Critical research gaps and translational priorities for the successful prevention and treatment of breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer remains a significant scientific, clinical and societal challenge. This gap analysis has reviewed and critically assessed enduring issues and new challenges emerging from recent research, and proposes strategies for translating solutions into practice.

METHODS

More than 100 internationally recognised specialist breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals collaborated to address nine thematic areas: genetics, epigenetics and epidemiology; molecular pathology and cell biology; hormonal influences and endocrine therapy; imaging, detection and screening; current/novel therapies and biomarkers; drug resistance; metastasis, angiogenesis, circulating tumour cells, cancer 'stem' cells; risk and prevention; living with and managing breast cancer and its treatment. The groups developed summary papers through an iterative process which, following further appraisal from experts and patients, were melded into this summary account.

RESULTS

The 10 major gaps identified were: (1) understanding the functions and contextual interactions of genetic and epigenetic changes in normal breast development and during malignant transformation; (2) how to implement sustainable lifestyle changes (diet, exercise and weight) and chemopreventive strategies; (3) the need for tailored screening approaches including clinically actionable tests; (4) enhancing knowledge of molecular drivers behind breast cancer subtypes, progression and metastasis; (5) understanding the molecular mechanisms of tumour heterogeneity, dormancy, de novo or acquired resistance and how to target key nodes in these dynamic processes; (6) developing validated markers for chemosensitivity and radiosensitivity; (7) understanding the optimal duration, sequencing and rational combinations of treatment for improved personalised therapy; (8) validating multimodality imaging biomarkers for minimally invasive diagnosis and monitoring of responses in primary and metastatic disease; (9) developing interventions and support to improve the survivorship experience; (10) a continuing need for clinical material for translational research derived from normal breast, blood, primary, relapsed, metastatic and drug-resistant cancers with expert bioinformatics support to maximise its utility. The proposed infrastructural enablers include enhanced resources to support clinically relevant in vitro and in vivo tumour models; improved access to appropriate, fully annotated clinical samples; extended biomarker discovery, validation and standardisation; and facilitated cross-discipline working.

CONCLUSIONS

With resources to conduct further high-quality targeted research focusing on the gaps identified, increased knowledge translating into improved clinical care should be achievable within five years.

An evaluation of the FDA responder endpoint for IBS-C clinical trials: analysis of data from linaclotide Phase 3 clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to evaluate the performance of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Responder Endpoint for clinical trials in IBS-C, using data from two large Phase 3 clinical trials of linaclotide. The FDA interim endpoint requires that, for 50% of trial weeks, patients report ≥30% decrease in Abdominal Pain at its worst and (in the same week) an increase in Complete Spontaneous Bowel Movements (CSBMs) of ≥1 from baseline.

METHODS

Anchor-based methodology was used to estimate thresholds of clinically meaningful change using symptom-specific patient rating of change questions (PRCQs) and symptom severity questions. The diagnostic accuracy of the FDA Responder Endpoint was assessed using sensitivity/specificity-based methods.

KEY RESULTS

Using anchor-based methods, the estimates of the clinically meaningful improvement thresholds for Abdominal Pain ranged from 25.9% to 32.4% and thresholds for increase in weekly CSBM rate ranged from 1.4 to 1.6 CSBMs per week. Compared with the symptom-specific PRCQs for patient rating of relief, the FDA Responder Endpoint has a sensitivity of 60.7%, a specificity of 93.5%, and an accuracy of 82.0%. Changing the number of weeks required to be a responder or the percentage improvement in the Abdominal Pain criteria did not result in notable improvement in the accuracy of the FDA Responder Endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

The FDA Responder Endpoint for IBS-C clinical trials represents clinically meaningful improvements in IBS-C symptoms for patients with excellent specificity and reasonable sensitivity.