Introduction

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the United States, according to the SEER database. It is estimated that 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer at some point during their lifetime (12.4% lifetime risk).^1,2 Because breast tumors are clinically and histopathologically heterogeneous, different diagnostic and therapeutic approaches are required for each subtype. Among the subtypes, tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) account for approximately 15% to 20% of all newly diagnosed localized and metastatic invasive breast tumors.^3,4 Historically, this subset of tumors has been considered the most aggressive due to a higher propensity to relapse and metastasize, translating into poorer prognosis compared with other subtypes.^5–7 However, with the advent of HER2-targeted therapy in the late 1990s, prognosis has significantly improved for both early- and late-stage HER2-positive tumors.⁸

Pathogenesis

The HER2 proto-oncogene belongs to a family of human epidermal growth factor receptors that includes 4 transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptors: HER1 (also commonly known as epidermal growth factor receptor, EGFR), HER2, HER3, and HER4. Another commonly used nomenclature for this family of receptors is ERBB1 to ERBB4. Each of the receptors has a similar structure consisting of a growth factor–binding extracellular domain, a single transmembrane segment, an intracellular protein-tyrosine kinase catalytic domain, and a tyrosine-containing cytoplasmic tail. Activation of the extracellular domain leads to conformational changes that initiate a cascade of reactions resulting in protein kinase activation. ERBB tyrosine receptor kinases subsequently activate several intracellular pathways that are critical for cellular function and survival, including the PI3K-AKT, RAS-MAPK, and mTOR pathways. Hyperactivation or overexpression of these receptors leads to uncontrolled cell growth and proliferation, and eventually cancerogenesis.^9,10

HER2 gene amplification can cause activation of the receptor’s extramembranous domain by way of either dimerization of two HER2 receptors or heterodimerization with other ERBB family receptors, leading to ligand-independent activation of cell signaling (ie, activation in the absence of external growth factors). Besides breast cancer, HER2 protein is overexpressed in several other tumor types, including esophageal and gastric adenocarcinomas, colon and gynecological malignancies, and to a lesser extent in other malignancies.

Biomarker Testing

All patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer should have their tumor tissue submitted for biomarker testing for estrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors (PR), and HER2 overexpression, as the result this testing dictates therapy choices. The purpose of HER2 testing is to investigate whether the HER2 gene, located on chromosome 17, is overexpressed or amplified. HER2 status provides the basis for treatment selection, which impacts long-term outcome measures such as recurrence and survival. Routine testing of carcinoma in situ for HER2 expression/amplification is not recommended and has no implication on choice of therapy at this time.

In 2013, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) updated their clinical guideline recommendations for HER2 testing in breast cancer to improve its accuracy and its utility as a predictive marker.¹¹ There are currently 2 approved modalities for HER2 testing: detection of HER2 protein overexpression by immunohistochemical staining (IHC), and detection of HER2 gene amplification using in-situ hybridization. The results of each type of testing are reported as positive, equivocal, or negative (Table 1).¹¹  IHC uses antibodies against HER2 protein to assess the level of protein expression at the membrane of invasive tumor cells; overexpression of HER2 is established based upon the intensity of cell membrane staining and the number of stained cells. Results are reported as positive for HER2 expression (3+ staining), negative for HER2 expression (0 or 1+ staining), or equivocal for HER2 expression (2+ staining).

Fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) testing assesses for HER2 amplification by determining the number of HER2 signals and chromosome 17 centromere (CEP17) signals, respectively, in a tissue sample. HER2 status is based on the ratio of average HER2 signals to CEP17 signals and the average HER2 signal count per cell. FISH testing is considered positive when there are ≥ 6 copies of HER2 signals per cell or when the HER2/CEP17 ratio is ≥ 2. FISH testing is reported as negative when there are fewer than 4 copies of HER2 per cell and the HER2/CEP17 ratio is < 2. 

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Therapy for Locoregional Disease

Case Patient 1

A 56-year-old woman undergoes ultrasound-guided biopsy of a self-palpated breast lump. Pathology shows invasive ductal carcinoma that is ER-positive, PR-negative, and HER2 equivocal by IHC (2+ staining). Follow-up FISH testing shows a HER2/CEP17 ratio of 2.5. The tumor is estimated to be 2 cm in diameter by imaging and exam with no clinically palpable axillary lymphadenopathy. The patient exhibits no constitutional or localized symptoms concerning for metastases.

• What is the recommended management approach for this patient?

According to the ASCO/CAP guidelines, this patient’s tumor qualifies as HER2-positive based upon testing results showing amplification of the gene. This result has important implications for management since nearly all patients with macroscopically invasive HER2-positive tumors should be considered for adjuvant chemotherapy in combination with anti-HER2 therapy. The patient should proceed with upfront tumor resection and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Systemic staging imaging (ie, computed tomography [CT] or bone scan) is not indicated in early stage breast cancer.^12,13 Systemic staging scans are indicated when (1) any anatomical stage III disease is suspected (eg, with involvement of the skin or chest wall, the presence of enlarged matted or fixed axillary lymph nodes, and involvement of nodal stations other than in the axilla), and (2) when symptoms or abnormal laboratory values raise suspicion for distant metastases (eg, unexplained bone pain, unintentional weight loss, elevated serum alkaline phosphatase, and transaminitis).

Case 1 Continued

The patient presents to discuss treatment options after undergoing a lumpectomy and sentinel node biopsy procedure. The pathology report notes a single focus of carcinoma measuring 2 cm with negative sentinel lymph nodes.

• What agents are used for adjuvant therapy in HER2-postive breast cancer?

Nearly all patients with macroscopically invasive (> 1 mm) breast carcinoma should be considered for adjuvant therapy using a regimen that contains a taxane and trastuzumab. However, the benefit may be small for patients with tumors ≤ 5 mm (T1a, N0), so it is important to carefully weigh the risk against the benefit. Among the agents that targeting HER2, only trastuzumab has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) in the adjuvant setting; long-term follow-up data are awaited for other agents.⁸  A trastuzumab biosimilar, trastuzumab-dkst, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the same indications as trastuzumab.¹⁴ The regimens most commonly used in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings for nonmetastatic breast cancer are summarized in Table 2.

Patients with small (≤ 3 cm), node-negative tumors can generally be considered for a reduced-intensity regimen that includes weekly paclitaxel plus trastuzumab. This combination proved efficacious in a single-group, multicenter study that enrolled 406 patients.¹⁵ Paclitaxel and trastuzumab were given once weekly for 12 weeks, followed by trastuzumab, either weekly or every 3 weeks, to complete 1 year of therapy.After a median follow-up of more than 6 years, the rates of distant and locoregional recurrence were 1% and 1.2%, respectively.¹⁶

A combination of docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab is a nonanthracycline regimen that is also appropriate in this setting, based on the results of the Breast Cancer International Research Group 006 (BCIRG-006) trial.¹⁷ This phase 3 randomized trial enrolled 3222 women with HER2-positive, invasive, high-risk adenocarcinoma. Eligible patients had a T1–3 tumor and either lymph node–negative or –positive disease and were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 3 regimens: group 1 received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks for 4 cycles followed by docetaxel every 3 weeks for 4 cycles (AC-T); group 2 received the AC-T regimen in combination with trastuzumab; and group 3 received docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab once every 3 weeks for 6 cycles (TCH). Groups 2 and 3 also received trastuzumab for an additional 34 weeks to complete 1 year of therapy. Trastuzumab-containing regimens were found to offer superior disease-free survival (DFS) and OS. When comparing the 2 trastuzumab arms after more than 10 years of follow-up, no statistically significant advantage of an anthracycline regimen over a nonanthracycline regimen was found.¹⁸ Furthermore, the anthracycline arm had a fivefold higher incidence of symptomatic congestive heart failure (grades 3 and 4), and the nonanthracycline regimen was associated with a lower incidence of treatment-related leukemia, a clinically significant finding despite not reaching statistical significance due to low overall numbers.

BCIRG-006, NSABP B-31, NCCTG N9831, and HERA are all large randomized trials with consistent results confirming trastuzumab’s role in reducing recurrence and improving survival in HER2-positive breast cancer in the adjuvant settings. The estimated overall benefit from addition of this agent was a 34% to 41% improvement in survival and a 33% to 52% improvement in DFS.^8,17–20

Dual anti-HER2 therapy containing both trastuzumab and pertuzumab should be strongly considered for patients with macroscopic lymph node involvement based on the results of the APHINITY trial.²¹ In this study, the addition of pertuzumab to standard trastuzumab-based therapy led to a significant improvement in invasive-disease-free survival at 3 years. In subgroup analysis, the benefit was restricted to the node-positive group (3-year invasive-disease-free survival rates of 92% in the pertuzumab group versus 90.2% in the placebo group, P = 0.02). Patients with hormone receptor–negative disease derived greater benefit from the addition of pertuzumab. Regimens used in the APHINITY trial included the anti-HER2 agents trastuzumab and pertuzumab in combination with 1 of the following chemotherapy regimens: sequential cyclophosphamide plus either doxorubicin or epirubicin, followed by either 4 cycles of docetaxel or 12 weekly doses of paclitaxel; sequential fluorouracil plus either epirubicin or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide (3 or 4 cycles), followed by 3 or 4 cycles of docetaxel or 12 weekly cycles of paclitaxel; or 6 cycles of concurrent docetaxel plus carboplatin.

One-year therapy with neratinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of HER2, is now approved by the FDA after completion of trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting, based on the results of the ExteNET trial.²² In this study, patients who had completed trastuzumab within the preceding 12 months, without evidence of recurrence, were randomly assigned to receive either oral neratinib or placebo daily for 1 year. The 2-year DFS rate was 93.9% and 91.6% for the neratinib and placebo groups, respectively. The most common adverse effect of neratinib was diarrhea, with approximately 40% of patients experiencing grade 3 diarrhea. In subgroup analyses, hormone receptor–positive patients derived the most benefit, while hormone receptor–negative patients derived no or marginal benefit.²² OS benefit has not yet been established.²³

Trastuzumab therapy (with pertuzumab if indicated) should be offered for an optimal duration of 12 months (17 cycles, including those given with chemotherapy backbone). A shorter duration of therapy, 6 months, has been shown to be inferior,²⁴ while a longer duration, 24 months, has been shown to provide no additional benefit.²⁵

Finally, sequential addition of anti-estrogen endocrine therapy is indicated for hormone-positive tumors. Endocrine therapy is usually added after completion of the chemotherapy backbone of the regimen, but may be given concurrently with anti-HER2 therapy. If radiation is being administered, endocrine therapy can be given concurrently or started after radiation therapy is completed.

Case 1 Conclusion

The patient can be offered 1 of 2 adjuvant treatment regimens, either TH or TCH (Table 2). Since the patient had lumpectomy, she is an appropriate candidate for adjuvant radiation, which would be started after completion of the chemotherapy backbone (taxane/platinum). Endocrine therapy for at least 5 years should be offered sequentially or concurrently with radiation. Her long-term prognosis is very favorable.

Case Patient 2

A 43-year-old woman presents with a 4-cm breast mass, a separate skin nodule, and palpable matted axillary lymphadenopathy. Biopsies of the breast mass and subcutaneous nodule reveal invasive ductal carcinoma that is ER-negative, PR-negative, and HER2-positive by IHC (3+ staining). Based on clinical findings, the patient is staged as T4b (separate tumor nodule), N2 (matted axillary lymph nodes). Systemic staging with CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis shows no evidence of distant metastases.

• What is the recommended approach to management for this patient?

Recommendations for neoadjuvant therapy, given before definitive surgery, follow the same path as with other subtypes of breast cancer. Patients with suspected anatomical stage III disease are strongly encouraged to undergo upfront (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy in combination with HER2-targeted agents. In addition, all HER2-positive patients with clinically node-positive disease can be offered neoadjuvant therapy using chemotherapy plus dual anti-HER2 therapy (trastuzumab and pertuzumab), with complete pathological response expected in more than 60% of patients.^26,27 Because this patient has locally advanced disease, especially skin involvement and matted axillary nodes, she should undergo neoadjuvant therapy. Preferred regimens contain both trastuzumab and pertuzumab in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy. The latter may be given concurrently (nonanthracycline regimens, such as docetaxel plus carboplatin) or sequentially (anthracycline-based regimens), as outlined in Table 2. Administration of anthracyclines and trastuzumab simultaneously is contraindicated due to increased risk of cardiomyopathy.²⁸

Endocrine therapy is not indicated for this patient per the current standard of care because the tumor was ER- and PR-negative. Had the tumor been hormone receptor–positive, endocrine therapy for a minimum of 5 years would have been indicated. Likewise, in the case of hormone receptor–positive disease, 12 months of neratinib therapy after completion of trastuzumab may add further benefit, as shown in the ExteNET trial.^22,23 Neratinib seems to have a propensity to prevent or delay trastuzumab-induced overexpression of estrogen receptors. This is mainly due to hormone receptor/HER2 crosstalk, a potential mechanism of resistance to trastuzumab.^29,30

In addition to the medical therapy options discussed here, this patient would be expected to benefit from adjuvant radiation to the breast and regional lymph nodes, given the presence of T4 disease and bulky adenopathy in the axilla.³¹

Case 2 Conclusion

The patient undergoes neoadjuvant treatment (docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab every 21 days for a total of 6 cycles), followed by surgical resection (modified radical mastectomy) that reveals complete pathological response (no residual invasive carcinoma). Subsequently, she receives radiation therapy to the primary tumor site and regional lymph nodes while continuing trastuzumab and pertuzumab for 11 more cycles (17 total). Despite presenting with locally advanced disease, the patient has a favorable overall prognosis due to an excellent pathological response.

• What is the approach to follow-up after completion of primary therapy?

Patients may follow up every 3 to 6 months for clinical evaluation in the first 5 years after completing primary adjuvant therapy. An annual screening mammogram is recommended as well. Body imaging can be done if dictated by symptoms. However, routine CT, positron emission tomography, or bone scans are not recommended as part of follow-up in the absence of symptoms, mainly because of a lack of evidence that such surveillance improves survival.³²

Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer

Metastatic breast cancer most commonly presents as a distant recurrence of previously treated local disease. However, 6% to 18% of patients have no prior history of breast cancer and present with de novo metastatic disease.^33,34 The most commonly involved distant organs are the skeletal bones, liver, lung, distant lymph node stations, and brain. Compared to other subtypes, HER2-positive tumors have an increased tendency to involve the central nervous system.^35–38 Although metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer is not considered curable, significant improvement in survival has been achieved, and patients with metastatic disease have median survival approaching 5 years.³⁹

Case Presentation 3

A 69-year-old woman with a history of breast cancer 4 years ago presents with new-onset back pain and unintentional weight loss. On exam, she is found to have palpable axillary adenopathy on the same side as her previous cancer. Her initial disease was stage IIB ER-positive and HER2-positive and was treated with chemotherapy, mastectomy, and anastrozole, which the patient is still taking. She undergoes CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis and radionucleotide bone scan, which show multiple liver and bony lesions suspicious for metastatic disease. Axillary lymph node biopsy confirms recurrent invasive carcinoma that is ER-positive and HER2-positive by IHC (3+).

• What is the approach to management of a patient who presents with symptoms of recurrent HER2-positive disease?

This patient likely has metastatic breast cancer based on the imaging findings. In such cases, a biopsy of the recurrent disease should always be considered, if feasible, to confirm the diagnosis and rule out other etiologies such as different malignances and benign conditions. Hormone-receptor and HER2 testing should also be performed on recurrent disease, since a change in HER2 status can be seen in 15% to 33% of cases.^40–42

Based on data from the phase 3 CLEOPATRA trial, first-line systemic regimens for patients with metastatic breast cancer that is positive for HER2 should consist of a combination of docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab.  Compared to placebo, adding pertuzumab yielded superior progression-free survival of 18.4 months (versus 12.4 months for placebo) and an unprecedented OS of 56.5 months (versus 40.8 for placebo).³⁹ Weekly paclitaxel can replace docetaxel with comparable efficacy (Table 3).⁴³

Patients can develop significant neuropathy as well as skin and nail changes after multiple cycles of taxane-based chemotherapy. Therefore, the taxane backbone may be dropped after 6 to 8 cycles, while patients continue the trastuzumab and pertuzumab combination until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Some patients may enjoy remarkable long-term survival on “maintenance” anti-HER2 therapy.⁴⁴ Despite lack of high-level evidence, such as from large randomized trials, some experts recommend the addition of a hormone blocker after discontinuation of the taxane in ER-positive tumors.⁴⁵

Premenopausal and perimenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive metastatic disease should be considered for simultaneous ovarian suppression. Ovarian suppression can be accomplished medically using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (goserelin) or surgically via salpingo-oophorectomy.^46–48

Case 3 Conclusion

The patient receives 6 cycles of docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab, after which the docetaxel is discontinued due to neuropathy while she continues the other 2 agents. After 26 months of disease control, the patient is found to have new liver metastatic lesions, indicating progression of disease.

• What therapeutic options are available for this patient?

Patients whose disease progresses after receiving taxane- and trastuzumab-containing regimens are candidates to receive the novel antibody-drug conjugate ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). Early progressors (ie, patients with early stage disease who have progression of disease while receiving adjuvant trastuzumab or within 6 months of completion of adjuvant trastuzumab) are also candidates for T-DM1. Treatment usually fits in the second line or beyond based on data from the EMILIA trial, which randomly assigned patients to receive either capecitabine plus lapatinib or T-DM1.^49,50 Progression-free survival in the T-DM1 group was 9.6 months versus 6.4 months for the comparator. Improvement of 4 months in OS persisted with longer follow-up despite a crossover rate of 27%. Furthermore, a significantly higher objective response rate and fewer adverse effects were reported in the T-DM1 patients. Most patients included in the EMILIA trial were pertuzumab-naive. However, the benefit of T-DM1 appears to persist, albeit to a lesser extent, for pertuzumab-pretreated patients.^51,52

Patients in whom treatment fails with 2 or more lines of therapy containing taxane-trastuzumab (with or without pertuzumab) and T-DM1 are candidates to receive a combination of capecitabine and lapatinib, a TKI, in the third line and beyond. Similarly, the combination of capecitabine with trastuzumab in the same settings appears to have equal efficacy.^53,54 Trastuzumab may be continued beyond progression while changing the single-agent chemotherapy drug for subsequent lines of therapy, per ASCO guidelines,⁵⁵ although improvement in OS has not been demonstrated beyond the third line in a large randomized trial (Table 3).

Approved HER2-Targeted Drugs

HER2-directed therapy is implemented in the management of nearly all stages of HER2-positive invasive breast cancer, including early and late stages (Table 4).

Trastuzumab

Trastuzumab was the first anti-HER2 agent to be approved by the FDA in 1998. It is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the extracellular domain of the HER2 receptor (domain IV).  Trastuzumab functions by interrupting HER2 signal transduction and by flagging tumor cells for immune destruction.⁵⁶ Cardiotoxicity, usually manifested as left ventricular systolic dysfunction, is the most noteworthy adverse effect of trastuzumab. The most prominent risk factors for cardiomyopathy in patients receiving trastuzumab are low baseline ejection fraction (< 55%), age > 50 years, co-administration and higher cumulative dose of anthracyclines, and increased body mass index and obesity.^57–59 Whether patients receive therapy in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or metastatic settings, baseline cardiac function assessment with echocardiogram or multiple-gated acquisition scan is required. While well-designed randomized trials validating the value and frequency of monitoring are lacking, repeated cardiac testing every 3 months is generally recommended for patients undergoing adjuvant therapy. Patients with metastatic disease who are receiving treatment with palliative intent may be monitored less frequently.^60,61

An asymptomatic drop in ejection fraction is the most common manifestation of cardiac toxicity. Other cardiac manifestations have also been reported with much less frequency, including arrhythmias, severe congestive heart failure, ventricular thrombus formation, and even cardiac death. Until monitoring and dose-adjustment guidelines are issued, the guidance provided in the FDA-approved prescribing information should be followed, which recommends holding trastuzumab when there is ≥ 16% absolute reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from the baseline value; or if the LVEF value is below the institutional lower limit of normal and the drop is ≥ 10%. After holding the drug, cardiac function can be re-evaluated every 4 weeks. In most patients, trastuzumab-induced cardiotoxicity can be reversed by withholding trastuzumab and initiating cardioprotective therapy, although the latter remains controversial. Re-challenging after recovery of ejection fraction is possible and toxicity does not appear to be proportional to cumulative dose. Cardiomyopathy due to trastuzumab therapy is potentially reversible within 6 months in more than 80% of cases.^{28,57,60–63}

Other notable adverse effects of trastuzumab include pulmonary toxicity (such as interstitial lung disease) and infusion reactions (usually during or within 24 hours of first dose).

Pertuzumab

Pertuzumab is another humanized monoclonal antibody directed to a different extracellular domain of the HER2 receptor, the dimerization domain (domain II), which is responsible for heterodimerization of HER2 with other HER receptors, especially HER3. This agent should always be co-administered with trastuzumab as the 2 drugs produce synergistic anti-tumor effect, without competition for the receptor. Activation of HER3, via dimerization with HER2, produces an alternative mechanism of downstream signaling, even in the presence of trastuzumab and in the absence of growth factors (Figure 2). 

Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine

Ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab with the cytotoxic agent DM1 (emtansine), a potent microtubule inhibitor and a derivative of maytansine, in a single structure (Figure 3). 

Lapatinib

Lapatinib is an oral small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of EGFR (HER1) and HER2 receptors. It is approved in combination with capecitabine for patients with HER2-expressing metastatic breast cancer who previously received trastuzumab, an anthracycline, and a taxane chemotherapy or T-DM1. Lapatinib is also approved in combination with letrozole in postmenopausal women with HER2-positive, hormone receptor–positive metastatic disease, although it is unclear where this regimen would fit in the current schema. It may be considered for patients with hormone receptor–positive disease who are not candidates for therapy with taxane-trastuzumab and T-DM1 or who decline this therapy. Diarrhea is seen in most patients treated with lapatinib and may be severe in 20% of cases when lapatinib is combined with capecitabine. Decreases in LVEF have been reported and cardiac function monitoring at baseline and periodically may be considered.^69,70 Lapatinib is not approved for use in adjuvant settings.

Neratinib

Neratinib is an oral small-molecule irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor of HER1, HER2, and HER4. It is currently approved only for extended adjuvant therapy after completion of 1 year of standard trastuzumab therapy. It is given orally every day for 1 year. The main side effect, expected in nearly all patients, is diarrhea, which can be severe in up to 40% of patients and may lead to dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. Diarrhea usually starts early in the course of therapy and can be most intense during the first cycle. Therefore, prophylactic antidiarrheal therapy is recommended to reduce the intensity of diarrhea. Loperamide prophylaxis may be initiated simultaneously for all patients using a tapering schedule. Drug interruption or dose reduction may be required if diarrhea is severe or refractory.^21,71 Neratinib is not FDA-approved in the metastatic settings.

Conclusion

HER2-positive tumors represent a distinct subset(s) of breast tumors with unique pathological and clinical characteristics. Treatment with a combination of cytotoxic chemotherapy and HER2-targeted agents has led to a dramatic improvement in survival for patients with locoregional and advanced disease. Trastuzumab is an integral part of adjuvant therapy for HER2-positive invasive disease. Pertuzumab should be added to trastuzumab in node-positive disease. Neratinib may be considered after completion of trastuzumab therapy in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease. For metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, a regimen consisting of docetaxel plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab is the standard first-line therapy. Ado-trastuzumab is an ideal next line option for patients whose disease progresses on trastuzumab and taxanes.

Introduction

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the United States, according to the SEER database. It is estimated that 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer at some point during their lifetime (12.4% lifetime risk).^1,2 Because breast tumors are clinically and histopathologically heterogeneous, different diagnostic and therapeutic approaches are required for each subtype. Among the subtypes, tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) account for approximately 15% to 20% of all newly diagnosed localized and metastatic invasive breast tumors.^3,4 Historically, this subset of tumors has been considered the most aggressive due to a higher propensity to relapse and metastasize, translating into poorer prognosis compared with other subtypes.^5–7 However, with the advent of HER2-targeted therapy in the late 1990s, prognosis has significantly improved for both early- and late-stage HER2-positive tumors.⁸

Pathogenesis

The HER2 proto-oncogene belongs to a family of human epidermal growth factor receptors that includes 4 transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptors: HER1 (also commonly known as epidermal growth factor receptor, EGFR), HER2, HER3, and HER4. Another commonly used nomenclature for this family of receptors is ERBB1 to ERBB4. Each of the receptors has a similar structure consisting of a growth factor–binding extracellular domain, a single transmembrane segment, an intracellular protein-tyrosine kinase catalytic domain, and a tyrosine-containing cytoplasmic tail. Activation of the extracellular domain leads to conformational changes that initiate a cascade of reactions resulting in protein kinase activation. ERBB tyrosine receptor kinases subsequently activate several intracellular pathways that are critical for cellular function and survival, including the PI3K-AKT, RAS-MAPK, and mTOR pathways. Hyperactivation or overexpression of these receptors leads to uncontrolled cell growth and proliferation, and eventually cancerogenesis.^9,10

HER2 gene amplification can cause activation of the receptor’s extramembranous domain by way of either dimerization of two HER2 receptors or heterodimerization with other ERBB family receptors, leading to ligand-independent activation of cell signaling (ie, activation in the absence of external growth factors). Besides breast cancer, HER2 protein is overexpressed in several other tumor types, including esophageal and gastric adenocarcinomas, colon and gynecological malignancies, and to a lesser extent in other malignancies.

Biomarker Testing

All patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer should have their tumor tissue submitted for biomarker testing for estrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors (PR), and HER2 overexpression, as the result this testing dictates therapy choices. The purpose of HER2 testing is to investigate whether the HER2 gene, located on chromosome 17, is overexpressed or amplified. HER2 status provides the basis for treatment selection, which impacts long-term outcome measures such as recurrence and survival. Routine testing of carcinoma in situ for HER2 expression/amplification is not recommended and has no implication on choice of therapy at this time.

In 2013, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) updated their clinical guideline recommendations for HER2 testing in breast cancer to improve its accuracy and its utility as a predictive marker.¹¹ There are currently 2 approved modalities for HER2 testing: detection of HER2 protein overexpression by immunohistochemical staining (IHC), and detection of HER2 gene amplification using in-situ hybridization. The results of each type of testing are reported as positive, equivocal, or negative (Table 1).¹¹  IHC uses antibodies against HER2 protein to assess the level of protein expression at the membrane of invasive tumor cells; overexpression of HER2 is established based upon the intensity of cell membrane staining and the number of stained cells. Results are reported as positive for HER2 expression (3+ staining), negative for HER2 expression (0 or 1+ staining), or equivocal for HER2 expression (2+ staining).

Fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) testing assesses for HER2 amplification by determining the number of HER2 signals and chromosome 17 centromere (CEP17) signals, respectively, in a tissue sample. HER2 status is based on the ratio of average HER2 signals to CEP17 signals and the average HER2 signal count per cell. FISH testing is considered positive when there are ≥ 6 copies of HER2 signals per cell or when the HER2/CEP17 ratio is ≥ 2. FISH testing is reported as negative when there are fewer than 4 copies of HER2 per cell and the HER2/CEP17 ratio is < 2. 

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Therapy for Locoregional Disease

Case Patient 1

A 56-year-old woman undergoes ultrasound-guided biopsy of a self-palpated breast lump. Pathology shows invasive ductal carcinoma that is ER-positive, PR-negative, and HER2 equivocal by IHC (2+ staining). Follow-up FISH testing shows a HER2/CEP17 ratio of 2.5. The tumor is estimated to be 2 cm in diameter by imaging and exam with no clinically palpable axillary lymphadenopathy. The patient exhibits no constitutional or localized symptoms concerning for metastases.

• What is the recommended management approach for this patient?

According to the ASCO/CAP guidelines, this patient’s tumor qualifies as HER2-positive based upon testing results showing amplification of the gene. This result has important implications for management since nearly all patients with macroscopically invasive HER2-positive tumors should be considered for adjuvant chemotherapy in combination with anti-HER2 therapy. The patient should proceed with upfront tumor resection and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Systemic staging imaging (ie, computed tomography [CT] or bone scan) is not indicated in early stage breast cancer.^12,13 Systemic staging scans are indicated when (1) any anatomical stage III disease is suspected (eg, with involvement of the skin or chest wall, the presence of enlarged matted or fixed axillary lymph nodes, and involvement of nodal stations other than in the axilla), and (2) when symptoms or abnormal laboratory values raise suspicion for distant metastases (eg, unexplained bone pain, unintentional weight loss, elevated serum alkaline phosphatase, and transaminitis).

Case 1 Continued

The patient presents to discuss treatment options after undergoing a lumpectomy and sentinel node biopsy procedure. The pathology report notes a single focus of carcinoma measuring 2 cm with negative sentinel lymph nodes.

• What agents are used for adjuvant therapy in HER2-postive breast cancer?

Nearly all patients with macroscopically invasive (> 1 mm) breast carcinoma should be considered for adjuvant therapy using a regimen that contains a taxane and trastuzumab. However, the benefit may be small for patients with tumors ≤ 5 mm (T1a, N0), so it is important to carefully weigh the risk against the benefit. Among the agents that targeting HER2, only trastuzumab has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) in the adjuvant setting; long-term follow-up data are awaited for other agents.⁸  A trastuzumab biosimilar, trastuzumab-dkst, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the same indications as trastuzumab.¹⁴ The regimens most commonly used in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings for nonmetastatic breast cancer are summarized in Table 2.

Patients with small (≤ 3 cm), node-negative tumors can generally be considered for a reduced-intensity regimen that includes weekly paclitaxel plus trastuzumab. This combination proved efficacious in a single-group, multicenter study that enrolled 406 patients.¹⁵ Paclitaxel and trastuzumab were given once weekly for 12 weeks, followed by trastuzumab, either weekly or every 3 weeks, to complete 1 year of therapy.After a median follow-up of more than 6 years, the rates of distant and locoregional recurrence were 1% and 1.2%, respectively.¹⁶

A combination of docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab is a nonanthracycline regimen that is also appropriate in this setting, based on the results of the Breast Cancer International Research Group 006 (BCIRG-006) trial.¹⁷ This phase 3 randomized trial enrolled 3222 women with HER2-positive, invasive, high-risk adenocarcinoma. Eligible patients had a T1–3 tumor and either lymph node–negative or –positive disease and were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 3 regimens: group 1 received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks for 4 cycles followed by docetaxel every 3 weeks for 4 cycles (AC-T); group 2 received the AC-T regimen in combination with trastuzumab; and group 3 received docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab once every 3 weeks for 6 cycles (TCH). Groups 2 and 3 also received trastuzumab for an additional 34 weeks to complete 1 year of therapy. Trastuzumab-containing regimens were found to offer superior disease-free survival (DFS) and OS. When comparing the 2 trastuzumab arms after more than 10 years of follow-up, no statistically significant advantage of an anthracycline regimen over a nonanthracycline regimen was found.¹⁸ Furthermore, the anthracycline arm had a fivefold higher incidence of symptomatic congestive heart failure (grades 3 and 4), and the nonanthracycline regimen was associated with a lower incidence of treatment-related leukemia, a clinically significant finding despite not reaching statistical significance due to low overall numbers.

BCIRG-006, NSABP B-31, NCCTG N9831, and HERA are all large randomized trials with consistent results confirming trastuzumab’s role in reducing recurrence and improving survival in HER2-positive breast cancer in the adjuvant settings. The estimated overall benefit from addition of this agent was a 34% to 41% improvement in survival and a 33% to 52% improvement in DFS.^8,17–20

Dual anti-HER2 therapy containing both trastuzumab and pertuzumab should be strongly considered for patients with macroscopic lymph node involvement based on the results of the APHINITY trial.²¹ In this study, the addition of pertuzumab to standard trastuzumab-based therapy led to a significant improvement in invasive-disease-free survival at 3 years. In subgroup analysis, the benefit was restricted to the node-positive group (3-year invasive-disease-free survival rates of 92% in the pertuzumab group versus 90.2% in the placebo group, P = 0.02). Patients with hormone receptor–negative disease derived greater benefit from the addition of pertuzumab. Regimens used in the APHINITY trial included the anti-HER2 agents trastuzumab and pertuzumab in combination with 1 of the following chemotherapy regimens: sequential cyclophosphamide plus either doxorubicin or epirubicin, followed by either 4 cycles of docetaxel or 12 weekly doses of paclitaxel; sequential fluorouracil plus either epirubicin or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide (3 or 4 cycles), followed by 3 or 4 cycles of docetaxel or 12 weekly cycles of paclitaxel; or 6 cycles of concurrent docetaxel plus carboplatin.

One-year therapy with neratinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of HER2, is now approved by the FDA after completion of trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting, based on the results of the ExteNET trial.²² In this study, patients who had completed trastuzumab within the preceding 12 months, without evidence of recurrence, were randomly assigned to receive either oral neratinib or placebo daily for 1 year. The 2-year DFS rate was 93.9% and 91.6% for the neratinib and placebo groups, respectively. The most common adverse effect of neratinib was diarrhea, with approximately 40% of patients experiencing grade 3 diarrhea. In subgroup analyses, hormone receptor–positive patients derived the most benefit, while hormone receptor–negative patients derived no or marginal benefit.²² OS benefit has not yet been established.²³

Trastuzumab therapy (with pertuzumab if indicated) should be offered for an optimal duration of 12 months (17 cycles, including those given with chemotherapy backbone). A shorter duration of therapy, 6 months, has been shown to be inferior,²⁴ while a longer duration, 24 months, has been shown to provide no additional benefit.²⁵

Finally, sequential addition of anti-estrogen endocrine therapy is indicated for hormone-positive tumors. Endocrine therapy is usually added after completion of the chemotherapy backbone of the regimen, but may be given concurrently with anti-HER2 therapy. If radiation is being administered, endocrine therapy can be given concurrently or started after radiation therapy is completed.

Case 1 Conclusion

The patient can be offered 1 of 2 adjuvant treatment regimens, either TH or TCH (Table 2). Since the patient had lumpectomy, she is an appropriate candidate for adjuvant radiation, which would be started after completion of the chemotherapy backbone (taxane/platinum). Endocrine therapy for at least 5 years should be offered sequentially or concurrently with radiation. Her long-term prognosis is very favorable.

Case Patient 2

A 43-year-old woman presents with a 4-cm breast mass, a separate skin nodule, and palpable matted axillary lymphadenopathy. Biopsies of the breast mass and subcutaneous nodule reveal invasive ductal carcinoma that is ER-negative, PR-negative, and HER2-positive by IHC (3+ staining). Based on clinical findings, the patient is staged as T4b (separate tumor nodule), N2 (matted axillary lymph nodes). Systemic staging with CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis shows no evidence of distant metastases.

• What is the recommended approach to management for this patient?

Recommendations for neoadjuvant therapy, given before definitive surgery, follow the same path as with other subtypes of breast cancer. Patients with suspected anatomical stage III disease are strongly encouraged to undergo upfront (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy in combination with HER2-targeted agents. In addition, all HER2-positive patients with clinically node-positive disease can be offered neoadjuvant therapy using chemotherapy plus dual anti-HER2 therapy (trastuzumab and pertuzumab), with complete pathological response expected in more than 60% of patients.^26,27 Because this patient has locally advanced disease, especially skin involvement and matted axillary nodes, she should undergo neoadjuvant therapy. Preferred regimens contain both trastuzumab and pertuzumab in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy. The latter may be given concurrently (nonanthracycline regimens, such as docetaxel plus carboplatin) or sequentially (anthracycline-based regimens), as outlined in Table 2. Administration of anthracyclines and trastuzumab simultaneously is contraindicated due to increased risk of cardiomyopathy.²⁸

Endocrine therapy is not indicated for this patient per the current standard of care because the tumor was ER- and PR-negative. Had the tumor been hormone receptor–positive, endocrine therapy for a minimum of 5 years would have been indicated. Likewise, in the case of hormone receptor–positive disease, 12 months of neratinib therapy after completion of trastuzumab may add further benefit, as shown in the ExteNET trial.^22,23 Neratinib seems to have a propensity to prevent or delay trastuzumab-induced overexpression of estrogen receptors. This is mainly due to hormone receptor/HER2 crosstalk, a potential mechanism of resistance to trastuzumab.^29,30

In addition to the medical therapy options discussed here, this patient would be expected to benefit from adjuvant radiation to the breast and regional lymph nodes, given the presence of T4 disease and bulky adenopathy in the axilla.³¹

Case 2 Conclusion

The patient undergoes neoadjuvant treatment (docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab every 21 days for a total of 6 cycles), followed by surgical resection (modified radical mastectomy) that reveals complete pathological response (no residual invasive carcinoma). Subsequently, she receives radiation therapy to the primary tumor site and regional lymph nodes while continuing trastuzumab and pertuzumab for 11 more cycles (17 total). Despite presenting with locally advanced disease, the patient has a favorable overall prognosis due to an excellent pathological response.

• What is the approach to follow-up after completion of primary therapy?

Patients may follow up every 3 to 6 months for clinical evaluation in the first 5 years after completing primary adjuvant therapy. An annual screening mammogram is recommended as well. Body imaging can be done if dictated by symptoms. However, routine CT, positron emission tomography, or bone scans are not recommended as part of follow-up in the absence of symptoms, mainly because of a lack of evidence that such surveillance improves survival.³²

Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer

Metastatic breast cancer most commonly presents as a distant recurrence of previously treated local disease. However, 6% to 18% of patients have no prior history of breast cancer and present with de novo metastatic disease.^33,34 The most commonly involved distant organs are the skeletal bones, liver, lung, distant lymph node stations, and brain. Compared to other subtypes, HER2-positive tumors have an increased tendency to involve the central nervous system.^35–38 Although metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer is not considered curable, significant improvement in survival has been achieved, and patients with metastatic disease have median survival approaching 5 years.³⁹

Case Presentation 3

A 69-year-old woman with a history of breast cancer 4 years ago presents with new-onset back pain and unintentional weight loss. On exam, she is found to have palpable axillary adenopathy on the same side as her previous cancer. Her initial disease was stage IIB ER-positive and HER2-positive and was treated with chemotherapy, mastectomy, and anastrozole, which the patient is still taking. She undergoes CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis and radionucleotide bone scan, which show multiple liver and bony lesions suspicious for metastatic disease. Axillary lymph node biopsy confirms recurrent invasive carcinoma that is ER-positive and HER2-positive by IHC (3+).

• What is the approach to management of a patient who presents with symptoms of recurrent HER2-positive disease?

This patient likely has metastatic breast cancer based on the imaging findings. In such cases, a biopsy of the recurrent disease should always be considered, if feasible, to confirm the diagnosis and rule out other etiologies such as different malignances and benign conditions. Hormone-receptor and HER2 testing should also be performed on recurrent disease, since a change in HER2 status can be seen in 15% to 33% of cases.^40–42

Based on data from the phase 3 CLEOPATRA trial, first-line systemic regimens for patients with metastatic breast cancer that is positive for HER2 should consist of a combination of docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab.  Compared to placebo, adding pertuzumab yielded superior progression-free survival of 18.4 months (versus 12.4 months for placebo) and an unprecedented OS of 56.5 months (versus 40.8 for placebo).³⁹ Weekly paclitaxel can replace docetaxel with comparable efficacy (Table 3).⁴³

Patients can develop significant neuropathy as well as skin and nail changes after multiple cycles of taxane-based chemotherapy. Therefore, the taxane backbone may be dropped after 6 to 8 cycles, while patients continue the trastuzumab and pertuzumab combination until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Some patients may enjoy remarkable long-term survival on “maintenance” anti-HER2 therapy.⁴⁴ Despite lack of high-level evidence, such as from large randomized trials, some experts recommend the addition of a hormone blocker after discontinuation of the taxane in ER-positive tumors.⁴⁵

Premenopausal and perimenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive metastatic disease should be considered for simultaneous ovarian suppression. Ovarian suppression can be accomplished medically using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (goserelin) or surgically via salpingo-oophorectomy.^46–48

Case 3 Conclusion

The patient receives 6 cycles of docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab, after which the docetaxel is discontinued due to neuropathy while she continues the other 2 agents. After 26 months of disease control, the patient is found to have new liver metastatic lesions, indicating progression of disease.

• What therapeutic options are available for this patient?

Patients whose disease progresses after receiving taxane- and trastuzumab-containing regimens are candidates to receive the novel antibody-drug conjugate ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). Early progressors (ie, patients with early stage disease who have progression of disease while receiving adjuvant trastuzumab or within 6 months of completion of adjuvant trastuzumab) are also candidates for T-DM1. Treatment usually fits in the second line or beyond based on data from the EMILIA trial, which randomly assigned patients to receive either capecitabine plus lapatinib or T-DM1.^49,50 Progression-free survival in the T-DM1 group was 9.6 months versus 6.4 months for the comparator. Improvement of 4 months in OS persisted with longer follow-up despite a crossover rate of 27%. Furthermore, a significantly higher objective response rate and fewer adverse effects were reported in the T-DM1 patients. Most patients included in the EMILIA trial were pertuzumab-naive. However, the benefit of T-DM1 appears to persist, albeit to a lesser extent, for pertuzumab-pretreated patients.^51,52

Patients in whom treatment fails with 2 or more lines of therapy containing taxane-trastuzumab (with or without pertuzumab) and T-DM1 are candidates to receive a combination of capecitabine and lapatinib, a TKI, in the third line and beyond. Similarly, the combination of capecitabine with trastuzumab in the same settings appears to have equal efficacy.^53,54 Trastuzumab may be continued beyond progression while changing the single-agent chemotherapy drug for subsequent lines of therapy, per ASCO guidelines,⁵⁵ although improvement in OS has not been demonstrated beyond the third line in a large randomized trial (Table 3).

Approved HER2-Targeted Drugs

HER2-directed therapy is implemented in the management of nearly all stages of HER2-positive invasive breast cancer, including early and late stages (Table 4).

Trastuzumab

Trastuzumab was the first anti-HER2 agent to be approved by the FDA in 1998. It is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the extracellular domain of the HER2 receptor (domain IV).  Trastuzumab functions by interrupting HER2 signal transduction and by flagging tumor cells for immune destruction.⁵⁶ Cardiotoxicity, usually manifested as left ventricular systolic dysfunction, is the most noteworthy adverse effect of trastuzumab. The most prominent risk factors for cardiomyopathy in patients receiving trastuzumab are low baseline ejection fraction (< 55%), age > 50 years, co-administration and higher cumulative dose of anthracyclines, and increased body mass index and obesity.^57–59 Whether patients receive therapy in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or metastatic settings, baseline cardiac function assessment with echocardiogram or multiple-gated acquisition scan is required. While well-designed randomized trials validating the value and frequency of monitoring are lacking, repeated cardiac testing every 3 months is generally recommended for patients undergoing adjuvant therapy. Patients with metastatic disease who are receiving treatment with palliative intent may be monitored less frequently.^60,61

An asymptomatic drop in ejection fraction is the most common manifestation of cardiac toxicity. Other cardiac manifestations have also been reported with much less frequency, including arrhythmias, severe congestive heart failure, ventricular thrombus formation, and even cardiac death. Until monitoring and dose-adjustment guidelines are issued, the guidance provided in the FDA-approved prescribing information should be followed, which recommends holding trastuzumab when there is ≥ 16% absolute reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from the baseline value; or if the LVEF value is below the institutional lower limit of normal and the drop is ≥ 10%. After holding the drug, cardiac function can be re-evaluated every 4 weeks. In most patients, trastuzumab-induced cardiotoxicity can be reversed by withholding trastuzumab and initiating cardioprotective therapy, although the latter remains controversial. Re-challenging after recovery of ejection fraction is possible and toxicity does not appear to be proportional to cumulative dose. Cardiomyopathy due to trastuzumab therapy is potentially reversible within 6 months in more than 80% of cases.^{28,57,60–63}

Other notable adverse effects of trastuzumab include pulmonary toxicity (such as interstitial lung disease) and infusion reactions (usually during or within 24 hours of first dose).

Pertuzumab

Pertuzumab is another humanized monoclonal antibody directed to a different extracellular domain of the HER2 receptor, the dimerization domain (domain II), which is responsible for heterodimerization of HER2 with other HER receptors, especially HER3. This agent should always be co-administered with trastuzumab as the 2 drugs produce synergistic anti-tumor effect, without competition for the receptor. Activation of HER3, via dimerization with HER2, produces an alternative mechanism of downstream signaling, even in the presence of trastuzumab and in the absence of growth factors (Figure 2). 

Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine

Ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab with the cytotoxic agent DM1 (emtansine), a potent microtubule inhibitor and a derivative of maytansine, in a single structure (Figure 3). 

Lapatinib

Lapatinib is an oral small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of EGFR (HER1) and HER2 receptors. It is approved in combination with capecitabine for patients with HER2-expressing metastatic breast cancer who previously received trastuzumab, an anthracycline, and a taxane chemotherapy or T-DM1. Lapatinib is also approved in combination with letrozole in postmenopausal women with HER2-positive, hormone receptor–positive metastatic disease, although it is unclear where this regimen would fit in the current schema. It may be considered for patients with hormone receptor–positive disease who are not candidates for therapy with taxane-trastuzumab and T-DM1 or who decline this therapy. Diarrhea is seen in most patients treated with lapatinib and may be severe in 20% of cases when lapatinib is combined with capecitabine. Decreases in LVEF have been reported and cardiac function monitoring at baseline and periodically may be considered.^69,70 Lapatinib is not approved for use in adjuvant settings.

Neratinib

Neratinib is an oral small-molecule irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor of HER1, HER2, and HER4. It is currently approved only for extended adjuvant therapy after completion of 1 year of standard trastuzumab therapy. It is given orally every day for 1 year. The main side effect, expected in nearly all patients, is diarrhea, which can be severe in up to 40% of patients and may lead to dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. Diarrhea usually starts early in the course of therapy and can be most intense during the first cycle. Therefore, prophylactic antidiarrheal therapy is recommended to reduce the intensity of diarrhea. Loperamide prophylaxis may be initiated simultaneously for all patients using a tapering schedule. Drug interruption or dose reduction may be required if diarrhea is severe or refractory.^21,71 Neratinib is not FDA-approved in the metastatic settings.

Conclusion

HER2-positive tumors represent a distinct subset(s) of breast tumors with unique pathological and clinical characteristics. Treatment with a combination of cytotoxic chemotherapy and HER2-targeted agents has led to a dramatic improvement in survival for patients with locoregional and advanced disease. Trastuzumab is an integral part of adjuvant therapy for HER2-positive invasive disease. Pertuzumab should be added to trastuzumab in node-positive disease. Neratinib may be considered after completion of trastuzumab therapy in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease. For metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, a regimen consisting of docetaxel plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab is the standard first-line therapy. Ado-trastuzumab is an ideal next line option for patients whose disease progresses on trastuzumab and taxanes.

Introduction

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the United States, according to the SEER database. It is estimated that 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer at some point during their lifetime (12.4% lifetime risk).^1,2 Because breast tumors are clinically and histopathologically heterogeneous, different diagnostic and therapeutic approaches are required for each subtype. Among the subtypes, tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) account for approximately 15% to 20% of all newly diagnosed localized and metastatic invasive breast tumors.^3,4 Historically, this subset of tumors has been considered the most aggressive due to a higher propensity to relapse and metastasize, translating into poorer prognosis compared with other subtypes.^5–7 However, with the advent of HER2-targeted therapy in the late 1990s, prognosis has significantly improved for both early- and late-stage HER2-positive tumors.⁸

Pathogenesis

The HER2 proto-oncogene belongs to a family of human epidermal growth factor receptors that includes 4 transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptors: HER1 (also commonly known as epidermal growth factor receptor, EGFR), HER2, HER3, and HER4. Another commonly used nomenclature for this family of receptors is ERBB1 to ERBB4. Each of the receptors has a similar structure consisting of a growth factor–binding extracellular domain, a single transmembrane segment, an intracellular protein-tyrosine kinase catalytic domain, and a tyrosine-containing cytoplasmic tail. Activation of the extracellular domain leads to conformational changes that initiate a cascade of reactions resulting in protein kinase activation. ERBB tyrosine receptor kinases subsequently activate several intracellular pathways that are critical for cellular function and survival, including the PI3K-AKT, RAS-MAPK, and mTOR pathways. Hyperactivation or overexpression of these receptors leads to uncontrolled cell growth and proliferation, and eventually cancerogenesis.^9,10

HER2 gene amplification can cause activation of the receptor’s extramembranous domain by way of either dimerization of two HER2 receptors or heterodimerization with other ERBB family receptors, leading to ligand-independent activation of cell signaling (ie, activation in the absence of external growth factors). Besides breast cancer, HER2 protein is overexpressed in several other tumor types, including esophageal and gastric adenocarcinomas, colon and gynecological malignancies, and to a lesser extent in other malignancies.

Biomarker Testing

All patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer should have their tumor tissue submitted for biomarker testing for estrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors (PR), and HER2 overexpression, as the result this testing dictates therapy choices. The purpose of HER2 testing is to investigate whether the HER2 gene, located on chromosome 17, is overexpressed or amplified. HER2 status provides the basis for treatment selection, which impacts long-term outcome measures such as recurrence and survival. Routine testing of carcinoma in situ for HER2 expression/amplification is not recommended and has no implication on choice of therapy at this time.

In 2013, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) updated their clinical guideline recommendations for HER2 testing in breast cancer to improve its accuracy and its utility as a predictive marker.¹¹ There are currently 2 approved modalities for HER2 testing: detection of HER2 protein overexpression by immunohistochemical staining (IHC), and detection of HER2 gene amplification using in-situ hybridization. The results of each type of testing are reported as positive, equivocal, or negative (Table 1).¹¹  IHC uses antibodies against HER2 protein to assess the level of protein expression at the membrane of invasive tumor cells; overexpression of HER2 is established based upon the intensity of cell membrane staining and the number of stained cells. Results are reported as positive for HER2 expression (3+ staining), negative for HER2 expression (0 or 1+ staining), or equivocal for HER2 expression (2+ staining).

Fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) testing assesses for HER2 amplification by determining the number of HER2 signals and chromosome 17 centromere (CEP17) signals, respectively, in a tissue sample. HER2 status is based on the ratio of average HER2 signals to CEP17 signals and the average HER2 signal count per cell. FISH testing is considered positive when there are ≥ 6 copies of HER2 signals per cell or when the HER2/CEP17 ratio is ≥ 2. FISH testing is reported as negative when there are fewer than 4 copies of HER2 per cell and the HER2/CEP17 ratio is < 2. 

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Therapy for Locoregional Disease

Case Patient 1

A 56-year-old woman undergoes ultrasound-guided biopsy of a self-palpated breast lump. Pathology shows invasive ductal carcinoma that is ER-positive, PR-negative, and HER2 equivocal by IHC (2+ staining). Follow-up FISH testing shows a HER2/CEP17 ratio of 2.5. The tumor is estimated to be 2 cm in diameter by imaging and exam with no clinically palpable axillary lymphadenopathy. The patient exhibits no constitutional or localized symptoms concerning for metastases.

• What is the recommended management approach for this patient?

According to the ASCO/CAP guidelines, this patient’s tumor qualifies as HER2-positive based upon testing results showing amplification of the gene. This result has important implications for management since nearly all patients with macroscopically invasive HER2-positive tumors should be considered for adjuvant chemotherapy in combination with anti-HER2 therapy. The patient should proceed with upfront tumor resection and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Systemic staging imaging (ie, computed tomography [CT] or bone scan) is not indicated in early stage breast cancer.^12,13 Systemic staging scans are indicated when (1) any anatomical stage III disease is suspected (eg, with involvement of the skin or chest wall, the presence of enlarged matted or fixed axillary lymph nodes, and involvement of nodal stations other than in the axilla), and (2) when symptoms or abnormal laboratory values raise suspicion for distant metastases (eg, unexplained bone pain, unintentional weight loss, elevated serum alkaline phosphatase, and transaminitis).

Case 1 Continued

The patient presents to discuss treatment options after undergoing a lumpectomy and sentinel node biopsy procedure. The pathology report notes a single focus of carcinoma measuring 2 cm with negative sentinel lymph nodes.

• What agents are used for adjuvant therapy in HER2-postive breast cancer?

Nearly all patients with macroscopically invasive (> 1 mm) breast carcinoma should be considered for adjuvant therapy using a regimen that contains a taxane and trastuzumab. However, the benefit may be small for patients with tumors ≤ 5 mm (T1a, N0), so it is important to carefully weigh the risk against the benefit. Among the agents that targeting HER2, only trastuzumab has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) in the adjuvant setting; long-term follow-up data are awaited for other agents.⁸  A trastuzumab biosimilar, trastuzumab-dkst, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the same indications as trastuzumab.¹⁴ The regimens most commonly used in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings for nonmetastatic breast cancer are summarized in Table 2.

Patients with small (≤ 3 cm), node-negative tumors can generally be considered for a reduced-intensity regimen that includes weekly paclitaxel plus trastuzumab. This combination proved efficacious in a single-group, multicenter study that enrolled 406 patients.¹⁵ Paclitaxel and trastuzumab were given once weekly for 12 weeks, followed by trastuzumab, either weekly or every 3 weeks, to complete 1 year of therapy.After a median follow-up of more than 6 years, the rates of distant and locoregional recurrence were 1% and 1.2%, respectively.¹⁶

A combination of docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab is a nonanthracycline regimen that is also appropriate in this setting, based on the results of the Breast Cancer International Research Group 006 (BCIRG-006) trial.¹⁷ This phase 3 randomized trial enrolled 3222 women with HER2-positive, invasive, high-risk adenocarcinoma. Eligible patients had a T1–3 tumor and either lymph node–negative or –positive disease and were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 3 regimens: group 1 received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks for 4 cycles followed by docetaxel every 3 weeks for 4 cycles (AC-T); group 2 received the AC-T regimen in combination with trastuzumab; and group 3 received docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab once every 3 weeks for 6 cycles (TCH). Groups 2 and 3 also received trastuzumab for an additional 34 weeks to complete 1 year of therapy. Trastuzumab-containing regimens were found to offer superior disease-free survival (DFS) and OS. When comparing the 2 trastuzumab arms after more than 10 years of follow-up, no statistically significant advantage of an anthracycline regimen over a nonanthracycline regimen was found.¹⁸ Furthermore, the anthracycline arm had a fivefold higher incidence of symptomatic congestive heart failure (grades 3 and 4), and the nonanthracycline regimen was associated with a lower incidence of treatment-related leukemia, a clinically significant finding despite not reaching statistical significance due to low overall numbers.

BCIRG-006, NSABP B-31, NCCTG N9831, and HERA are all large randomized trials with consistent results confirming trastuzumab’s role in reducing recurrence and improving survival in HER2-positive breast cancer in the adjuvant settings. The estimated overall benefit from addition of this agent was a 34% to 41% improvement in survival and a 33% to 52% improvement in DFS.^8,17–20

Dual anti-HER2 therapy containing both trastuzumab and pertuzumab should be strongly considered for patients with macroscopic lymph node involvement based on the results of the APHINITY trial.²¹ In this study, the addition of pertuzumab to standard trastuzumab-based therapy led to a significant improvement in invasive-disease-free survival at 3 years. In subgroup analysis, the benefit was restricted to the node-positive group (3-year invasive-disease-free survival rates of 92% in the pertuzumab group versus 90.2% in the placebo group, P = 0.02). Patients with hormone receptor–negative disease derived greater benefit from the addition of pertuzumab. Regimens used in the APHINITY trial included the anti-HER2 agents trastuzumab and pertuzumab in combination with 1 of the following chemotherapy regimens: sequential cyclophosphamide plus either doxorubicin or epirubicin, followed by either 4 cycles of docetaxel or 12 weekly doses of paclitaxel; sequential fluorouracil plus either epirubicin or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide (3 or 4 cycles), followed by 3 or 4 cycles of docetaxel or 12 weekly cycles of paclitaxel; or 6 cycles of concurrent docetaxel plus carboplatin.

One-year therapy with neratinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of HER2, is now approved by the FDA after completion of trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting, based on the results of the ExteNET trial.²² In this study, patients who had completed trastuzumab within the preceding 12 months, without evidence of recurrence, were randomly assigned to receive either oral neratinib or placebo daily for 1 year. The 2-year DFS rate was 93.9% and 91.6% for the neratinib and placebo groups, respectively. The most common adverse effect of neratinib was diarrhea, with approximately 40% of patients experiencing grade 3 diarrhea. In subgroup analyses, hormone receptor–positive patients derived the most benefit, while hormone receptor–negative patients derived no or marginal benefit.²² OS benefit has not yet been established.²³

Trastuzumab therapy (with pertuzumab if indicated) should be offered for an optimal duration of 12 months (17 cycles, including those given with chemotherapy backbone). A shorter duration of therapy, 6 months, has been shown to be inferior,²⁴ while a longer duration, 24 months, has been shown to provide no additional benefit.²⁵

Finally, sequential addition of anti-estrogen endocrine therapy is indicated for hormone-positive tumors. Endocrine therapy is usually added after completion of the chemotherapy backbone of the regimen, but may be given concurrently with anti-HER2 therapy. If radiation is being administered, endocrine therapy can be given concurrently or started after radiation therapy is completed.

Case 1 Conclusion

The patient can be offered 1 of 2 adjuvant treatment regimens, either TH or TCH (Table 2). Since the patient had lumpectomy, she is an appropriate candidate for adjuvant radiation, which would be started after completion of the chemotherapy backbone (taxane/platinum). Endocrine therapy for at least 5 years should be offered sequentially or concurrently with radiation. Her long-term prognosis is very favorable.

Case Patient 2

A 43-year-old woman presents with a 4-cm breast mass, a separate skin nodule, and palpable matted axillary lymphadenopathy. Biopsies of the breast mass and subcutaneous nodule reveal invasive ductal carcinoma that is ER-negative, PR-negative, and HER2-positive by IHC (3+ staining). Based on clinical findings, the patient is staged as T4b (separate tumor nodule), N2 (matted axillary lymph nodes). Systemic staging with CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis shows no evidence of distant metastases.

• What is the recommended approach to management for this patient?

Recommendations for neoadjuvant therapy, given before definitive surgery, follow the same path as with other subtypes of breast cancer. Patients with suspected anatomical stage III disease are strongly encouraged to undergo upfront (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy in combination with HER2-targeted agents. In addition, all HER2-positive patients with clinically node-positive disease can be offered neoadjuvant therapy using chemotherapy plus dual anti-HER2 therapy (trastuzumab and pertuzumab), with complete pathological response expected in more than 60% of patients.^26,27 Because this patient has locally advanced disease, especially skin involvement and matted axillary nodes, she should undergo neoadjuvant therapy. Preferred regimens contain both trastuzumab and pertuzumab in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy. The latter may be given concurrently (nonanthracycline regimens, such as docetaxel plus carboplatin) or sequentially (anthracycline-based regimens), as outlined in Table 2. Administration of anthracyclines and trastuzumab simultaneously is contraindicated due to increased risk of cardiomyopathy.²⁸

Endocrine therapy is not indicated for this patient per the current standard of care because the tumor was ER- and PR-negative. Had the tumor been hormone receptor–positive, endocrine therapy for a minimum of 5 years would have been indicated. Likewise, in the case of hormone receptor–positive disease, 12 months of neratinib therapy after completion of trastuzumab may add further benefit, as shown in the ExteNET trial.^22,23 Neratinib seems to have a propensity to prevent or delay trastuzumab-induced overexpression of estrogen receptors. This is mainly due to hormone receptor/HER2 crosstalk, a potential mechanism of resistance to trastuzumab.^29,30

In addition to the medical therapy options discussed here, this patient would be expected to benefit from adjuvant radiation to the breast and regional lymph nodes, given the presence of T4 disease and bulky adenopathy in the axilla.³¹

Case 2 Conclusion

The patient undergoes neoadjuvant treatment (docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab every 21 days for a total of 6 cycles), followed by surgical resection (modified radical mastectomy) that reveals complete pathological response (no residual invasive carcinoma). Subsequently, she receives radiation therapy to the primary tumor site and regional lymph nodes while continuing trastuzumab and pertuzumab for 11 more cycles (17 total). Despite presenting with locally advanced disease, the patient has a favorable overall prognosis due to an excellent pathological response.

• What is the approach to follow-up after completion of primary therapy?

Patients may follow up every 3 to 6 months for clinical evaluation in the first 5 years after completing primary adjuvant therapy. An annual screening mammogram is recommended as well. Body imaging can be done if dictated by symptoms. However, routine CT, positron emission tomography, or bone scans are not recommended as part of follow-up in the absence of symptoms, mainly because of a lack of evidence that such surveillance improves survival.³²

Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer

Metastatic breast cancer most commonly presents as a distant recurrence of previously treated local disease. However, 6% to 18% of patients have no prior history of breast cancer and present with de novo metastatic disease.^33,34 The most commonly involved distant organs are the skeletal bones, liver, lung, distant lymph node stations, and brain. Compared to other subtypes, HER2-positive tumors have an increased tendency to involve the central nervous system.^35–38 Although metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer is not considered curable, significant improvement in survival has been achieved, and patients with metastatic disease have median survival approaching 5 years.³⁹

Case Presentation 3

A 69-year-old woman with a history of breast cancer 4 years ago presents with new-onset back pain and unintentional weight loss. On exam, she is found to have palpable axillary adenopathy on the same side as her previous cancer. Her initial disease was stage IIB ER-positive and HER2-positive and was treated with chemotherapy, mastectomy, and anastrozole, which the patient is still taking. She undergoes CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis and radionucleotide bone scan, which show multiple liver and bony lesions suspicious for metastatic disease. Axillary lymph node biopsy confirms recurrent invasive carcinoma that is ER-positive and HER2-positive by IHC (3+).

• What is the approach to management of a patient who presents with symptoms of recurrent HER2-positive disease?

This patient likely has metastatic breast cancer based on the imaging findings. In such cases, a biopsy of the recurrent disease should always be considered, if feasible, to confirm the diagnosis and rule out other etiologies such as different malignances and benign conditions. Hormone-receptor and HER2 testing should also be performed on recurrent disease, since a change in HER2 status can be seen in 15% to 33% of cases.^40–42

Based on data from the phase 3 CLEOPATRA trial, first-line systemic regimens for patients with metastatic breast cancer that is positive for HER2 should consist of a combination of docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab.  Compared to placebo, adding pertuzumab yielded superior progression-free survival of 18.4 months (versus 12.4 months for placebo) and an unprecedented OS of 56.5 months (versus 40.8 for placebo).³⁹ Weekly paclitaxel can replace docetaxel with comparable efficacy (Table 3).⁴³

Patients can develop significant neuropathy as well as skin and nail changes after multiple cycles of taxane-based chemotherapy. Therefore, the taxane backbone may be dropped after 6 to 8 cycles, while patients continue the trastuzumab and pertuzumab combination until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Some patients may enjoy remarkable long-term survival on “maintenance” anti-HER2 therapy.⁴⁴ Despite lack of high-level evidence, such as from large randomized trials, some experts recommend the addition of a hormone blocker after discontinuation of the taxane in ER-positive tumors.⁴⁵

Premenopausal and perimenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive metastatic disease should be considered for simultaneous ovarian suppression. Ovarian suppression can be accomplished medically using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (goserelin) or surgically via salpingo-oophorectomy.^46–48

Case 3 Conclusion

The patient receives 6 cycles of docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab, after which the docetaxel is discontinued due to neuropathy while she continues the other 2 agents. After 26 months of disease control, the patient is found to have new liver metastatic lesions, indicating progression of disease.

• What therapeutic options are available for this patient?

Patients whose disease progresses after receiving taxane- and trastuzumab-containing regimens are candidates to receive the novel antibody-drug conjugate ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). Early progressors (ie, patients with early stage disease who have progression of disease while receiving adjuvant trastuzumab or within 6 months of completion of adjuvant trastuzumab) are also candidates for T-DM1. Treatment usually fits in the second line or beyond based on data from the EMILIA trial, which randomly assigned patients to receive either capecitabine plus lapatinib or T-DM1.^49,50 Progression-free survival in the T-DM1 group was 9.6 months versus 6.4 months for the comparator. Improvement of 4 months in OS persisted with longer follow-up despite a crossover rate of 27%. Furthermore, a significantly higher objective response rate and fewer adverse effects were reported in the T-DM1 patients. Most patients included in the EMILIA trial were pertuzumab-naive. However, the benefit of T-DM1 appears to persist, albeit to a lesser extent, for pertuzumab-pretreated patients.^51,52

Patients in whom treatment fails with 2 or more lines of therapy containing taxane-trastuzumab (with or without pertuzumab) and T-DM1 are candidates to receive a combination of capecitabine and lapatinib, a TKI, in the third line and beyond. Similarly, the combination of capecitabine with trastuzumab in the same settings appears to have equal efficacy.^53,54 Trastuzumab may be continued beyond progression while changing the single-agent chemotherapy drug for subsequent lines of therapy, per ASCO guidelines,⁵⁵ although improvement in OS has not been demonstrated beyond the third line in a large randomized trial (Table 3).

Approved HER2-Targeted Drugs

HER2-directed therapy is implemented in the management of nearly all stages of HER2-positive invasive breast cancer, including early and late stages (Table 4).

Trastuzumab

Trastuzumab was the first anti-HER2 agent to be approved by the FDA in 1998. It is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the extracellular domain of the HER2 receptor (domain IV).  Trastuzumab functions by interrupting HER2 signal transduction and by flagging tumor cells for immune destruction.⁵⁶ Cardiotoxicity, usually manifested as left ventricular systolic dysfunction, is the most noteworthy adverse effect of trastuzumab. The most prominent risk factors for cardiomyopathy in patients receiving trastuzumab are low baseline ejection fraction (< 55%), age > 50 years, co-administration and higher cumulative dose of anthracyclines, and increased body mass index and obesity.^57–59 Whether patients receive therapy in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or metastatic settings, baseline cardiac function assessment with echocardiogram or multiple-gated acquisition scan is required. While well-designed randomized trials validating the value and frequency of monitoring are lacking, repeated cardiac testing every 3 months is generally recommended for patients undergoing adjuvant therapy. Patients with metastatic disease who are receiving treatment with palliative intent may be monitored less frequently.^60,61

An asymptomatic drop in ejection fraction is the most common manifestation of cardiac toxicity. Other cardiac manifestations have also been reported with much less frequency, including arrhythmias, severe congestive heart failure, ventricular thrombus formation, and even cardiac death. Until monitoring and dose-adjustment guidelines are issued, the guidance provided in the FDA-approved prescribing information should be followed, which recommends holding trastuzumab when there is ≥ 16% absolute reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from the baseline value; or if the LVEF value is below the institutional lower limit of normal and the drop is ≥ 10%. After holding the drug, cardiac function can be re-evaluated every 4 weeks. In most patients, trastuzumab-induced cardiotoxicity can be reversed by withholding trastuzumab and initiating cardioprotective therapy, although the latter remains controversial. Re-challenging after recovery of ejection fraction is possible and toxicity does not appear to be proportional to cumulative dose. Cardiomyopathy due to trastuzumab therapy is potentially reversible within 6 months in more than 80% of cases.^{28,57,60–63}

Other notable adverse effects of trastuzumab include pulmonary toxicity (such as interstitial lung disease) and infusion reactions (usually during or within 24 hours of first dose).

Pertuzumab

Pertuzumab is another humanized monoclonal antibody directed to a different extracellular domain of the HER2 receptor, the dimerization domain (domain II), which is responsible for heterodimerization of HER2 with other HER receptors, especially HER3. This agent should always be co-administered with trastuzumab as the 2 drugs produce synergistic anti-tumor effect, without competition for the receptor. Activation of HER3, via dimerization with HER2, produces an alternative mechanism of downstream signaling, even in the presence of trastuzumab and in the absence of growth factors (Figure 2). 

Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine

Ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab with the cytotoxic agent DM1 (emtansine), a potent microtubule inhibitor and a derivative of maytansine, in a single structure (Figure 3). 

Lapatinib

Lapatinib is an oral small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of EGFR (HER1) and HER2 receptors. It is approved in combination with capecitabine for patients with HER2-expressing metastatic breast cancer who previously received trastuzumab, an anthracycline, and a taxane chemotherapy or T-DM1. Lapatinib is also approved in combination with letrozole in postmenopausal women with HER2-positive, hormone receptor–positive metastatic disease, although it is unclear where this regimen would fit in the current schema. It may be considered for patients with hormone receptor–positive disease who are not candidates for therapy with taxane-trastuzumab and T-DM1 or who decline this therapy. Diarrhea is seen in most patients treated with lapatinib and may be severe in 20% of cases when lapatinib is combined with capecitabine. Decreases in LVEF have been reported and cardiac function monitoring at baseline and periodically may be considered.^69,70 Lapatinib is not approved for use in adjuvant settings.

Neratinib

Neratinib is an oral small-molecule irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor of HER1, HER2, and HER4. It is currently approved only for extended adjuvant therapy after completion of 1 year of standard trastuzumab therapy. It is given orally every day for 1 year. The main side effect, expected in nearly all patients, is diarrhea, which can be severe in up to 40% of patients and may lead to dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. Diarrhea usually starts early in the course of therapy and can be most intense during the first cycle. Therefore, prophylactic antidiarrheal therapy is recommended to reduce the intensity of diarrhea. Loperamide prophylaxis may be initiated simultaneously for all patients using a tapering schedule. Drug interruption or dose reduction may be required if diarrhea is severe or refractory.^21,71 Neratinib is not FDA-approved in the metastatic settings.

Conclusion

HER2-positive tumors represent a distinct subset(s) of breast tumors with unique pathological and clinical characteristics. Treatment with a combination of cytotoxic chemotherapy and HER2-targeted agents has led to a dramatic improvement in survival for patients with locoregional and advanced disease. Trastuzumab is an integral part of adjuvant therapy for HER2-positive invasive disease. Pertuzumab should be added to trastuzumab in node-positive disease. Neratinib may be considered after completion of trastuzumab therapy in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease. For metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, a regimen consisting of docetaxel plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab is the standard first-line therapy. Ado-trastuzumab is an ideal next line option for patients whose disease progresses on trastuzumab and taxanes.

Photo by Bill Branson

Currently, 1,120 new medicines and vaccines are being developed to treat cancer, according to a new report of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

And all of them, the organization states, are in clinical trials or awaiting review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Leading the way are treatments for solid tumors, with 397 in development. Treatments for blood cancers are not far behind, with nearly 340 medicines in development: 137 for leukemias, 135 for lymphomas, and 62 for multiple myeloma.

Immuno-oncology and personalized medicine have a hand in this increase.

In the last year, according to PhRMA’s  "Medicines in Development for Cancer 2018 Report," 47 new immune-oncology treatments have been added to the development pipeline, including CAR-T therapies and checkpoint inhibitors.

This brings the total to 295 immuno-oncology medicines and vaccines in the development pipeline this year.

The report also states that about 85% of these medicines in the oncology pipeline are first-in-class.

And PhRMA attributes the approximately 73% of survival gains in cancer to the new medicines.

Despite the bright picture, PhRMA acknowledges the financial burden and medical care challenges patients encounter.

It addresses them in a new chart pack, "Cancer Medicines: Value in Context," which puts cancer costs in perspective and offers solutions for improving the current system in the United States.

The association reports the top medical financial concerns of patients to be diagnostic tests or scans (53%), prescription medicines (43%), physician office visits (39%), outpatient treatments-including radiation (37%), and surgery (36%).

Spending on cancer medicines represents about 1% of overall healthcare spending, according to the organization, with cancer medications accounting for $49.8 billion of the $3.49 trillion healthcare spending in the United States.

Cancer medicines represent about 20% of spending on cancer, PhrMA notes, and some insurance plans place treatments for certain high-cost conditions on the highest drug formulary cost-sharing tier.

And patients with the highest copay were 5 times more likely to abandon treatment than the lowest copay group, PhRMA points out.

“No patient should struggle to afford their needed treatments,” PhRMA stated in a release, “and it is important that we address patient access challenges.” 

Photo by Bill Branson

Currently, 1,120 new medicines and vaccines are being developed to treat cancer, according to a new report of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

And all of them, the organization states, are in clinical trials or awaiting review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Leading the way are treatments for solid tumors, with 397 in development. Treatments for blood cancers are not far behind, with nearly 340 medicines in development: 137 for leukemias, 135 for lymphomas, and 62 for multiple myeloma.

Immuno-oncology and personalized medicine have a hand in this increase.

In the last year, according to PhRMA’s  "Medicines in Development for Cancer 2018 Report," 47 new immune-oncology treatments have been added to the development pipeline, including CAR-T therapies and checkpoint inhibitors.

This brings the total to 295 immuno-oncology medicines and vaccines in the development pipeline this year.

The report also states that about 85% of these medicines in the oncology pipeline are first-in-class.

And PhRMA attributes the approximately 73% of survival gains in cancer to the new medicines.

Despite the bright picture, PhRMA acknowledges the financial burden and medical care challenges patients encounter.

It addresses them in a new chart pack, "Cancer Medicines: Value in Context," which puts cancer costs in perspective and offers solutions for improving the current system in the United States.

The association reports the top medical financial concerns of patients to be diagnostic tests or scans (53%), prescription medicines (43%), physician office visits (39%), outpatient treatments-including radiation (37%), and surgery (36%).

Spending on cancer medicines represents about 1% of overall healthcare spending, according to the organization, with cancer medications accounting for $49.8 billion of the $3.49 trillion healthcare spending in the United States.

Cancer medicines represent about 20% of spending on cancer, PhrMA notes, and some insurance plans place treatments for certain high-cost conditions on the highest drug formulary cost-sharing tier.

And patients with the highest copay were 5 times more likely to abandon treatment than the lowest copay group, PhRMA points out.

“No patient should struggle to afford their needed treatments,” PhRMA stated in a release, “and it is important that we address patient access challenges.” 

Photo by Bill Branson

Currently, 1,120 new medicines and vaccines are being developed to treat cancer, according to a new report of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

And all of them, the organization states, are in clinical trials or awaiting review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Leading the way are treatments for solid tumors, with 397 in development. Treatments for blood cancers are not far behind, with nearly 340 medicines in development: 137 for leukemias, 135 for lymphomas, and 62 for multiple myeloma.

Immuno-oncology and personalized medicine have a hand in this increase.

In the last year, according to PhRMA’s  "Medicines in Development for Cancer 2018 Report," 47 new immune-oncology treatments have been added to the development pipeline, including CAR-T therapies and checkpoint inhibitors.

This brings the total to 295 immuno-oncology medicines and vaccines in the development pipeline this year.

The report also states that about 85% of these medicines in the oncology pipeline are first-in-class.

And PhRMA attributes the approximately 73% of survival gains in cancer to the new medicines.

Despite the bright picture, PhRMA acknowledges the financial burden and medical care challenges patients encounter.

It addresses them in a new chart pack, "Cancer Medicines: Value in Context," which puts cancer costs in perspective and offers solutions for improving the current system in the United States.

The association reports the top medical financial concerns of patients to be diagnostic tests or scans (53%), prescription medicines (43%), physician office visits (39%), outpatient treatments-including radiation (37%), and surgery (36%).

Spending on cancer medicines represents about 1% of overall healthcare spending, according to the organization, with cancer medications accounting for $49.8 billion of the $3.49 trillion healthcare spending in the United States.

Cancer medicines represent about 20% of spending on cancer, PhrMA notes, and some insurance plans place treatments for certain high-cost conditions on the highest drug formulary cost-sharing tier.

And patients with the highest copay were 5 times more likely to abandon treatment than the lowest copay group, PhRMA points out.

“No patient should struggle to afford their needed treatments,” PhRMA stated in a release, “and it is important that we address patient access challenges.” 

Just over a year ago, I established a solo colorectal surgery clinic within a comprehensive academic medical center hospital system and have since seen a variety of cases: benign anorectal conditions, acute and chronic diseases, complex defecatory dysfunction, and colorectal surgery pre- and postop patients. I also manage a colorectal cancer survivorship clinic. As a PA in this field, I very much appreciated the November 2017 CE/CME, “Anorectal Evaluations: Diagnosing & Treating Benign Conditions” (Clinician Reviews. 2017;27[11]:28-37). The article offered useful highlights and clinical pearls for diagnosing common anorectal conditions. It supplied corresponding images for quick reference, discussed the need for a thorough history, and detailed the finesse of the often-dreaded-yet-so-important physical exam, reassuring providers that the majority of anorectal complaints are, indeed, benign and often treatable on first visit. However, the latter is contingent on one key factor: Are you willing to look?

Primary care is typically a patient’s first stop when experiencing anorectal symptoms. If you see a high volume of these cases and are comfortable and confident in your exam skills, the patient is likely well-served. But because it is not expected of general practitioners to have the experience or knowledge to recognize or discern the more minute features of anorectal atypia, I fully advocate the “when in doubt, refer it out” mentality without hesitation or judgement—and I quickly learned the importance of a quality referral network when I established my own clinic.

What concerns me, though, is how often a referral is made with no mention of an anorectal exam in the office note. I can certainly make a rare exception for the exam that mistakenly did not get recorded, but ultimately, if it wasn’t documented, it didn’t happen, right? And when questioned, most of these patients report that the referring provider didn’t look!

The greater issue therein occurs when a provider who doesn’t perform a physical exam recommends a course of treatment. For example—I see this on a weekly basis—a provider may prescribe a rectal preparation ointment for a patient complaining of “hemorrhoids.” Sometimes, that initial appointment is the only one before the patient is referred to my office; more often, the patient is subject to multiple office visits and excessive trials of prescription and/or homeopathic remedies before a referral is finally made. And all of this occurs without a proper exam!

The patient being treated for a presumed diagnosis of hemorrhoids may have a completely different problem altogether—if only the provider had looked. Optimistically, the patient may have an anal fissure, and the only downfall is a delay in appropriate treatment and symptom resolution. Unfortunately, grimmer outcomes can—and often do—result. I have diagnosed several cases of anal squamous cell cancer from referrals of this nature.

What’s more, recent studies have found that the incidence of anal cancer (all ages) and of colorectal cancer (adults ages 20-54) is on the rise.^1,2 And because both may manifest with mild or seemingly benign symptoms, such as rectal bleeding, anorectal pain, or a change in bowel habits, making an early and accurate diagnosis can be challenging.

These data reinforce my belief that referral to a trusted colorectal specialist with whom you can easily communicate is the best option if any doubt exists. As a provider, I would rather see a patient who is urgently referred for what turns out to be a benign condition than diagnose a serious problem, such as cancer, in a patient who has been lost in the shuffle.

Continue to: Of course, the key in all this is...

Of course, the key in all this is the relationship you establish with your patients. In my case, building relationships with my patients encourages them to more freely discuss anorectal concerns and allows me to regularly perform necessary exams. Since I’ve created my own clinic, I also have the “luxury” (I would call it the responsibility) of maintaining a flexible schedule. Many practice settings accommodate same-day or urgent appointments, but I can assure you that patients with anorectal complaints offer a unique expression of urgency when they call with colorful phrases to describe their pain. My referral coordinator, schedulers, and triage nurses can reach me anytime during the workday; I even see patients during non-clinic time if I’m available and it is appropriate. I know that not everyone can implement this practice the way I can, but putting patients first is part of providing quality care—and it often requires flexibility.

At the very least, I encourage you to read the CE/CME article that sparked this commentary. Incorporate the techniques into your patient care when someone presents with anorectal discomfort. In short, be willing to look. You never know when you might save a life!

Just over a year ago, I established a solo colorectal surgery clinic within a comprehensive academic medical center hospital system and have since seen a variety of cases: benign anorectal conditions, acute and chronic diseases, complex defecatory dysfunction, and colorectal surgery pre- and postop patients. I also manage a colorectal cancer survivorship clinic. As a PA in this field, I very much appreciated the November 2017 CE/CME, “Anorectal Evaluations: Diagnosing & Treating Benign Conditions” (Clinician Reviews. 2017;27[11]:28-37). The article offered useful highlights and clinical pearls for diagnosing common anorectal conditions. It supplied corresponding images for quick reference, discussed the need for a thorough history, and detailed the finesse of the often-dreaded-yet-so-important physical exam, reassuring providers that the majority of anorectal complaints are, indeed, benign and often treatable on first visit. However, the latter is contingent on one key factor: Are you willing to look?

Primary care is typically a patient’s first stop when experiencing anorectal symptoms. If you see a high volume of these cases and are comfortable and confident in your exam skills, the patient is likely well-served. But because it is not expected of general practitioners to have the experience or knowledge to recognize or discern the more minute features of anorectal atypia, I fully advocate the “when in doubt, refer it out” mentality without hesitation or judgement—and I quickly learned the importance of a quality referral network when I established my own clinic.

What concerns me, though, is how often a referral is made with no mention of an anorectal exam in the office note. I can certainly make a rare exception for the exam that mistakenly did not get recorded, but ultimately, if it wasn’t documented, it didn’t happen, right? And when questioned, most of these patients report that the referring provider didn’t look!

The greater issue therein occurs when a provider who doesn’t perform a physical exam recommends a course of treatment. For example—I see this on a weekly basis—a provider may prescribe a rectal preparation ointment for a patient complaining of “hemorrhoids.” Sometimes, that initial appointment is the only one before the patient is referred to my office; more often, the patient is subject to multiple office visits and excessive trials of prescription and/or homeopathic remedies before a referral is finally made. And all of this occurs without a proper exam!

The patient being treated for a presumed diagnosis of hemorrhoids may have a completely different problem altogether—if only the provider had looked. Optimistically, the patient may have an anal fissure, and the only downfall is a delay in appropriate treatment and symptom resolution. Unfortunately, grimmer outcomes can—and often do—result. I have diagnosed several cases of anal squamous cell cancer from referrals of this nature.

What’s more, recent studies have found that the incidence of anal cancer (all ages) and of colorectal cancer (adults ages 20-54) is on the rise.^1,2 And because both may manifest with mild or seemingly benign symptoms, such as rectal bleeding, anorectal pain, or a change in bowel habits, making an early and accurate diagnosis can be challenging.

These data reinforce my belief that referral to a trusted colorectal specialist with whom you can easily communicate is the best option if any doubt exists. As a provider, I would rather see a patient who is urgently referred for what turns out to be a benign condition than diagnose a serious problem, such as cancer, in a patient who has been lost in the shuffle.

Continue to: Of course, the key in all this is...

Of course, the key in all this is the relationship you establish with your patients. In my case, building relationships with my patients encourages them to more freely discuss anorectal concerns and allows me to regularly perform necessary exams. Since I’ve created my own clinic, I also have the “luxury” (I would call it the responsibility) of maintaining a flexible schedule. Many practice settings accommodate same-day or urgent appointments, but I can assure you that patients with anorectal complaints offer a unique expression of urgency when they call with colorful phrases to describe their pain. My referral coordinator, schedulers, and triage nurses can reach me anytime during the workday; I even see patients during non-clinic time if I’m available and it is appropriate. I know that not everyone can implement this practice the way I can, but putting patients first is part of providing quality care—and it often requires flexibility.

At the very least, I encourage you to read the CE/CME article that sparked this commentary. Incorporate the techniques into your patient care when someone presents with anorectal discomfort. In short, be willing to look. You never know when you might save a life!

Just over a year ago, I established a solo colorectal surgery clinic within a comprehensive academic medical center hospital system and have since seen a variety of cases: benign anorectal conditions, acute and chronic diseases, complex defecatory dysfunction, and colorectal surgery pre- and postop patients. I also manage a colorectal cancer survivorship clinic. As a PA in this field, I very much appreciated the November 2017 CE/CME, “Anorectal Evaluations: Diagnosing & Treating Benign Conditions” (Clinician Reviews. 2017;27[11]:28-37). The article offered useful highlights and clinical pearls for diagnosing common anorectal conditions. It supplied corresponding images for quick reference, discussed the need for a thorough history, and detailed the finesse of the often-dreaded-yet-so-important physical exam, reassuring providers that the majority of anorectal complaints are, indeed, benign and often treatable on first visit. However, the latter is contingent on one key factor: Are you willing to look?

Primary care is typically a patient’s first stop when experiencing anorectal symptoms. If you see a high volume of these cases and are comfortable and confident in your exam skills, the patient is likely well-served. But because it is not expected of general practitioners to have the experience or knowledge to recognize or discern the more minute features of anorectal atypia, I fully advocate the “when in doubt, refer it out” mentality without hesitation or judgement—and I quickly learned the importance of a quality referral network when I established my own clinic.

What concerns me, though, is how often a referral is made with no mention of an anorectal exam in the office note. I can certainly make a rare exception for the exam that mistakenly did not get recorded, but ultimately, if it wasn’t documented, it didn’t happen, right? And when questioned, most of these patients report that the referring provider didn’t look!

The greater issue therein occurs when a provider who doesn’t perform a physical exam recommends a course of treatment. For example—I see this on a weekly basis—a provider may prescribe a rectal preparation ointment for a patient complaining of “hemorrhoids.” Sometimes, that initial appointment is the only one before the patient is referred to my office; more often, the patient is subject to multiple office visits and excessive trials of prescription and/or homeopathic remedies before a referral is finally made. And all of this occurs without a proper exam!

The patient being treated for a presumed diagnosis of hemorrhoids may have a completely different problem altogether—if only the provider had looked. Optimistically, the patient may have an anal fissure, and the only downfall is a delay in appropriate treatment and symptom resolution. Unfortunately, grimmer outcomes can—and often do—result. I have diagnosed several cases of anal squamous cell cancer from referrals of this nature.

What’s more, recent studies have found that the incidence of anal cancer (all ages) and of colorectal cancer (adults ages 20-54) is on the rise.^1,2 And because both may manifest with mild or seemingly benign symptoms, such as rectal bleeding, anorectal pain, or a change in bowel habits, making an early and accurate diagnosis can be challenging.

These data reinforce my belief that referral to a trusted colorectal specialist with whom you can easily communicate is the best option if any doubt exists. As a provider, I would rather see a patient who is urgently referred for what turns out to be a benign condition than diagnose a serious problem, such as cancer, in a patient who has been lost in the shuffle.

Continue to: Of course, the key in all this is...

Of course, the key in all this is the relationship you establish with your patients. In my case, building relationships with my patients encourages them to more freely discuss anorectal concerns and allows me to regularly perform necessary exams. Since I’ve created my own clinic, I also have the “luxury” (I would call it the responsibility) of maintaining a flexible schedule. Many practice settings accommodate same-day or urgent appointments, but I can assure you that patients with anorectal complaints offer a unique expression of urgency when they call with colorful phrases to describe their pain. My referral coordinator, schedulers, and triage nurses can reach me anytime during the workday; I even see patients during non-clinic time if I’m available and it is appropriate. I know that not everyone can implement this practice the way I can, but putting patients first is part of providing quality care—and it often requires flexibility.

At the very least, I encourage you to read the CE/CME article that sparked this commentary. Incorporate the techniques into your patient care when someone presents with anorectal discomfort. In short, be willing to look. You never know when you might save a life!

CHICAGO – Is two months of progression-free survival worth it if those months mean living with serious side effects?

Neil Osterweil/ MDedge News

For women with advanced estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, the combination of the PI3K inhibitor taselisib and the selective estrogen receptor modifier fulvestrant (Faslodex) bought two additional months of PFS, compared with fulvestrant alone, but at the cost of serious toxicities in half the patients treated with the combination, results of the SANDPIPER trial show.

“These results are positive, but I think we all agree they are modest,” lead investigator José Baselga, MD, PhD from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said at a briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The “challenging tolerability” of the combination led to frequent treatment discontinuations, and may have limited the clinical benefit of the combination, he said, but added that the study serves as proof of principle that PI3K may be a bona fide target in advanced breast cancer.

ASCO expert Harold Burstein, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston agreed that PI3K “is a very appealing target. It’s a mutation that probably is the most common in breast cancer when you do genomic sequencing, and it arises in other tumors as well.”

He likened the study findings, however, to a key opening a locked door, only to find that there is a chain latch on the other side preventing entry.

In an interview, Dr. Burstein said that despite the best efforts of Dr. Baselga and others to find a suitable approach to targeting the PI3K pathway, the evidence to date suggests that it may not be an important driver of breast cancer.

Neil Osterweill/ MDedge News

“The side effects that we see that are limiting patients staying on [taselisib] are mostly delta and gamma. So I do think that in the case of breast cancer, what we need to do is to work on more specific alpha inhibitors that will be safer,” he said.

SOURCE: : Baselga J et al. ASCO 2018 Abstract LBA1006 .

CHICAGO – Is two months of progression-free survival worth it if those months mean living with serious side effects?

Neil Osterweil/ MDedge News

For women with advanced estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, the combination of the PI3K inhibitor taselisib and the selective estrogen receptor modifier fulvestrant (Faslodex) bought two additional months of PFS, compared with fulvestrant alone, but at the cost of serious toxicities in half the patients treated with the combination, results of the SANDPIPER trial show.

“These results are positive, but I think we all agree they are modest,” lead investigator José Baselga, MD, PhD from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said at a briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The “challenging tolerability” of the combination led to frequent treatment discontinuations, and may have limited the clinical benefit of the combination, he said, but added that the study serves as proof of principle that PI3K may be a bona fide target in advanced breast cancer.

ASCO expert Harold Burstein, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston agreed that PI3K “is a very appealing target. It’s a mutation that probably is the most common in breast cancer when you do genomic sequencing, and it arises in other tumors as well.”

He likened the study findings, however, to a key opening a locked door, only to find that there is a chain latch on the other side preventing entry.

In an interview, Dr. Burstein said that despite the best efforts of Dr. Baselga and others to find a suitable approach to targeting the PI3K pathway, the evidence to date suggests that it may not be an important driver of breast cancer.

Neil Osterweill/ MDedge News

“The side effects that we see that are limiting patients staying on [taselisib] are mostly delta and gamma. So I do think that in the case of breast cancer, what we need to do is to work on more specific alpha inhibitors that will be safer,” he said.

SOURCE: : Baselga J et al. ASCO 2018 Abstract LBA1006 .

CHICAGO – Is two months of progression-free survival worth it if those months mean living with serious side effects?

Neil Osterweil/ MDedge News

For women with advanced estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, the combination of the PI3K inhibitor taselisib and the selective estrogen receptor modifier fulvestrant (Faslodex) bought two additional months of PFS, compared with fulvestrant alone, but at the cost of serious toxicities in half the patients treated with the combination, results of the SANDPIPER trial show.

“These results are positive, but I think we all agree they are modest,” lead investigator José Baselga, MD, PhD from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said at a briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The “challenging tolerability” of the combination led to frequent treatment discontinuations, and may have limited the clinical benefit of the combination, he said, but added that the study serves as proof of principle that PI3K may be a bona fide target in advanced breast cancer.

ASCO expert Harold Burstein, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston agreed that PI3K “is a very appealing target. It’s a mutation that probably is the most common in breast cancer when you do genomic sequencing, and it arises in other tumors as well.”

He likened the study findings, however, to a key opening a locked door, only to find that there is a chain latch on the other side preventing entry.

In an interview, Dr. Burstein said that despite the best efforts of Dr. Baselga and others to find a suitable approach to targeting the PI3K pathway, the evidence to date suggests that it may not be an important driver of breast cancer.

Neil Osterweill/ MDedge News

“The side effects that we see that are limiting patients staying on [taselisib] are mostly delta and gamma. So I do think that in the case of breast cancer, what we need to do is to work on more specific alpha inhibitors that will be safer,” he said.

SOURCE: : Baselga J et al. ASCO 2018 Abstract LBA1006 .

CHICAGO – Maintenance chemotherapy is life-prolonging for youth with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma, finds a trial of 371 patients aged 0 to 21 years who had completed standard intensive therapy.

The 5-year rate of overall survival was 86.5% for those who received maintenance therapy with the combination of low-dose intravenous vinorelbine and oral cyclophosphamide, compared with 73.7% for those who did not, translating to a near halving of the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .0111). The regimen was well tolerated. The findings represent the first treatment advance for this rare cancer in 30 years.

In an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, lead study author Gianni Bisogno, MD, PhD, discussed the risk-benefit profile of maintenance chemotherapy and the practice-changing nature of the new data. Dr. Bisogno, a professor at the University Hospital of Padova in Italy and chair of the European Paediatric Soft tissue Sarcoma Study Group, also described plans for a new trial that will explore alternate maintenance schedules and collaboration with colleagues in North America to further improve pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma outcomes.
 

CHICAGO – Maintenance chemotherapy is life-prolonging for youth with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma, finds a trial of 371 patients aged 0 to 21 years who had completed standard intensive therapy.

The 5-year rate of overall survival was 86.5% for those who received maintenance therapy with the combination of low-dose intravenous vinorelbine and oral cyclophosphamide, compared with 73.7% for those who did not, translating to a near halving of the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .0111). The regimen was well tolerated. The findings represent the first treatment advance for this rare cancer in 30 years.

In an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, lead study author Gianni Bisogno, MD, PhD, discussed the risk-benefit profile of maintenance chemotherapy and the practice-changing nature of the new data. Dr. Bisogno, a professor at the University Hospital of Padova in Italy and chair of the European Paediatric Soft tissue Sarcoma Study Group, also described plans for a new trial that will explore alternate maintenance schedules and collaboration with colleagues in North America to further improve pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma outcomes.
 

CHICAGO – Maintenance chemotherapy is life-prolonging for youth with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma, finds a trial of 371 patients aged 0 to 21 years who had completed standard intensive therapy.

The 5-year rate of overall survival was 86.5% for those who received maintenance therapy with the combination of low-dose intravenous vinorelbine and oral cyclophosphamide, compared with 73.7% for those who did not, translating to a near halving of the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .0111). The regimen was well tolerated. The findings represent the first treatment advance for this rare cancer in 30 years.

In an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, lead study author Gianni Bisogno, MD, PhD, discussed the risk-benefit profile of maintenance chemotherapy and the practice-changing nature of the new data. Dr. Bisogno, a professor at the University Hospital of Padova in Italy and chair of the European Paediatric Soft tissue Sarcoma Study Group, also described plans for a new trial that will explore alternate maintenance schedules and collaboration with colleagues in North America to further improve pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma outcomes.
 

SAN DIEGO – The investigational agent AZD8871 at once daily doses of 100 mcg and 600 mcg led to statistically significant, clinically relevant, and dose-ordered differences in trough FEV₁ at two weeks compared with placebo, results from a phase 2a trial showed.

AZD8871 is a long-acting, bifunctional bronchodilator that combines a muscarinic antagonist and a beta-2 adrenoceptor agonist. “There are some interesting avenues that you can explore with such a molecule,” one of the study authors, Dave Singh, MD, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. “First, theoretically, as a single molecule you will be able to deposit both the active ingredients to the same site in the lung. On a more practical note, if you want to add something else to a dual bronchodilator, which is essentially what AZD8871 is, this provides a platform. Perhaps that’s the most interesting use of this type of approach.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Single doses of AZD8871 (400 mcg and 1,800 mcg) administered in COPD patients demonstrated sustained bronchodilation over 36 hours. In a study presented at the 2017 meeting of the European Respiratory Society, Dr. Singh and his associates found that AZD8871 1,800 mcg showed greater bronchodilation than both indacaterol and tiotropium for peak and trough FEV₁.

For the current study, researchers at one site in the United Kingdom and one site in Germany conducted a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of AZD8871 in 42 patients aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe reversible COPD. Patients were randomized to receive repeated once-daily doses of AZD8871 100 mcg, 600 mcg, or placebo via a dry powder inhaler device for 14 days. Between-treatment washout periods were 28-35 days. “We keep the patients in-house on day one and day 14 of each treatment period, and we measure lung function over 24 hours,” said Dr. Singh, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom. “Patients were allowed to continue any pre-existing steroid therapy, but at the end of screening they had to withdraw any long-acting bronchodilator therapy.”

The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline trough FEV₁ on day 15. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in peak FEV₁, total score of breathlessness, cough, sputum scale questionnaire, and rescue medication use.

At baseline, the mean age of the 42 patients was 64 years, and 67% were male. Their mean FEV₁ was about 58% predicted, and their FEV₁ absolute reversibility was a mean of 379 mL, “which is rather high,” he said.

Of the 42 randomized patients, 31 completed all three treatments. Both doses of AZD8871 had a positive, dose-dependent effect on FEV_1, compared with placebo, and both doses demonstrated an onset of action within 15 minutes. On day 15, least square mean change from baseline differences in trough FEV₁ for AZD8871 100 mcg and 600 mcg versus placebo were 161 mL and 260 mL, respectively.

A similar association was observed with peak FEV₁, which between baseline and day 14 increased by 380 mL at the 100 mcg dose and by 420 mL at the 600 mcg dose, compared with placebo. Sustained bronchodilation was observed over 24 hours on both day 1 and day 14.

Statistically significant COPD symptom improvements, measured by breathlessness, cough and sputum scale (BCSS), were observed for AZD8871 600 mcg on day 8 (P=0.002) and day 14 (P less than 0.001), compared with placebo.

In addition, substantial symptomatic improvements were observed for AZD8871 600 mcg on D14 versus placebo (least square mean of -1.16). Similar results were observed for individual domains of the BCSS. “When you separate out the different components of the scale, most of this is driven by the change in breathlessness,” he said. “We were surprised that we could capture this in such a small number of patients.”

On days 1-8 and days 9-14, the researchers observed a statistically significant improvement in change from baseline rescue medication use for AZD8871 600 mcg (P less than 0.001) and 100 mcg (P=0.029 and P=0.012, respectively), compared with placebo.

The most common adverse events for patients in all three treatment groups were headache (21.4%) and worsening of COPD-related symptoms (14.3%). No dose-dependence was observed with any adverse event, including serious adverse events and/or those leading to discontinuation.

AstraZeneca, the developer of AZD8871, sponsored the study. Dr. Singh reported being a consultant to and receiving research support from AstraZeneca and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Singh, D., et al, Abstract 7708, ATS 2018.

SAN DIEGO – The investigational agent AZD8871 at once daily doses of 100 mcg and 600 mcg led to statistically significant, clinically relevant, and dose-ordered differences in trough FEV₁ at two weeks compared with placebo, results from a phase 2a trial showed.

AZD8871 is a long-acting, bifunctional bronchodilator that combines a muscarinic antagonist and a beta-2 adrenoceptor agonist. “There are some interesting avenues that you can explore with such a molecule,” one of the study authors, Dave Singh, MD, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. “First, theoretically, as a single molecule you will be able to deposit both the active ingredients to the same site in the lung. On a more practical note, if you want to add something else to a dual bronchodilator, which is essentially what AZD8871 is, this provides a platform. Perhaps that’s the most interesting use of this type of approach.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Single doses of AZD8871 (400 mcg and 1,800 mcg) administered in COPD patients demonstrated sustained bronchodilation over 36 hours. In a study presented at the 2017 meeting of the European Respiratory Society, Dr. Singh and his associates found that AZD8871 1,800 mcg showed greater bronchodilation than both indacaterol and tiotropium for peak and trough FEV₁.

For the current study, researchers at one site in the United Kingdom and one site in Germany conducted a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of AZD8871 in 42 patients aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe reversible COPD. Patients were randomized to receive repeated once-daily doses of AZD8871 100 mcg, 600 mcg, or placebo via a dry powder inhaler device for 14 days. Between-treatment washout periods were 28-35 days. “We keep the patients in-house on day one and day 14 of each treatment period, and we measure lung function over 24 hours,” said Dr. Singh, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom. “Patients were allowed to continue any pre-existing steroid therapy, but at the end of screening they had to withdraw any long-acting bronchodilator therapy.”

The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline trough FEV₁ on day 15. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in peak FEV₁, total score of breathlessness, cough, sputum scale questionnaire, and rescue medication use.

At baseline, the mean age of the 42 patients was 64 years, and 67% were male. Their mean FEV₁ was about 58% predicted, and their FEV₁ absolute reversibility was a mean of 379 mL, “which is rather high,” he said.

Of the 42 randomized patients, 31 completed all three treatments. Both doses of AZD8871 had a positive, dose-dependent effect on FEV_1, compared with placebo, and both doses demonstrated an onset of action within 15 minutes. On day 15, least square mean change from baseline differences in trough FEV₁ for AZD8871 100 mcg and 600 mcg versus placebo were 161 mL and 260 mL, respectively.

A similar association was observed with peak FEV₁, which between baseline and day 14 increased by 380 mL at the 100 mcg dose and by 420 mL at the 600 mcg dose, compared with placebo. Sustained bronchodilation was observed over 24 hours on both day 1 and day 14.

Statistically significant COPD symptom improvements, measured by breathlessness, cough and sputum scale (BCSS), were observed for AZD8871 600 mcg on day 8 (P=0.002) and day 14 (P less than 0.001), compared with placebo.

In addition, substantial symptomatic improvements were observed for AZD8871 600 mcg on D14 versus placebo (least square mean of -1.16). Similar results were observed for individual domains of the BCSS. “When you separate out the different components of the scale, most of this is driven by the change in breathlessness,” he said. “We were surprised that we could capture this in such a small number of patients.”

On days 1-8 and days 9-14, the researchers observed a statistically significant improvement in change from baseline rescue medication use for AZD8871 600 mcg (P less than 0.001) and 100 mcg (P=0.029 and P=0.012, respectively), compared with placebo.

The most common adverse events for patients in all three treatment groups were headache (21.4%) and worsening of COPD-related symptoms (14.3%). No dose-dependence was observed with any adverse event, including serious adverse events and/or those leading to discontinuation.

AstraZeneca, the developer of AZD8871, sponsored the study. Dr. Singh reported being a consultant to and receiving research support from AstraZeneca and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Singh, D., et al, Abstract 7708, ATS 2018.

SAN DIEGO – The investigational agent AZD8871 at once daily doses of 100 mcg and 600 mcg led to statistically significant, clinically relevant, and dose-ordered differences in trough FEV₁ at two weeks compared with placebo, results from a phase 2a trial showed.

AZD8871 is a long-acting, bifunctional bronchodilator that combines a muscarinic antagonist and a beta-2 adrenoceptor agonist. “There are some interesting avenues that you can explore with such a molecule,” one of the study authors, Dave Singh, MD, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. “First, theoretically, as a single molecule you will be able to deposit both the active ingredients to the same site in the lung. On a more practical note, if you want to add something else to a dual bronchodilator, which is essentially what AZD8871 is, this provides a platform. Perhaps that’s the most interesting use of this type of approach.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Single doses of AZD8871 (400 mcg and 1,800 mcg) administered in COPD patients demonstrated sustained bronchodilation over 36 hours. In a study presented at the 2017 meeting of the European Respiratory Society, Dr. Singh and his associates found that AZD8871 1,800 mcg showed greater bronchodilation than both indacaterol and tiotropium for peak and trough FEV₁.

For the current study, researchers at one site in the United Kingdom and one site in Germany conducted a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of AZD8871 in 42 patients aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe reversible COPD. Patients were randomized to receive repeated once-daily doses of AZD8871 100 mcg, 600 mcg, or placebo via a dry powder inhaler device for 14 days. Between-treatment washout periods were 28-35 days. “We keep the patients in-house on day one and day 14 of each treatment period, and we measure lung function over 24 hours,” said Dr. Singh, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom. “Patients were allowed to continue any pre-existing steroid therapy, but at the end of screening they had to withdraw any long-acting bronchodilator therapy.”

The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline trough FEV₁ on day 15. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in peak FEV₁, total score of breathlessness, cough, sputum scale questionnaire, and rescue medication use.

At baseline, the mean age of the 42 patients was 64 years, and 67% were male. Their mean FEV₁ was about 58% predicted, and their FEV₁ absolute reversibility was a mean of 379 mL, “which is rather high,” he said.

Of the 42 randomized patients, 31 completed all three treatments. Both doses of AZD8871 had a positive, dose-dependent effect on FEV_1, compared with placebo, and both doses demonstrated an onset of action within 15 minutes. On day 15, least square mean change from baseline differences in trough FEV₁ for AZD8871 100 mcg and 600 mcg versus placebo were 161 mL and 260 mL, respectively.

A similar association was observed with peak FEV₁, which between baseline and day 14 increased by 380 mL at the 100 mcg dose and by 420 mL at the 600 mcg dose, compared with placebo. Sustained bronchodilation was observed over 24 hours on both day 1 and day 14.

Statistically significant COPD symptom improvements, measured by breathlessness, cough and sputum scale (BCSS), were observed for AZD8871 600 mcg on day 8 (P=0.002) and day 14 (P less than 0.001), compared with placebo.

In addition, substantial symptomatic improvements were observed for AZD8871 600 mcg on D14 versus placebo (least square mean of -1.16). Similar results were observed for individual domains of the BCSS. “When you separate out the different components of the scale, most of this is driven by the change in breathlessness,” he said. “We were surprised that we could capture this in such a small number of patients.”

On days 1-8 and days 9-14, the researchers observed a statistically significant improvement in change from baseline rescue medication use for AZD8871 600 mcg (P less than 0.001) and 100 mcg (P=0.029 and P=0.012, respectively), compared with placebo.

The most common adverse events for patients in all three treatment groups were headache (21.4%) and worsening of COPD-related symptoms (14.3%). No dose-dependence was observed with any adverse event, including serious adverse events and/or those leading to discontinuation.

AstraZeneca, the developer of AZD8871, sponsored the study. Dr. Singh reported being a consultant to and receiving research support from AstraZeneca and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Singh, D., et al, Abstract 7708, ATS 2018.

CHICAGO – New data from the TAILORx trial are welcome news for women with HR-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node–negative early-stage breast cancer and their oncologists caught in the gray area surrounding the need for adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results of the noninferiority phase 3 trial—the largest adjuvant breast cancer treatment trial ever conducted—show that among the 6,711 women with an intermediate Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score (11-25), those who received only endocrine therapy and skipped adjuvant chemotherapy did not have worse invasive disease-free survival than counterparts who received both (hazard ratio, 1.08; P=.26).

The 9-year rate of invasive disease–free survival was 83.3% with endocrine therapy alone and 84.3% with both chemotherapy and endocrine therapy, and the pattern was essentially the same for freedom from any recurrence and distant recurrence, and overall survival.

The findings are practice changing, according to lead study author Joseph A. Sparano, MD, associate director for clinical research at the Albert Einstein Cancer Center and Montefiore Health System in New York, and vice-chair of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, he discussed implications of the new data for decision making, results of interaction analyses showing that one size does not fit all and certain women with intermediate recurrence scores do derive benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as plans to use the tumor samples for future analyses on those that do recur.

CHICAGO – New data from the TAILORx trial are welcome news for women with HR-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node–negative early-stage breast cancer and their oncologists caught in the gray area surrounding the need for adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results of the noninferiority phase 3 trial—the largest adjuvant breast cancer treatment trial ever conducted—show that among the 6,711 women with an intermediate Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score (11-25), those who received only endocrine therapy and skipped adjuvant chemotherapy did not have worse invasive disease-free survival than counterparts who received both (hazard ratio, 1.08; P=.26).

The 9-year rate of invasive disease–free survival was 83.3% with endocrine therapy alone and 84.3% with both chemotherapy and endocrine therapy, and the pattern was essentially the same for freedom from any recurrence and distant recurrence, and overall survival.

The findings are practice changing, according to lead study author Joseph A. Sparano, MD, associate director for clinical research at the Albert Einstein Cancer Center and Montefiore Health System in New York, and vice-chair of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, he discussed implications of the new data for decision making, results of interaction analyses showing that one size does not fit all and certain women with intermediate recurrence scores do derive benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as plans to use the tumor samples for future analyses on those that do recur.

CHICAGO – New data from the TAILORx trial are welcome news for women with HR-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node–negative early-stage breast cancer and their oncologists caught in the gray area surrounding the need for adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results of the noninferiority phase 3 trial—the largest adjuvant breast cancer treatment trial ever conducted—show that among the 6,711 women with an intermediate Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score (11-25), those who received only endocrine therapy and skipped adjuvant chemotherapy did not have worse invasive disease-free survival than counterparts who received both (hazard ratio, 1.08; P=.26).

The 9-year rate of invasive disease–free survival was 83.3% with endocrine therapy alone and 84.3% with both chemotherapy and endocrine therapy, and the pattern was essentially the same for freedom from any recurrence and distant recurrence, and overall survival.

The findings are practice changing, according to lead study author Joseph A. Sparano, MD, associate director for clinical research at the Albert Einstein Cancer Center and Montefiore Health System in New York, and vice-chair of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, he discussed implications of the new data for decision making, results of interaction analyses showing that one size does not fit all and certain women with intermediate recurrence scores do derive benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as plans to use the tumor samples for future analyses on those that do recur.

WASHINGTON – Low-grade dysplasia and length of Barrett’s segment are both significant predictors of neoplastic progression, investigators here reported, but risk of esophageal progression from Barrett’s esophagus to adenocarcinoma remains low.

Tracking neoplastic progression is of prime importance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) because it can lead to the formation of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAD), Esther Klaver of the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam noted at the annual Digestive Disease Week. By the time many patients present with symptoms, they are at an incurable stage of the disease and have 5-year survival rates below 20%. Endoscopic surveillance of patients with BE can detect neoplastic progression and EAD when it is still curable.

Ms. Klaver and her colleagues attempted to conduct the “perfect study” by observing patients with BE to identify endoscopic and clinical factors associated with increased risk of neoplastic progression. They did this by establishing a surveillance program to track disease progression that enrolled 987 patients from 2003 to 2017 at six community-based hospitals. The patients who enrolled had been diagnosed with BE and identified via a Dutch pathology registry or were newly diagnosed BE patients. Those with any history of EAD or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) were not included.

Ms. Klaver and her colleagues found that after a 7-year follow-up period the annual risk of progression to HGD or EAD was 0.79% per patient year, with 68 of the 987 patients progressing. Of the patients who progressed, 27 progressed to HGD (40%), and 41 progressed to EAD (60%). An overwhelming majority of patients received endoscopic management (59 patients, 87%), while some patients required surgery (9, 13%). Only 32 (3%) patients in the entire study population were lost to follow-up.

Low-grade dysplasia at baseline was the factor with the highest risk for esophageal progression, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.33 (95% CI, 1.27-4.29). Longer BE length (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.10) and age at baseline (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.12-1.24) were less associated with risk of HGD or EAD, but still significant.

Ms. Klaver pointed out that this study is unique in its design. The long-term follow-up and the focus on strict adherence to guidelines and optimal surveillance set this study apart from many BE studies.

“We tried to perform the perfect, optimal, prospective Barrett’s surveillance study in a large cohort with almost 1,000 patients with a median follow-up of almost 8 years.” Ms. Klaver said. “We have done this in a community, nonacademic setting, with the average Barrett’s patient. We have showed you that even with perfect surveillance that progression risk is low, with only 68 of almost 1,000 patients showing progression.”

The study was managed by tertiary referral centers that had two research nurses who attended surveillance endoscopies to ensure that guidelines were followed. Additionally, all endoscopies were performed by a dedicated endoscopist. As part of the endoscopy visit, patients filled out questionnaires containing demographic and clinical data. Researchers also retrospectively collected any prior surveillance data for patients who had previously been under histologic and endoscopic surveillance.

Ms. Klaver and her colleagues had no financial conflicts of interest to report.

ilacy@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Klaver E. et al. Gastroenterology. 154 (6). Abstract 10. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(18)30500-6.

WASHINGTON – Low-grade dysplasia and length of Barrett’s segment are both significant predictors of neoplastic progression, investigators here reported, but risk of esophageal progression from Barrett’s esophagus to adenocarcinoma remains low.

Tracking neoplastic progression is of prime importance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) because it can lead to the formation of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAD), Esther Klaver of the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam noted at the annual Digestive Disease Week. By the time many patients present with symptoms, they are at an incurable stage of the disease and have 5-year survival rates below 20%. Endoscopic surveillance of patients with BE can detect neoplastic progression and EAD when it is still curable.

Ms. Klaver and her colleagues attempted to conduct the “perfect study” by observing patients with BE to identify endoscopic and clinical factors associated with increased risk of neoplastic progression. They did this by establishing a surveillance program to track disease progression that enrolled 987 patients from 2003 to 2017 at six community-based hospitals. The patients who enrolled had been diagnosed with BE and identified via a Dutch pathology registry or were newly diagnosed BE patients. Those with any history of EAD or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) were not included.

Ms. Klaver and her colleagues found that after a 7-year follow-up period the annual risk of progression to HGD or EAD was 0.79% per patient year, with 68 of the 987 patients progressing. Of the patients who progressed, 27 progressed to HGD (40%), and 41 progressed to EAD (60%). An overwhelming majority of patients received endoscopic management (59 patients, 87%), while some patients required surgery (9, 13%). Only 32 (3%) patients in the entire study population were lost to follow-up.

Low-grade dysplasia at baseline was the factor with the highest risk for esophageal progression, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.33 (95% CI, 1.27-4.29). Longer BE length (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.10) and age at baseline (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.12-1.24) were less associated with risk of HGD or EAD, but still significant.

Ms. Klaver pointed out that this study is unique in its design. The long-term follow-up and the focus on strict adherence to guidelines and optimal surveillance set this study apart from many BE studies.

“We tried to perform the perfect, optimal, prospective Barrett’s surveillance study in a large cohort with almost 1,000 patients with a median follow-up of almost 8 years.” Ms. Klaver said. “We have done this in a community, nonacademic setting, with the average Barrett’s patient. We have showed you that even with perfect surveillance that progression risk is low, with only 68 of almost 1,000 patients showing progression.”

The study was managed by tertiary referral centers that had two research nurses who attended surveillance endoscopies to ensure that guidelines were followed. Additionally, all endoscopies were performed by a dedicated endoscopist. As part of the endoscopy visit, patients filled out questionnaires containing demographic and clinical data. Researchers also retrospectively collected any prior surveillance data for patients who had previously been under histologic and endoscopic surveillance.

Ms. Klaver and her colleagues had no financial conflicts of interest to report.

ilacy@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Klaver E. et al. Gastroenterology. 154 (6). Abstract 10. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(18)30500-6.

WASHINGTON – Low-grade dysplasia and length of Barrett’s segment are both significant predictors of neoplastic progression, investigators here reported, but risk of esophageal progression from Barrett’s esophagus to adenocarcinoma remains low.

Tracking neoplastic progression is of prime importance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) because it can lead to the formation of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAD), Esther Klaver of the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam noted at the annual Digestive Disease Week. By the time many patients present with symptoms, they are at an incurable stage of the disease and have 5-year survival rates below 20%. Endoscopic surveillance of patients with BE can detect neoplastic progression and EAD when it is still curable.

Ms. Klaver and her colleagues attempted to conduct the “perfect study” by observing patients with BE to identify endoscopic and clinical factors associated with increased risk of neoplastic progression. They did this by establishing a surveillance program to track disease progression that enrolled 987 patients from 2003 to 2017 at six community-based hospitals. The patients who enrolled had been diagnosed with BE and identified via a Dutch pathology registry or were newly diagnosed BE patients. Those with any history of EAD or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) were not included.

Ms. Klaver and her colleagues found that after a 7-year follow-up period the annual risk of progression to HGD or EAD was 0.79% per patient year, with 68 of the 987 patients progressing. Of the patients who progressed, 27 progressed to HGD (40%), and 41 progressed to EAD (60%). An overwhelming majority of patients received endoscopic management (59 patients, 87%), while some patients required surgery (9, 13%). Only 32 (3%) patients in the entire study population were lost to follow-up.

Low-grade dysplasia at baseline was the factor with the highest risk for esophageal progression, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.33 (95% CI, 1.27-4.29). Longer BE length (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.10) and age at baseline (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.12-1.24) were less associated with risk of HGD or EAD, but still significant.

Ms. Klaver pointed out that this study is unique in its design. The long-term follow-up and the focus on strict adherence to guidelines and optimal surveillance set this study apart from many BE studies.

“We tried to perform the perfect, optimal, prospective Barrett’s surveillance study in a large cohort with almost 1,000 patients with a median follow-up of almost 8 years.” Ms. Klaver said. “We have done this in a community, nonacademic setting, with the average Barrett’s patient. We have showed you that even with perfect surveillance that progression risk is low, with only 68 of almost 1,000 patients showing progression.”

The study was managed by tertiary referral centers that had two research nurses who attended surveillance endoscopies to ensure that guidelines were followed. Additionally, all endoscopies were performed by a dedicated endoscopist. As part of the endoscopy visit, patients filled out questionnaires containing demographic and clinical data. Researchers also retrospectively collected any prior surveillance data for patients who had previously been under histologic and endoscopic surveillance.

Ms. Klaver and her colleagues had no financial conflicts of interest to report.

ilacy@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Klaver E. et al. Gastroenterology. 154 (6). Abstract 10. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(18)30500-6.

SAN DIEGO – For people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, the addition of low-dose theophylline to inhaled corticosteroids conferred no overall clinical benefit, results from a large trial funded by the United Kingdom found.​

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Globally, theophylline was used for decades as a bronchodilator,” one of the study authors, David B. Price, MB BChir, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. “The problem is theophylline has a narrow therapeutic index, it requires some blood monitoring, and it has been replaced by more effective inhaled bronchodilators. However, there has been a lot of discussion about whether low-dose theophylline has anti-inflammatory effects on its own and whether it increases sensitivity to inhaled steroids in COPD.”

According to the 2018 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines, there is “limited and contradictory evidence regarding the effect of low-dose theophylline on exacerbation rates,” and its clinical relevance has “not yet been fully established.” Dr. Price, a professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom, and his associates hypothesized that the addition of low-dose theophylline to inhaled steroid therapy in COPD would reduce the risk of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations after one year of treatment. “If it worked, it would be wonderful; it would save the National Health Service a fortune,” he said.

In a government-funded trial known as Theophylline With Inhaled Corticosteroids (TWICS), people aged 40 years and older with COPD on a drug regimen including inhaled corticosteroids with a history of at least two exacerbations treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in the previous year were recruited in 121 U.K. primary and secondary care sites from January 2014 through August 2016. They were randomized to receive low-dose theophylline or placebo for one year. Theophylline dose (200 mg once/twice a day) was determined by ideal body weight and smoking status. Primary outcome was the number of participant-reported exacerbations in the one year treatment period treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids. Participants were assessed six and 12 months after randomization. The study was powered to detect a 15% reduction in exacerbations and aimed to recruit 1,424 participants.

In all, 1,578 people were randomized: 791 to theophylline and 787 to placebo. Of these, primary outcome data were available for 98% of participants: 772 in the theophylline group and 764 in the placebo group, which amounted to 1,489 person-years of follow-up data. The mean age of patients was 68 years, 54% were male, 32% currently smoked, 80% were using inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta 2-agonists/long-acting muscarinic agents, and their mean FEV1 was 51.7% predicted.

Slightly more than one-quarter of study participants (26%) ceased study medication. Dr. Price said that this was balanced between the theophylline and placebo groups and mitigated by over-recruitment and a high rate of follow-up.

He reported that there were 3,430 moderate to severe exacerbations: 1,727 in the theophylline group and 1,703 in the placebo group. The mean number of exacerbations in participants allocated to theophylline and placebo groups were essentially the same: 2.24 vs. 2.23. However, there were a fewer number of exacerbations that required hospitalization in the theophylline group, compared with the placebo groups (0.17 vs. 0.24, for an adjusted rate ratio of 0.72). Dr. Price was quick to point out that this finding applied to a relatively small number of study participants, about 3% overall.

“How you interpret this, I don’t know,” he said. “Our conclusion is that in the broad population there is no benefit [of low-dose theophylline], but maybe someone might want to study its use in frequent exacerbation patients who are getting hospitalized.”

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), United Kingdom. Dr. Price reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Price, D., et al, Abstract 7709, ATS 2018.

SAN DIEGO – For people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, the addition of low-dose theophylline to inhaled corticosteroids conferred no overall clinical benefit, results from a large trial funded by the United Kingdom found.​

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Globally, theophylline was used for decades as a bronchodilator,” one of the study authors, David B. Price, MB BChir, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. “The problem is theophylline has a narrow therapeutic index, it requires some blood monitoring, and it has been replaced by more effective inhaled bronchodilators. However, there has been a lot of discussion about whether low-dose theophylline has anti-inflammatory effects on its own and whether it increases sensitivity to inhaled steroids in COPD.”

According to the 2018 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines, there is “limited and contradictory evidence regarding the effect of low-dose theophylline on exacerbation rates,” and its clinical relevance has “not yet been fully established.” Dr. Price, a professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom, and his associates hypothesized that the addition of low-dose theophylline to inhaled steroid therapy in COPD would reduce the risk of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations after one year of treatment. “If it worked, it would be wonderful; it would save the National Health Service a fortune,” he said.

In a government-funded trial known as Theophylline With Inhaled Corticosteroids (TWICS), people aged 40 years and older with COPD on a drug regimen including inhaled corticosteroids with a history of at least two exacerbations treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in the previous year were recruited in 121 U.K. primary and secondary care sites from January 2014 through August 2016. They were randomized to receive low-dose theophylline or placebo for one year. Theophylline dose (200 mg once/twice a day) was determined by ideal body weight and smoking status. Primary outcome was the number of participant-reported exacerbations in the one year treatment period treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids. Participants were assessed six and 12 months after randomization. The study was powered to detect a 15% reduction in exacerbations and aimed to recruit 1,424 participants.

In all, 1,578 people were randomized: 791 to theophylline and 787 to placebo. Of these, primary outcome data were available for 98% of participants: 772 in the theophylline group and 764 in the placebo group, which amounted to 1,489 person-years of follow-up data. The mean age of patients was 68 years, 54% were male, 32% currently smoked, 80% were using inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta 2-agonists/long-acting muscarinic agents, and their mean FEV1 was 51.7% predicted.

Slightly more than one-quarter of study participants (26%) ceased study medication. Dr. Price said that this was balanced between the theophylline and placebo groups and mitigated by over-recruitment and a high rate of follow-up.

He reported that there were 3,430 moderate to severe exacerbations: 1,727 in the theophylline group and 1,703 in the placebo group. The mean number of exacerbations in participants allocated to theophylline and placebo groups were essentially the same: 2.24 vs. 2.23. However, there were a fewer number of exacerbations that required hospitalization in the theophylline group, compared with the placebo groups (0.17 vs. 0.24, for an adjusted rate ratio of 0.72). Dr. Price was quick to point out that this finding applied to a relatively small number of study participants, about 3% overall.

“How you interpret this, I don’t know,” he said. “Our conclusion is that in the broad population there is no benefit [of low-dose theophylline], but maybe someone might want to study its use in frequent exacerbation patients who are getting hospitalized.”

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), United Kingdom. Dr. Price reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Price, D., et al, Abstract 7709, ATS 2018.

SAN DIEGO – For people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, the addition of low-dose theophylline to inhaled corticosteroids conferred no overall clinical benefit, results from a large trial funded by the United Kingdom found.​

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Globally, theophylline was used for decades as a bronchodilator,” one of the study authors, David B. Price, MB BChir, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. “The problem is theophylline has a narrow therapeutic index, it requires some blood monitoring, and it has been replaced by more effective inhaled bronchodilators. However, there has been a lot of discussion about whether low-dose theophylline has anti-inflammatory effects on its own and whether it increases sensitivity to inhaled steroids in COPD.”

According to the 2018 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines, there is “limited and contradictory evidence regarding the effect of low-dose theophylline on exacerbation rates,” and its clinical relevance has “not yet been fully established.” Dr. Price, a professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom, and his associates hypothesized that the addition of low-dose theophylline to inhaled steroid therapy in COPD would reduce the risk of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations after one year of treatment. “If it worked, it would be wonderful; it would save the National Health Service a fortune,” he said.

In a government-funded trial known as Theophylline With Inhaled Corticosteroids (TWICS), people aged 40 years and older with COPD on a drug regimen including inhaled corticosteroids with a history of at least two exacerbations treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in the previous year were recruited in 121 U.K. primary and secondary care sites from January 2014 through August 2016. They were randomized to receive low-dose theophylline or placebo for one year. Theophylline dose (200 mg once/twice a day) was determined by ideal body weight and smoking status. Primary outcome was the number of participant-reported exacerbations in the one year treatment period treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids. Participants were assessed six and 12 months after randomization. The study was powered to detect a 15% reduction in exacerbations and aimed to recruit 1,424 participants.

In all, 1,578 people were randomized: 791 to theophylline and 787 to placebo. Of these, primary outcome data were available for 98% of participants: 772 in the theophylline group and 764 in the placebo group, which amounted to 1,489 person-years of follow-up data. The mean age of patients was 68 years, 54% were male, 32% currently smoked, 80% were using inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta 2-agonists/long-acting muscarinic agents, and their mean FEV1 was 51.7% predicted.

Slightly more than one-quarter of study participants (26%) ceased study medication. Dr. Price said that this was balanced between the theophylline and placebo groups and mitigated by over-recruitment and a high rate of follow-up.

He reported that there were 3,430 moderate to severe exacerbations: 1,727 in the theophylline group and 1,703 in the placebo group. The mean number of exacerbations in participants allocated to theophylline and placebo groups were essentially the same: 2.24 vs. 2.23. However, there were a fewer number of exacerbations that required hospitalization in the theophylline group, compared with the placebo groups (0.17 vs. 0.24, for an adjusted rate ratio of 0.72). Dr. Price was quick to point out that this finding applied to a relatively small number of study participants, about 3% overall.

“How you interpret this, I don’t know,” he said. “Our conclusion is that in the broad population there is no benefit [of low-dose theophylline], but maybe someone might want to study its use in frequent exacerbation patients who are getting hospitalized.”

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), United Kingdom. Dr. Price reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Price, D., et al, Abstract 7709, ATS 2018.

CHICAGO – Adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq) to first-line chemotherapy for squamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improves outcomes, according to results of the IMpower131 trial reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Squamous NSCLC remains a very difficult to treat disease, and there have been very limited new treatment options presented to us over the last few decades,” lead study author Robert M. Jotte, MD, PhD, medical director and co-chair, USON Thoracic Committee, Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers in Denver, said in a press briefing. Chemotherapy is still considered standard of care in the first-line setting.

Susan London/MDedge News

Susan London/MDedge News

Study details

With a median follow-up of 17.1 months in IMpower131, median progression-free survival was 5.6 months with chemotherapy alone and 6.3 months when atezolizumab was added to chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.71; P = .0001).

There was a doubling of the 12-month progression-free survival rate, from 12.0% to 24.7%, Dr. Jotte reported.

Atezolizumab improved progression-free survival across levels of PD-L1 expression, but benefit was most pronounced in patients with tumors having a high level of this biomarker (hazard ratio, 0.44).

Findings were similar for response, with a higher overall response rate seen with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (49% vs. 41%) and greatest difference in the subgroup whose tumors were highly PD-L1 positive (60% vs. 33%). Median duration of response was 7.2 months with the immunotherapy and 5.2 months without it.

Interim overall survival results showed that patients lived a median of 14.0 months with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 13.9 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.96; P = .6931).

Data from a third arm of the IMpower131 trial, in which atezolizumab was added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel, have not reached a point where statistical analyses can be done, according to Dr. Jotte.

A related phase 3 trial, IMpower150, is testing addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, as first-line therapy for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Investigators will be reporting results at the meeting for both overall survival (abstract 9002) and patient-reported outcomes (abstract 9047).

Dr. Jotte disclosed that he is on the speakers’ bureau for Bristol-Myers Squibb, and that he receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses, as well as honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb. The study received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

SOURCE: Jotte et al. ASCO 2018 Abstract LBA9000.

CHICAGO – Adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq) to first-line chemotherapy for squamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improves outcomes, according to results of the IMpower131 trial reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Squamous NSCLC remains a very difficult to treat disease, and there have been very limited new treatment options presented to us over the last few decades,” lead study author Robert M. Jotte, MD, PhD, medical director and co-chair, USON Thoracic Committee, Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers in Denver, said in a press briefing. Chemotherapy is still considered standard of care in the first-line setting.

Susan London/MDedge News

Susan London/MDedge News

Study details

With a median follow-up of 17.1 months in IMpower131, median progression-free survival was 5.6 months with chemotherapy alone and 6.3 months when atezolizumab was added to chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.71; P = .0001).

There was a doubling of the 12-month progression-free survival rate, from 12.0% to 24.7%, Dr. Jotte reported.

Atezolizumab improved progression-free survival across levels of PD-L1 expression, but benefit was most pronounced in patients with tumors having a high level of this biomarker (hazard ratio, 0.44).

Findings were similar for response, with a higher overall response rate seen with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (49% vs. 41%) and greatest difference in the subgroup whose tumors were highly PD-L1 positive (60% vs. 33%). Median duration of response was 7.2 months with the immunotherapy and 5.2 months without it.

Interim overall survival results showed that patients lived a median of 14.0 months with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 13.9 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.96; P = .6931).

Data from a third arm of the IMpower131 trial, in which atezolizumab was added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel, have not reached a point where statistical analyses can be done, according to Dr. Jotte.

A related phase 3 trial, IMpower150, is testing addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, as first-line therapy for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Investigators will be reporting results at the meeting for both overall survival (abstract 9002) and patient-reported outcomes (abstract 9047).

Dr. Jotte disclosed that he is on the speakers’ bureau for Bristol-Myers Squibb, and that he receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses, as well as honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb. The study received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

SOURCE: Jotte et al. ASCO 2018 Abstract LBA9000.

CHICAGO – Adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq) to first-line chemotherapy for squamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improves outcomes, according to results of the IMpower131 trial reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Squamous NSCLC remains a very difficult to treat disease, and there have been very limited new treatment options presented to us over the last few decades,” lead study author Robert M. Jotte, MD, PhD, medical director and co-chair, USON Thoracic Committee, Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers in Denver, said in a press briefing. Chemotherapy is still considered standard of care in the first-line setting.

Susan London/MDedge News

Susan London/MDedge News

Study details

With a median follow-up of 17.1 months in IMpower131, median progression-free survival was 5.6 months with chemotherapy alone and 6.3 months when atezolizumab was added to chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.71; P = .0001).

There was a doubling of the 12-month progression-free survival rate, from 12.0% to 24.7%, Dr. Jotte reported.

Atezolizumab improved progression-free survival across levels of PD-L1 expression, but benefit was most pronounced in patients with tumors having a high level of this biomarker (hazard ratio, 0.44).

Findings were similar for response, with a higher overall response rate seen with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (49% vs. 41%) and greatest difference in the subgroup whose tumors were highly PD-L1 positive (60% vs. 33%). Median duration of response was 7.2 months with the immunotherapy and 5.2 months without it.

Interim overall survival results showed that patients lived a median of 14.0 months with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 13.9 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.96; P = .6931).

Data from a third arm of the IMpower131 trial, in which atezolizumab was added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel, have not reached a point where statistical analyses can be done, according to Dr. Jotte.

A related phase 3 trial, IMpower150, is testing addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, as first-line therapy for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Investigators will be reporting results at the meeting for both overall survival (abstract 9002) and patient-reported outcomes (abstract 9047).

Dr. Jotte disclosed that he is on the speakers’ bureau for Bristol-Myers Squibb, and that he receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses, as well as honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb. The study received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

SOURCE: Jotte et al. ASCO 2018 Abstract LBA9000.