives regarding systemic treatment de-escalation in advanced ovarian cancer.

Appraisal of Systemic Treatment Strategies in Early HER2-Positive Breast Cancer-A Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The overexpression of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2+) accounts for 15-20% of all breast cancer phenotypes. Even after the completion of the standard combination of chemotherapy and trastuzumab, relapse events occur in approximately 15% of cases. The neoadjuvant approach has multiple benefits that include the potential to downgrade staging and convert previously unresectable tumors to operable tumors. In addition, achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) following preoperative systemic treatment is prognostic of enhanced survival outcomes. Thus, optimal evaluation among the suitable strategies is crucial in deciding which patients should be selected for the neoadjuvant approach.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in the Embase, Medline, and Cochrane electronic libraries.

CONCLUSION

The evaluation of tumor and LN staging and, hence, stratifying BC recurrence risk are decisive factors in guiding clinicians to optimize treatment decisions between the neoadjuvant versus adjuvant approaches. For each individual case, it is important to consider the most likely postsurgical outcome, since, if the patient does not obtain pCR following neoadjuvant treatment, they are eligible for adjuvant T-DM1 in the case of residual disease. This review of HER2-positive female BC outlines suitable neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic treatment strategies for guiding clinical decision making around the selection of an appropriate therapy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of MammaPrint® to Guide the Use of Endocrine Therapy in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Gene expression profiling tests can predict the risk of disease recurrence and select patients who are expected to benefit from therapy, while allowing other patients to forgo therapy. For breast cancers, these tests were initially designed to tailor chemotherapy decisions, but recent evidence suggests that they may also guide the use of endocrine therapy. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of a prognostic test, MammaPrint^®, to guide the use of adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients eligible according to Dutch treatment guidelines.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov decision model to calculate the lifetime costs (in 2020 Euros) and effects (survival and quality-adjusted life-years) of MammaPrint^® testing versus usual care (endocrine therapy for all patients) in a simulated cohort of patients. The population of interest includes patients for whom MammaPrint^® testing is currently not indicated, but for whom it may be possible to safely omit endocrine therapy. We applied both a health care perspective and a societal perspective and discounted costs (4%) and effects (1.5%). Model inputs were obtained from published research (including randomized controlled trials), nationwide cancer registry data, cohort data and publicly available data sources. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainty around input parameters. Additionally, threshold analyses were performed to identify under which circumstances MammaPrint^® testing would be cost effective.

RESULTS

Adjuvant endocrine therapy guided by MammaPrint^® resulted in fewer side effects, more (quality-adjusted) life-years (0.10 and 0.07 incremental QALYS and LYs, respectively) and higher costs (€18,323 incremental costs) compared with the usual care strategy in which all patients receive endocrine therapy. While costs for hospital visits, medication costs and productivity costs were somewhat higher in the usual care strategy, these did not outweigh costs of testing in the MammaPrint^® strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €185,644 per QALY gained from a healthcare perspective and €180,617 from a societal perspective. Sensitivity and scenario analyses showed that the conclusions remained the same under changed input parameters and assumptions. Our results show that MammaPrint^® can become a cost-effective strategy when either the price of the test is reduced (> 50%), or the proportion of patients for which treatment is altered (i.e. those with ultra-low risk) increases to > 26%.

CONCLUSION

Standard MammaPrint^® testing to guide the use of endocrine therapy in our simulated patient population appears not to be a cost-effective strategy compared with usual care. The cost effectiveness of the test can be improved by reducing the price or preselecting a population more likely to benefit from the test.

Novel computational biology modeling system can accurately forecast response to neoadjuvant therapy in early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Generalizable population-based studies are unable to account for individual tumor heterogeneity that contributes to variability in a patient's response to physician-chosen therapy. Although molecular characterization of tumors has advanced precision medicine, in early-stage and locally advanced breast cancer patients, predicting a patient's response to neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) remains a gap in current clinical practice. Here, we perform a study in an independent cohort of early-stage and locally advanced breast cancer patients to forecast tumor response to NAT and assess the stability of a previously validated biophysical simulation platform.

METHODS

A single-blinded study was performed using a retrospective database from a single institution (9/2014-12/2020). Patients included: ≥ 18 years with breast cancer who completed NAT, with pre-treatment dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Demographics, chemotherapy, baseline (pre-treatment) MRI and pathologic data were input into the TumorScope Predict (TS) biophysical simulation platform to generate predictions. Primary outcomes included predictions of pathological complete response (pCR) versus residual disease (RD) and final volume for each tumor. For validation, post-NAT predicted pCR and tumor volumes were compared to actual pathological assessment and MRI-assessed volumes. Predicted pCR was pre-defined as residual tumor volume ≤ 0.01 cm³ (≥ 99.9% reduction).

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of eighty patients; 36 Caucasian and 40 African American. Most tumors were high-grade (54.4% grade 3) invasive ductal carcinomas (90.0%). Receptor subtypes included hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive (HER2+, 30%), HR+/HER2- (35%), HR-/HER2+ (12.5%) and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC, 22.5%). Simulated tumor volume was significantly correlated with post-treatment radiographic MRI calculated volumes (r = 0.53, p = 1.3 × 10^-7, mean absolute error of 6.57%). TS prediction of pCR compared favorably to pathological assessment (pCR: TS n = 28; Path n = 27; RD: TS n = 52; Path n = 53), for an overall accuracy of 91.2% (95% CI: 82.8% - 96.4%; Clopper-Pearson interval). Five-year risk of recurrence demonstrated similar prognostic performance between TS predictions (Hazard ratio (HR): - 1.99; 95% CI [- 3.96, - 0.02]; p = 0.043) and clinically assessed pCR (HR: - 1.76; 95% CI [- 3.75, 0.23]; p = 0.054).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated TS ability to simulate and model tumor in vivo conditions in silico and forecast volume response to NAT across breast tumor subtypes.

Dose optimization during drug development: whether and when to optimize

The goal of dose optimization during drug development is to identify a dose that preserves clinical benefit with optimal tolerability. Traditionally, the maximum tolerated dose in a small phase I dose escalation study is used in the phase II trial assessing clinical activity of the agent. Although it is possible that this dose level could be altered in the phase II trial if an unexpected level of toxicity is seen, no formal dose optimization has routinely been incorporated into later stages of drug development. Recently it has been suggested that formal dose optimization (involving randomly assigning patients between 2 or more dose levels) be routinely performed early in drug development, even before it is known that the experimental therapy has any clinical activity at any dose level. We consider the relative merits of performing dose optimization earlier vs later in the drug development process and demonstrate that a considerable number of patients may be exposed to ineffective therapies unless dose optimization is delayed until after clinical activity or benefit of the new agent has been established. We conclude that patient and public health interests may be better served by conducting dose optimization after (or during) phase III evaluation, with some exceptions when dose optimization should be performed after activity shown in phase II evaluation.

Cost-effectiveness of Response-Adapted De-escalation of Immunotherapy in Advanced Melanoma

Importance

Combination immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab has markedly improved outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma. However, these therapies pose a considerable financial burden to both patients and the health care system. The ADAPT-IT trial demonstrated comparable progression-free and overall survival for patients with response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation compared with standard of care (SOC).

Objective

To determine the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab discontinuation for patients with interim imaging-confirmed tumor response in the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using data from the ADAPT-IT (follow-up of 33 months) and CheckMate 067 (follow-up of 6.5 years) trials, as well as published literature over the ADAPT-IT trial duration of 33 months. The analysis was performed in a US setting from a US-payer perspective, and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $100 000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). A total of 355 patients with previously untreated melanoma (unresectable stage III or IV metastatic melanoma) were included.

Exposure

Response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation compared with SOC therapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes of the CheckMate trial were overall survival and progression-free survival, while that of ADAPT-IT was objective response. This informed a decision model to estimate lifetime costs and QALYs associated with both strategies. Incremental cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratio were assessed. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to account for variability in trials and input parameters.

Results

Of the 355 patients included in the analysis, 41 patients were from the ADAPT-IT trial (median age, 65 years; 28 [68%] male) and 314 patients from the CheckMate 067 trial (median age, 61 years; 206 [66%] male). Response-adapted treatment was the cost-effective option in 94.0% of scenarios based on Monte Carlo simulations, with a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and an incremental net monetary benefit of $28 849 compared with SOC therapy. Cost savings were estimated at $19 891 per patient compared with SOC. In scenario analyses, current SOC was only considered as a cost-effective option under best survival assumptions and if the willingness-to-pay threshold exceeded $630 000/QALY.

Conclusions and Relevance

This economic evaluation demonstrated that response-adapted treatment de-escalation in patients with advanced melanoma may lead to considerable savings in health care costs and could represent the most cost-effective strategy across various resource settings. Future trials should aim to provide further evidence on noninferiority.

Patient-centered dosing: oncologists' perspectives about treatment-related side effects and individualized dosing for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC)

PURPOSE

Although metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is treatable, it is not curable and most patients remain on treatment indefinitely. While oncologists commonly prescribe the recommended starting dose (RSD) from the FDA-approved label, patient tolerance may differ from that seen in clinical trials. We report on a survey of medical oncologists' perspectives about treatment-related toxicity and willingness to discuss flexible dosing with patients.

METHODS

We disseminated a confidential survey via social media/email in Spring 2021. Eligible respondents needed to be US-based medical oncologists with experience treating patients with MBC.

RESULTS

Of 131 responses, 119 were eligible. Physicians estimated that 47% of their patients reported distressing treatment-related side effects; of these, 15% visited the Emergency Room/hospital and 37% missed treatment. 74% (n = 87) of doctors reported improvement of patient symptoms after dose reduction. 87% (n = 104) indicated that they had ever, if appropriate, initiated treatment at lower doses. Most (85%, n = 101) respondents did not believe that the RSD is always more effective than a lower dose and 97% (n = 115) were willing to discuss individualized dosing with patients.

CONCLUSION

Treatment-related side effects are prevalent among patients with MBC, resulting in missed treatments and acute care visits. To help patients tolerate treatment, oncologists may decrease initial and/or subsequent doses. The majority of oncologists reject the premise that a higher dose is always superior and are willing to discuss individualized dosing with patients. Given potential improvements regarding quality of life and clinical care, dose modifications should be part of routine shared decision-making between patients and oncologists.

Treatment discontinuation, patient-reported toxicities and quality-of-life by age following trastuzumab emtansine or paclitaxel/trastuzumab (ATEMPT)

In the ATEMPT trial, adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) compared to paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (TH) for stage I HER2-positive breast cancer improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs), while maintaining excellent disease outcomes. We report treatment discontinuation and use multivariable models to compare, patient-reported toxicity and quality-of-life (QOL) by age (≤50, >50) and treatment arm at 18 months post-enrollment among 366 eligible participants randomized in a 3:1 ratio to T-DM1 or TH. T-DM1 discontinuation was higher among women >50 vs. ≤50 (23% vs. 9%, p = 0.003, Fisher's Exact test) with 4%, 8%, and 17% of older patients discontinuing treatment by 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively. Superior QOL with T-DM1 vs. TH was observed among women ≤50 with estimated mean difference of 6.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-12.46) and driven by better social/family well-being and breast cancer-specific sub-scores. Among women >50, T-DM1 was associated with superior physical well-being and less activity impairment, with no differences in global QOL. Older women had decreased neuropathy with T-DM1 vs. TH. De-escalated treatment regimens for HER2 positive breast cancer may have age-varying impact on treatment tolerance, toxicities and subsequent QOL, which should be considered when selecting therapy options.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01853748.

Molecular testing to deliver personalized chemotherapy recommendations: risking over and undertreatment

BACKGROUND

In the adjuvant setting of cancer treatment, de-escalation strategies have the goal of omitting or minimizing treatment in patients, without compromising outcomes. Historically, eligibility for adjuvant treatment solely relied on the patient's clinical and tumor's pathological characteristics. At the turn of the century, based on new biological understanding, molecular-based strategies were tested and sometimes implemented.

MAIN BODY

However, we illustrate how molecularly based de-escalation strategies may paradoxically lead to overtreatment. This may happen when the novel approach is tested in lieu of standard management and may not yield the same results when being implemented in addition to usual practice. In the DYNAMIC trial, adjuvant chemotherapy decision in stage II colon cancer was compared between a circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-based approach and the standard care. We show this may result in more patients receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy and may expose a similar proportion of patients to chemotherapy if the novel strategy is implemented in addition to usual practice. The other potential risk is undertreatment. We provide an illustration of early breast cancer, where the decision of adjuvant chemotherapy based on the gene expression signature MammaPrint may lead to inferior outcomes as compared with the clinico-pathologic strategy. This may also happen when non-inferiority designs have large margins. Among solutions, it should be acknowledged that clinico-pathological features, like T4 in colon cancer, may not be abandoned and replaced by novel strategies in real-life practice. Therefore, novel strategies should be tested in addition to standard of care, and not in lieu of. Second, de-escalation trials should focus on the settings where the standard of care has a widespread agreement. This would avoid the risk of testing non-inferiority against an ineffective therapy, which guarantees successes without providing informative data.

CONCLUSION

Simply because a molecular test is rational does not mean it can improve patient outcomes. Here, we highlight how molecular test-based strategies may result in either overtreatment or undertreatment. In the rapidly evolving field of medicine, where technological advances may be transformative, our piece highlights scientific pitfalls to be aware of when considering running such trials or before implementing novel strategies in daily practice.

Pathologic complete response and survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in cT1-T2/N0 HER2+ breast cancer

Women with small HER2+ breast cancers may have excellent prognosis with adjuvant single-agent chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy. The role of de-escalated therapy in the neoadjuvant setting, however, remains uncertain. We conducted a cohort study of adult women with T1-2/cN0 HER2+ breast cancer diagnosed 2013–2016 in the National Cancer Database treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and HER2-targeted therapy. Factors associated with pathologic complete response (pCR) and overall survival were examined. In total, 6994 patients were included, 32% cT1 and 68% cT2. Multi-agent NAC was given to 90% of women while single-agent NAC was given to 10% of women. pCR was achieved in 46% of cT2 patients and 43% of cT1, and in 46% of patients treated with multi-agent versus 38% single agent. Patients receiving multi-agent chemotherapy were younger, had fewer comorbidities, and had higher cT stage and grade. In all patients, pCR was associated with improved survival (p < 0.01). Multi-agent chemotherapy (OR 1.3, p = 0.003), hormone receptor negative (OR 2.6, p < 0.001), higher grade (OR 2.2, p < 0.001), younger age (OR 1.4, p = 0.011), and later year of diagnosis (OR 1.3, p = 0.005) were associated with achieving pCR. Multi-agent chemotherapy was associated with higher likelihood of pCR, but this effect was modest compared to other factors. Single-agent NAC with HER2-directed therapy in selected patients may provide excellent outcome with reduced toxicity, while allowing escalated therapy in the adjuvant setting for patients with residual disease. Prospective studies are needed to determine effects of de-escalation in the neoadjuvant setting on survival and optimal selection strategies.

A prospective trial of treatment de-escalation following neoadjuvant paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer

De-escalating adjuvant therapy following pathologic complete response (pCR) to an abbreviated neoadjuvant regimen in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer is the focus of international research efforts. However, the feasibility of this approach and its appeal to patients and providers had not been formally investigated. We aimed to assess adherence to de-escalated adjuvant antibody doublet therapy (trastuzumab and pertuzumab [HP], without chemotherapy) among patients with pCR following neoadjuvant paclitaxel/HP (THP). In this single-arm prospective trial, patients with treatment-naïve stage II-III HER2+ breast cancer received neoadjuvant weekly paclitaxel ×12 and HP every 3 weeks ×4. The primary endpoint was receipt of adjuvant non-HER2-directed cytotoxic chemotherapy. Ninety-eight patients received ≥1 dose of THP on study. Patients had median age of 50 years, 86% had stage II tumors, and 34% were hormone receptor-negative. Five patients had incomplete clinical response following THP and received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide before surgery; they were classified as non-pCR and censored from further analyses. The overall pCR rate was 56.7%. Among patients with pCR, the adherence rate to de-escalated antibody-only therapy (HP) was 98.2% (95% CI 90.3–100.0%), and the primary feasibility endpoint was reached. The majority of patients felt positive or neutral about their adjuvant treatment plans. With brief follow-up (median 19.1 months), there were no breast cancer recurrences. De-escalation of adjuvant chemotherapy among patients who experience pCR in early-stage HER2+ breast cancer is a practicable approach for both patients and physicians. Planned and ongoing prospective trials will determine the long-term efficacy of this approach.

Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03716180, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03716180.

Risk-adapted modulation through de-intensification of cancer treatments: an ESMO classification

BACKGROUND

The landscape of clinical trials testing risk-adapted modulations of cancer treatments is complex. Multiple trial designs, endpoints, and thresholds for non-inferiority have been used; however, no consensus or convention has ever been agreed to categorise biomarkers useful to inform the treatment intensity modulation of cancer treatments.

METHODS

An expert subgroup under the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group shaped an international collaborative project to develop a classification system for biomarkers used in the cancer treatment de-intensification, based on a tiered approach. A group of disease-oriented clinical, translational, methodology and public health experts, and patients' representatives provided an analysis of the status quo, and scanned the horizon of ongoing clinical trials. The classification was developed through multiple rounds of expert revisions and inputs.

RESULTS

The working group agreed on a univocal definition of treatment de-intensification. Evidence of reduction in the dose-density, intensity, or cumulative dose, including intermittent schedules or shorter treatment duration or deletion of segment(s) of the standard regimens, compound(s), or treatment modality must be demonstrated, to define a treatment de-intensification. De-intensified regimens must also portend a positive impact on toxicity, quality of life, health system burden, or financial toxicity. ESMO classification categorises the biomarkers for treatment modulation in three tiers, based on the level of evidence. Tier A includes biomarkers validated in prospective, randomised, non-inferiority clinical trials. The working group agreed that in non-inferiority clinical trials, boundaries are highly dependent upon the disease scenario and endpoint being studied and that the absolute differences in the outcomes are the most relevant measures, rather than relative differences. Biomarkers tested in single-arm studies with a threshold of non-inferiority are classified as Tier B. Tier C is when the validation occurs in prospective-retrospective quality cohort investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

ESMO classification for the risk-guided intensity modulation of cancer treatments provides a set of evidence-based criteria to categorise biomarkers deemed to inform de-intensification of cancer treatments, in risk-defined patients. The classification aims at harmonising definitions on this matter, therefore offering a common language for all the relevant stakeholders, including clinicians, patients, decision-makers, and for clinical trials.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer

The availability of HER2-targeted therapy has dramatically improved patient outcome in HER2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer (EBC) as recently demonstrated by the EBCTCTG metaanalysis on trastuzumab in HER2+ EBC: Adding trastuzumab to chemotherapy has reduced recurrence rates and breast-cancer related mortality by a third [1]. Today, neoadjuvant therapy has become standard of care for women with stage II or III tumors as pathological complete response (pCR) status after surgery can be used to individualize adjuvant systemic therapy. pCR is correlated with favorable patient outcome, particularly in hormone receptor (HR) negative HER2+ EBC, as demonstrated by the FDA meta-analysis. Moreover, for patients with non-pCR, 14 cycles of adjuvant T-DM1 have become a new adjuvant therapy standard based on the results of the KATHERINE trial. Primary surgery can be offered to patients with low tumor burden (cN0 cT1). For this low-risk subgroup, 12 weeks of adjuvant paclitaxel + trastuzumab for one year are correlated with excellent outcome based on the APT trial results. A multidisciplinary team is essential right from the beginning for optimal locoregional and systemic therapy in such a complex neoadjuvant - adjuvant continuum of care. Clinical trials in HER2+ EBC are currently evaluating further therapy de-escalation in low-risk disease or patients with pCR whereas for patients with non-pCR, escalation trials are also ongoing. Newly approved drugs for HER2+ MBC like tucatinib or trastuzumab-deruxtecan or even immunotherapy combinations are being evaluated to improve upon efficacy of T-DM1 alone in the non-pCR setting. Regarding de-escalation, the WSG ADAPT trial demonstrated feasibility of avoiding overtreatment and individualizing neoadjuvant therapy without compromising outcome. Further de-escalation trials (e.g. DECRESCENDO, COMPASS-HER2) are currently ongoing.

Outcome of Patients With an Ultralow-Risk 70-Gene Signature in the MINDACT Trial

PURPOSE

Patients with 70-gene signature ultralow-risk breast cancers have shown excellent survival in historic cohorts, including randomized trials. The ultralow-risk subgroup was characterized to help avoid overtreatment. We evaluated outcomes of ultralow-risk patients in the largest cohort to date.

METHODS

Of the 6,693 patients enrolled in the EORTC-10041/BIG-3-04 randomized phase III MINDACT trial, profiling revealed an ultralow-risk 70-gene signature in 1,000 patients (15%). Distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were assessed in patients stratified by 70-gene signature result (high, low, and ultralow) by Kaplan-Meier analysis and hazard ratios with 95% CI from Cox regression.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 8.7 years. Of the ultralow-risk patients (n = 1,000), 67% were > 50 years, 81% had tumors ≤ 2 cm, 80% were lymph node-negative, 96% had grade 1 or 2 tumors, and 99% were estrogen receptor (ER)-positive. Systemic therapy was received by 84% of patients (69% endocrine therapy, 14% endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy, 1% other) and 16% received no adjuvant systemic treatment. The 8-year DMFI for ultralow-risk patients was 97.0% (95% CI, 95.8 to 98.1), which was 2.5% higher than for patients with low-risk tumors (n = 3,295, 94.5% [95% CI, 93.6 to 95.3]). The hazard ratio for DMFI was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.94) for ultralow versus low risk, after adjusting for clinical-pathologic and treatment characteristics. The 8-year BCSS for ultralow-risk patients was 99.6% (95% CI, 99.1 to 100).

CONCLUSION

Patients with an ultralow-risk 70-gene signature have the best prognosis, distinctive from low risk, with 8-year BCSS above 99%, and very few patients developed distant metastases with an 8-year DMFI rate of 97%. These patients could be candidates for further de-escalation of treatment, to avoid overtreatment and the risk of side effects.

HER2+ Breast Cancer Escalation and De-Escalation Trial Design: Potential Role of Intrinsic Subtyping

Long-term outcomes in breast cancer patients differ based on the molecular subtype, with HER2-E being the most aggressive one. Advances in clinical practice have dramatically shifted HER2+ breast cancer prognosis. Risk adapted strategies to individualize therapies are necessary. De-escalation approaches have been encouraged based on the risks of clinical-pathological factors. Molecular gene subtyping could further accurately define HER2 addicted tumours that are sensitive to anti-HER2 therapies, thus sparing unnecessary treatments. The transition from immunochemistry to molecular profiling in HER2+ breast cancer is discussed.

Breast Cancer Prevention: Time for Change

Agency breast cancer prevention guidelines for other than hereditary cancers have not materially changed in 20 years; endocrine-targeted agents (then, tamoxifen; now, adding raloxifene and aromatase inhibitors) reduce good prognosis estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, progesterone receptor (PR)-positive cancers without reducing deaths from breast cancer. Across three tamoxifen placebo-controlled prevention trials (N = 23,360) begun almost 30 years ago, although there were 226 fewer breast cancer cases, there were nine more deaths from breast cancer in the tamoxifen groups. Following clinical advances, currently more than half of breast cancer cases are solved problems with extremely low risk of death. As endocrine-targeted agents commonly prevent these cancers, widespread implementation of current prevention strategies may not reduce deaths from breast cancer. Compared with other breast cancers, ER-positive, PR-negative cancers and triple-negative cancers have inferior survival (90.6% v 83.8% v 78.1%, respectively; P < .001). Against this background, in the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification randomized trial (N = 48,835), ER-positive, PR-negative cancers were statistically significantly reduced in the intervention group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.94) and deaths from breast cancer were reduced 21% (P = .02). In the Women's Health Initiative randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating conjugated equine estrogen (N = 10,739), ER-positive, PR-negative cancers were statistically significantly reduced in the intervention group (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.74) and deaths from breast cancer were reduced 40% (P = .04). These findings suggest that reexamination of breast cancer risk reduction strategies and clinical practice is needed.

Preferences of Treatment Strategies among Women with Low-Risk DCIS and Oncologists

As ongoing trials study the safety of an active surveillance strategy for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), there is a need to explain why particular choices regarding treatment strategies are made by eligible women as well as their oncologists, what factors enter the decision process, and how much each factor affects their choice. To measure preferences for treatment and surveillance strategies, women with newly-diagnosed, primary low-risk DCIS enrolled in the Dutch CONTROL DCIS Registration and LORD trial, and oncologists participating in the Dutch Health Professionals Study were invited to complete a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The relative importance of treatment strategy-related attributes (locoregional intervention, 10-year risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC), and follow-up interval) were discerned using conditional logit models. A total of n = 172 patients and n = 30 oncologists completed the DCE. Patient respondents had very strong preferences for an active surveillance strategy with no surgery, irrespective of the 10-year risk of iIBC. Extensiveness of the locoregional treatment was consistently shown to be an important factor for patients and oncologists in deciding upon treatment strategies. Risk of iIBC was least important to patients and most important to oncologists. There was a stronger inclination toward a twice-yearly follow-up for both groups compared to annual follow-up.

Methods and Designs of Modern Breast Cancer Confirmatory Trials

Simple Summary

The benefit–risk assessments of new drugs for breast cancer (BC) face several challenges, as all stakeholders do not agree on the evidence bar required for market authorization, and by the fragmentation of breast cancer diagnosis. In this study, we describe the methods and designs of breast cancer confirmatory trials published between 2001 and 2020. We found that the quality of the evidence supporting new breast cancer drugs was improving over time, but that patient-relevant endpoints such as survival and quality of life remained unfrequently used as primary endpoints.

Abstract

Background: The benefit–risk assessments of new drugs for breast cancer (BC) face several challenges, as all stakeholders do not agree on the evidence bar required for market authorization, and by the fragmentation of breast cancer diagnosis. The aim of this study was to describe the changes in methods and designs of breast cancer confirmatory trials. Methods: All phase III randomized trials published between 2001 and 2020 and assessing systemic BC therapies were included. Trials’ main characteristics, endpoints, and statistical methods were collected using a standardized data extraction form. Results: A total of 347 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. While most older trials (79%) included all subtypes of breast cancer, most recent trials populations were limited to one large intrinsic BC subgroup (69%). The use of gatekeeping testing strategies increased dramatically from 9% to 71%. The use of overall survival (OS) as an endpoint in the trials increased over time, but its use as a primary endpoint remained infrequent. The inclusion of OS testing in a hierarchical sequence in case of positive testing of a tumor-centered or composite endpoint appeared to have become the new standard. Conclusion: Our findings indicate some improvements in the quality of the evidence-base supporting new breast cancer drugs. The rigorous assessment of patient-relevant endpoints has increased over time, but this improvement is mainly related to the analysis of OS as a secondary endpoint analyzed in a hierarchical sequence.

Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring

Background

The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated, widely used tool developed to score the clinical benefit from cancer medicines reported in clinical trials. ESMO-MCBS scores assume valid research methodologies and quality trial implementation. Studies incorporating flawed design, implementation, or data analysis may generate outcomes that exaggerate true benefit and are not generalisable. Failure to either indicate or penalise studies with bias undermines the intention and diminishes the integrity of ESMO-MCBS scores. This review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the ESMO-MCBS to address bias generated by flawed design, implementation, or data analysis and identify shortcomings in need of amendment.

Methods

As part of a refinement of the ESMO-MCBS, we reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results. For each issue of concern, we reviewed the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 approach against standards derived from Helsinki guidelines for ethical human research and guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and European Network for Health Technology Assessment.

Results

Six design, two implementation, and two data analysis and interpretation issues were evaluated and in three, the ESMO-MCBS provided adequate protections. Seven shortcomings in the ability of the ESMO-MCBS to identify and address bias were identified. These related to (i) evaluation of the control arm, (ii) crossover issues, (iii) criteria for non-inferiority, (iv) substandard post-progression treatment, (v) post hoc subgroup findings based on biomarkers, (vi) informative censoring, and (vii) publication bias against quality-of-life data.

Conclusion

Interpretation of the ESMO-MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials to understand caveats in trial design, implementation, and data analysis that may have biased results and conclusions. These will be addressed in future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS.

•

We reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results of trials.

•

These issues could skew the results of ESMO-MCBS scores.

•

Six design, two implementation, and two analysis issues were reviewed, and seven shortcomings were identified.

•

These issues will be addressed in future versions of the MCBS scale.

•

Interpretation of MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials.

Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trials Cooperation: The Breast International Group Example

Clinical trials cooperation is not a luxury; it is a necessity, now more than ever, first in light of the segmentation of tumors according to their molecular targets-which are being matched to an increasing number of competitive drugs-and second because it is the only chance to maintain academic research centered on addressing patients' needs. In its 21 years of existence, the Breast International Group, an umbrella organization supporting the activities of 54 member groups across six continents, has been confronted with challenges that include (1) keeping trust and motivation within the network; (2) improving the interface between academia and industry; (3) improving patient involvement and trust in clinical trials; and (4) fundraising for noncommercial research. We describe how these challenges have been addressed so far, with the hope of empowering the next generation of clinical investigators.

Immune Checkpoint Blockade in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: What Role in Early Disease Setting?

Simple Summary

This work aims to discuss how an anti- or pro-tumor immune response could be manipulated through immune checkpoint blockade in patients with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer. By summarizing previously published evidence in the field, authors present their personal view on how immune checkpoint blockade could be implemented in the neoadjuvant setting in this patient population. The hypothesis being presented is that an appropriate and effective administration of immune checkpoint blockade could assure a lasting control of the disease, by preventing relapses. One of the research priorities should be the identification of the patients who could benefit more by this strategy.

Abstract

The present commentary synthesizes the current evidence on the role of the immune response in HER2-positive breast cancer. It points out the strengths and weaknesses of the findings observed so far, particularly in the early setting, including the clinical significance of scoring tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. A figure proposing research hypotheses for the implementation of immune checkpoint blockade use for patient candidates to neoadjuvant treatment is presented.