scholarly journals Breast Cancer Immunotherapy: From Biology to Current Clinical Applications

2020 ◽  
pp. 113-124
Author(s):  
Jorge Henrique Santos Leal ◽  
Heather McArthur
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Hormone Receptors ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Phase Iii

Therapeutic strategies for the treatment of breast cancer have historically been determined by the presence or absence of hormone receptors and HER2 amplification and/or protein expression. For patients with breast cancer that lack these biomarkers, the so-called ‘triple-negative’ subtype, chemotherapy has been the cornerstone of cure and palliation. However, with the recent successful development of immune checkpoint molecules that target cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4, programmed cell death-1 (PD-1), and PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1), improved survival has been reported across a range of tumour types including melanoma, lung, and bladder cancer. In metastatic breast cancer, trials of single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have resulted in limited overall response rates; however, strategies that combine local or systemic therapies with ICI have improved response rates and, in some cases, improved survival. For example, the addition of an anti-PD-L1 inhibitor, atezolizumab, to nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy for newly diagnosed metastatic triple-negative breast cancer demonstrated an improvement in overall survival in an informal analysis of the PD-L1-positive subset in a recently reported Phase III clinical trial. These results ultimately led to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for an ICI for the treatment of breast cancer, with numerous other health authorities following suit. Herein, the authors describe the biology behind ICI, the rationale for ICI administration in breast cancer, the related clinical trial data reported to date, and promising future strategies.

Triple Negative Breast Cancer Pathologic Diagnosis and Current Chemotherapy Treatment Options

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Bernardo L Rapoport ◽  
Simon Nayler ◽  
Georgia S Demetriou ◽  
Shun D Moodley ◽  
Carol A Benn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Hormone Receptors ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Pathologic Complete Response ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Pathologic Diagnosis ◽  
Metastatic Setting

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) comprises 12–20 % of all breast cancers and are a heterogeneous group of tumors, both clinically and pathologically. These cancers are characterized by the lack of expression of the hormone receptors estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR), combined with the lack of either overexpression or amplification of the human epidermal growth factor receptor-2(HER2)gene. Conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy and DNA damaging agents continue to be the mainstay of treatment of this disease in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic setting. The lack of predictive markers in identifying potential targets for the treatment of TNBC has left a gap in directed therapy in these patients. Platinum agents have seen renewed interest in TNBC based on an increasing body of preclinical and clinical data suggesting encouraging activity. However, comparisons between chemotherapy regimens are mostly retrospective in nature and the best agents or drug combinations for TNBC have not been established in prospective randomized trials. Numerous studies have now shown that TNBC has significantly higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rates compared with hormone receptor positive breast cancer when treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and pCR correlates well with better outcomes for these patients. Patients with TNBC account for a larger number of deaths in the setting of metastatic breast cancer. There is no preferred treatment for the first-line metastatic setting. Although individual agents are recommended, given the often aggressive nature of TNBC and the presence of extensive visceral disease, the use of a combination of drugs, rather than a single agent, is often advocated. This review article will outline the pathologic diagnosis of TNBC and the treatment options available to these patients in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic setting, including an assessment of future directions of treatment.

Triple Negative Breast Cancer Pathologic Diagnosis and Current Chemotherapy Treatment Options

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. 35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernardo L Rapoport ◽  
Simon Nayler ◽  
Georgia S Demetriou ◽  
Shun D Moodley ◽  
Carol A Benn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Hormone Receptors ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Metastatic Setting

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) comprises 12–20 % of all breast cancers and are a heterogeneous group of tumours, both clinically and pathologically. These cancers are characterised by the lack of expression of the hormone receptors oestrogen receptor (OR) and progesterone receptor (PR), combined with the lack of either overexpression or amplification of the human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) gene. Conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy and DNA damaging agents continue to be the mainstay of treatment of this disease in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant and metastatic setting. The lack of predictive markers in identifying potential targets for the treatment of TNBC has left a gap in directed therapy in these patients. Platinum agents have seen renewed interest in TNBC based on an increasing body of preclinical and clinical data suggesting encouraging activity. However, comparisons between chemotherapy regimens are mostly retrospective in nature and the best agents or drug combinations for TNBC have not been established in prospective randomised trials. Numerous studies have now shown that TNBC has significantly higher pathological complete response (pCR) rates compared with hormone receptor positive breast cancer when treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and pCR correlates well with better outcomes for these patients. Patients with TNBC account for a larger number of deaths in the setting of metastatic breast cancer. There is no preferred treatment for the first-line metastatic setting. Although individual agents are recommended, given the often aggressive nature of TNBC and the presence of extensive visceral disease, the use of a combination of drugs, rather than a single agent, is often advocated. This review article will outline the pathological diagnosis of TNBC and the treatment options available to these patients in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant and metastatic setting, including an assessment of future directions of treatment.

scholarly journals Positive progress: current and evolving role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592090909
Author(s):  
Christine E. Simmons ◽  
Christine Brezden-Masley ◽  
Joy McCarthy ◽  
Deanna McLeod ◽  
Anil Abraham Joy
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
First Line

Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents an aggressive breast cancer subtype with historically poor overall outcomes, due primarily to a lack of effective targeted agents. Chemotherapy has been the primary treatment approach, although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are currently being investigated to improve patient outcomes. This review examines the clinical implications of current evidence on the use of ICIs for the treatment of metastatic TNBC. Methods: Our systematic search identified two phase III and five phase I/II trials reporting on the efficacy of ICIs used as monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic TNBC. Results: The phase III IMpassion 130 trial showed a significant improvement in median progression-free survival in the intent-to-treat (net 1.7 months, p = 0.002) and PD-L1-positive populations (net 2.5 months, p < 0.001) for the addition of first-line atezolizumab versus placebo to nab-paclitaxel in metastatic TNBC. Although median overall survival was not significantly improved in patients receiving atezolizumab overall [net 2.3 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72–1.02, p = 0.078], numerical improvements in the PD-L1-positive population were compelling (net 7.0 months, HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.54–0.93). Toxicity profiles were as expected, and no new safety signals were observed. Pembrolizumab monotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival in similar patients that had received prior treatment in KEYNOTE-119. Conclusions: Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel represents a potential new first-line standard of care for patients with metastatic PD-L1-positive TNBC. Other ICIs used as monotherapy, or combined with chemotherapy for advanced TNBC, as well as their use for earlier stage disease, are areas of ongoing investigation.

Phase II study of irinotecan plus capecitabine in patients with anthracycline and taxane pretreated metastatic breast cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1093-1093
Author(s):  
K. S. Lee ◽  
J. Ro ◽  
I. H. Park ◽  
E. A. Kim ◽  
B. Nam
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cross Resistance ◽  
Median Response

1093 Background: Irinotecan (I) and capecitabine (X) have demonstrated single agent activity against breast cancer by different antitumor mechanism without cross-resistance. To assess the objective response rate (RR) of IX combination in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients (pts) was the primary end point. Methods: Anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated pts with measurable disease, age ≥ 18 years, adequate organ functions, and ECOG performance score (PS) 0–2 were eligible. Sample size of 36 was calculated with Simon's two stage minimax design. Pts received I 80 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 and X 1,000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1–14 of every 21-day cycle. Results: Between September 2006 and April 2008, 36 pts with median age of 50 years (range, 28–71) were enrolled. Median follow-up was 17 months (range, 8.3+ - 27.7+). Among 35 evaluable pts excluding 1-consent withdrawal, 86% received at least one prior chemotherapy for MBC; 20% had stage IV disease with 66% lung/37% liver metastases; 80% had PS 0–1; 77% had hormone receptor (HR) positive tumors, 20% triple negative disease and 3% HER-2 positive tumors. Overall RR was 60% (95% CI, 43.5–74.5) with median response duration of 6.3 months (range, 1.0+-17.1+); 2 CR (6%), 19 PR (54%), 8 SD (23%), and 6 PD (17%) with similar RR between HR+ (63%) versus triple negative disease (57%). Median survival was not reached with 76% estimated survival at 1-year, and median progression free survival (PFS) was 7.3 months (range, 0.7–21.1+). Pts received a median of 8 cycles of treatment (range, 1–26+). G1, G2, and G3 hand-foot syndrome were observed in 34%, 17%, and 0%, respectively. NCI grade ≥ 3 adverse events were: neutropenia (60%); asthenia, diarrhea, and vomiting (9%, each); transaminase elevation and febrile neutropenia (6%, each); abdominal pain, anorexia, fatigue, myalgia, and nausea (3%, each). Conclusions: I and X combination by this schedule and doses is highly efficacious in anthracyline- and taxane-pretreated MBC pts with manageable toxicities. Further investigation of this combination in phase III trials is warranted. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

The cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in first-line for metastatic triple negative breast cancer is heavily linked to PD-L1 level

2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522110194
Author(s):  
Jacopo Giuliani ◽  
Beatrice Mantoan ◽  
Andrea Bonetti
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Pivotal Phase ◽  
First Line Treatment

The present analysis was conducted to assess the pharmacological costs of atezolizumab as first-line treatment in triple negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Pivotal phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT) was considered. Nine hundred and two patients were included. Differences in costs between the 2 arms (atezolizumab plus nabpaclitaxel versus placebo plus nab-paclitaxel) was 17 398 €, with a cost of 7564 €per month of OS-gain in the overall population and 2485 €per month of OS-gain in PD-L1-positive (≥1) population. Combining pharmacological costs of drugs with the measure of efficacy represented by the OS, atezolizumab could be considered cost-effective in first-line treatment for triple-negative mBC only in PD-L1-positive population, but a reduction of costs is mandatory.

scholarly journals Is There Any Rationale for Detecting Hormone Receptor/HER2 Status with Rebiopsy Without Progression Upfront Metastatic Breast Cancer? with 2 Cases

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Duman BB ◽  
Cil T
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Tumor Heterogeneity ◽  
Hormone Receptors ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Her2 Overexpression

Alteration of biomarkers is well-documented in breast cancer at locoregional recurrence or metastasis attributed to tumor heterogeneity and change in biology. There is some data about discordance between primary and metastatic sites. At the same time hormone, receptor status can change after neoadjuvant treatment and at the time of recurrence. Metastatic breast cancer without progression or recurrence after the targeted chemotherapy combination for planning maintenance therapy in Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression positive hormone receptors positive or triple-negative patient after chemotherapy. In guidelines, the time of rebiopsy has no exact time, if the time of biopsy is usually after the progression of the tumor. We presented cases in which we detected different hormone receptor statuses from the beginning without progression and before deciding on maintenance therapy. This subject is important for deciding therapy in the aspect of heterogeneous tumors like breast cancer. The important decision of rebiopsy time is debate. In this aspect, these two cases are important examples for these kinds of patients tumor heterogeneity in breast cancer is one of the most widely known entities. We found that two patients, one of whom was estrogen progesterone receptor negative HER2 3 (+++) at the time of diagnosis and the other who was triple negative at the time of diagnosis, had positive hormone receptors in the re-biopsies without progression. We aimed to discuss the tumor heterogeneity and timing of rebiopsy in breast cancer in the light of two cases.

Safety and Efficacy of Using a Single Agent or a Phase II Agent Before Instituting Standard Combination Chemotherapy in Previously Untreated Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients: Report of a Randomized Study—Cancer and Leukemia Group B 8642

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 1397-1397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary E. Costanza ◽  
Raymond B. Weiss ◽  
I. Craig Henderson ◽  
Larry Norton ◽  
Donald A. Berry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Combination Chemotherapy ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Safety And Efficacy

PURPOSE: We undertook a prospective, randomized phase III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of using a phase II agent before initiating therapy with standard combination chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 365 women with measurable metastatic breast cancer, previously untreated with chemotherapy for their metastatic disease, were randomized to receive either immediate chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) or up to four cycles of one of five sequential cohorts of single-agent drugs: trimetrexate, melphalan, amonafide, carboplatin, or elsamitrucin, followed by CAF. RESULTS: The toxicity of each single agent followed by CAF was comparable to that of CAF alone. The cumulative response rates for the single agent followed by CAF were not statistically different from those of CAF alone (44% v 52%; P = .24). However, in the multivariate analysis, patients with visceral disease had a trend toward lower response rates on the phase II agent plus CAF arm (P = .078). Although survival and response duration also were not statistically significantly different between the two study arms (P = .074 and P = .069, respectively), there was a suggestion of benefit for the CAF-only arm. CONCLUSION: The brief use of a phase II agent, regardless of its efficacy, followed by CAF resulted in response rates, toxicities, durations of response, and survival statistically equivalent to those seen with the use of CAF alone. These findings support the use of a new paradigm for the evaluation of phase II agents in the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document