Breast Cancer Research News: SABCS Conference Highlights

/in , , , , , , , /by

Breast Cancer Research News: SABCS Conference Highlights from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo. 

Expert Dr. Megan Kruse shares highlights from the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS). Dr. Kruse provides an overview of what this news means for early stage breast cancer patients, along with her optimism about the future of breast cancer research and treatment.

Dr. Megan Kruse is a Breast Medical Oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic. More about this expert here.

See More From The Pro-Active Breast Cancer Patient Toolkit

Related Resources:

Are You Prepared for Your Breast Cancer Appointment? Expert Tips

 

Transcript:

Dr. Kruse:                   

The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium is a national meeting with international presence that combines all of the latest data from research on breast cancer topics. It involves clinical research, basic science research, a lot of patient, and patient advocate support.

And the idea here is to bring together all the different disciplines that are involved in breast cancer patient care and do the best information and knowledge sharing that we can each year.

This year’s San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium brought us a lot of interesting research focusing on early-stage breast cancer patients. I think the most important presentations that were given had to do with the treatment of high-risk lymph node-positive hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients. And these were really across three abstracts. The first abstract of interest was the Monarch E study, which looked at high-risk women with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer and optimizing their medical therapy.

So, these patients are typically treated with anti-estrogen therapy and the idea of the research that was presented was if the addition of a targeted medication called abemaciclib or Verzenio could help to improve outcomes for women in this population. And what the trial found was that for women who took their anti-estrogen therapy for the usual length of time but added the abemaciclib for the first two years of that anti-estrogen therapy that there is actually an improvement in cancer-free survival time or an improvement in cure rates. And this was important because these women may not benefit from chemotherapy, as we’ll talk about in another abstract.

An addition research presentation that was given that goes alongside of the monarch E study was that of the Penelope B study. And the Penelope B took a similar population to what was studied in Monarch E. So, again high-risk women with lymph node-positive, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer; however, in Penelope B, all of these patients had received pre-surgery chemotherapy.

And in order to qualify for the trial, the patients had to have some cancer that remained in the breast or the lymph nodes that was taken out at the time of their surgery. So, these are patients clearly in which chemotherapy did not do the whole job in terms of getting rid of the cancer. And again, the idea here was to add a second targeted therapy to the endocrine therapy to see if that would improve cancer-free time for patients in this population. The difference in this study was that the partner targeted therapy that was used was a drug called palbociclib or Ibrance.

And the drug was actually only used for one year in combination with endocrine therapy rather than two years as was used in the Monarch E study with abemaciclib. Interestingly enough, the Penelope B study was a negative study, meaning that it did not improve the cancer-free survival time for women who took the endocrine therapy plus targeted therapy compared to women who took the endocrine therapy alone.

So, I think that these are two interesting studies that one should look at together. And clearly, may impact what we do for the treatment of high-risk hormone receptor-positive women moving forward. The third abstract that I’d like to touch on that I think was important for women with early-stage breast cancer is the RxPONDER study, also known as SWOG 1007. And this study again was looking at lymph node-positive, hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer patients and seeing if the addition of chemotherapy helped to improve their cancer-free survival compared to anti-estrogen therapy alone.

And so, in this study, while the study population was all women with early-stage breast cancer, meeting the one to three lymph node-positive criteria, you really have to break the results down into the results for pre-menopausal women and the results for post-menopausal women.

Because overall the study really showed no significant benefit to chemotherapy on top of endocrine therapy for women in this population; however, we did see that there was a clear benefit for women who were pre-menopausal. So, the women who had no benefit from chemotherapy were largely those who were post-menopausal, while those who were pre-menopausal derived extra benefit from chemo on top of anti-estrogen therapy. And that benefit depended on what the Oncotype recurrent score was.

With women that had the lowest of the recurrent scores having a chemo benefit of about three percent going up to over five percent for women who had Oncotype recurrent scores in the mid-teens to 25 range. In both of these groups, women who had Oncotype scores of 26 or above would have chemotherapy as per our standard of care.

So, I think that this abstract is important because in the past women who had lymph node-positive breast cancer generally received chemotherapy no matter what. More recently we’ve understood that not all of these cancers are created equal and that some cancers may not actually have benefit from chemotherapy in terms of improving cure rate. So, this study is a big step forward to help individualize and specify the treatment for women with lymph node-positive, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer.

I’ve very hopeful about the research that is going to lead to new developments for breast cancer treatment in the next few years.

I think what we’ve seen both at this San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium as well as other conferences in the recent past has been a lot of focus on finding the right treatment for the right patient at the right time. And so, patients seem to be very interested in finding out this information. They often come to clinic armed with the most recent data, which allows their providers to have really informed discussions about what the best treatment might be. And to talk about if the new treatments are not great right now, what treatments might look like in the future.

I think the other thing that’s encouraging about the research that we’ve seen presented at this conference is that some of these trials are very, very large. For example, the RxPONDER trial was a trial of over 9,000 patients. And I really think that’s amazing to get that many patients interested in research that may not directly impact their patient care but will impact the care of others moving forward.                                   

It’s just a sign that our breast cancer patients are empowered, and they want to make a difference in the scientific community as a whole.

 

What Should You Know About the Role of Surgery in Breast Cancer Treatment?

/in , , , , , , , /by

What Should You Know About the Role of Surgery in Breast Cancer Treatment? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Dr. Stephanie Valente explains how surgery approaches, including mastectomy and lumpectomy, are used in treating breast cancer, and addresses common misconceptions about mastectomy.

Dr. Stephanie Valente is the Director of the Breast Surgery Fellowship Program at Cleveland Clinic. More about this expert here.

See More From The Pro-Active Breast Cancer Patient Toolkit

Related Resources:

 

Metastatic Breast Cancer: Accessing the Best Treatment for YOU

When Is a Full Mastectomy Appropriate for Breast Cancer Patients?

Factors that Guide a Metastatic Treatment Decision
 

Transcript:

Dr. Valente:            

So, breast cancer patients have the option to remove their whole breast, which is called a mastectomy. And if they pick that option, they could choose to have reconstruction or to essentially go flat. Yes, we have even done reconstruction in metastatic breast cancer patients. Metastatic breast cancer patients live for a really long time, so giving them reconstruction to make them feel whole and kind of put them back together after a mastectomy is definitely a good option.        

The other option is to just remove the cancer. So, if the patient has a small breast cancer, and it’s metastatic, we can just say – Hey, you don’t have to have the whole breast removed. So, we can do a lumpectomy, as well.

So, a lumpectomy is essentially a surgery that removes the cancer with a normal rim of tissue around it. We also call it a partial mastectomy, meaning you’re removing just part of the breast. Or it’s also called breast-conserving surgery. So, it’s any method that removes that cancer with a normal rim of healthy tissue around it but allows the woman to keep her breasts.

So, when it comes to surgical choices and a cancer coming back, some women think that if they pick the most advanced surgery, such as a mastectomy, it helps prevent cancer from going somewhere else in the body. And that’s actually not true. Removing both breasts, doesn’t make you live one day longer. At that point, a mastectomy or a lumpectomy is a choice.

And prognosis – meaning whether or not the cancer’s gonna show up somewhere in the body – is based really on two things – the stage at which the breast cancer presents itself and what type of breast cancer it is – meaning is the cancer outside of the lymph nodes? How large is it? And if it’s a triple negative or some other type of breast cancer? Those determine the higher likelihood that somebody could develop metastatic breast cancer later in their life, even though small, early-stage breast cancers, unfortunately, can also develop metastasis later on in life.

But women sometimes think that if they pick the most aggressive surgery, it’s helping prevent metastatic spread later on in life. And that’s actually not the choice.  Breast cancer surgery is the option that women choose to surgically remove their breast cancer. But again, choosing a mastectomy or a lumpectomy for an early-stage breast cancer is a choice of how they wanna remove the breast cancer. But it doesn’t improve the chances that they won’t have metastatic spread later on.

So, the role of surgery for metastatic breast cancer is mainly for what we call to remove the cancer or sometimes for local control. So, the number one treatment if somebody is diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer is systemic therapy. That might be chemotherapy or endocrine therapy. But it’s really to get the metastatic disease under control.

So, where does breast cancer usually go? Bones, liver, lungs, brain. So, surgery to remove the breast or the breast cancer in the breast doesn’t really take care of those problems. But a lot of times for metastatic cancer, the one reason would be for local control. So, if the cancer is causing issues in the breast – swelling, coming out of the skin – where it’s a wound issue, then we’ll remove that to get better control of the area in the breast.

The other reason is if somebody has metastatic cancer, and their cancer in the other area of their body is controlled with the therapy, then we say – Hey, chemo’s working, or the systemic therapy’s working. The only thing that seems to be left is the area in your breast. Then for a conversation with medical oncology, we say you don’t have to come off your medications. This is a good time to remove the breast cancer to control that problem.

Metastatic Breast Cancer Treatment and Research News

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Metastatic Breast Cancer Treatment and Research News from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

As metastatic breast cancer testing approaches continue to expand, new and promising treatments have emerged. Dr. Lisa Flaum shares information on recently approved treatment options and the role of genetic markers in accessing targeted therapy. 

Dr. Lisa Flaum is a Medical Oncologist at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University. Learn more here.

See More From The Pro-Active Breast Cancer Patient Toolkit

Related Resources:

What Do Breast Cancer Patients Need to Know About COVID?

Essential Testing Following a Metastatic Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Metastatic Breast Cancer Treatment Decisions: Which Path is Best for You?
 

Transcript:

Dr. Flaum:                  

There are a lot of new and promising treatments for metastatic breast cancer. So, the treatments in general and the novel treatments and studies really vary based on the subset of metastatic breast cancer. So, when we’re making our treatment decisions, a lot of it is defined by those markers. So, if someone has a tumor that is hormone receptor, estrogen and progesterone receptor positive, and HER2-negative, the mainstay of treatment is typically drugs that target estrogen and often partnering drugs that target estrogen with other more novel or newer treatments.

So, just in the last five plus years, there have been a number of new drugs and even new drug categories that we didn’t have previously. So, for that population of the estrogen receptor positive tumors, the biggest breakthrough over the last number of years has been a class of drugs called CDK4/6 inhibitors. So, that includes drugs like Ibrance, Kisqali, Verzenio. And they’ve emerged as a very important and effective and often a recommendation for our first-line treatment for these patients combined with anti-estrogen therapies that have vastly improved outcomes for patients. So, a much higher percentage of patients respond to these drugs, the duration of the responses has extended quite a bit. And importantly, patients tend to tolerate this drug class really, really well.

 So, for many patients starting out with that diagnosis, this type of drug class is going to be part of the discussion. Even in the last year, another drug category has emerged with approval of a new drug called alpelisib, which is something called at PI3 kinase inhibitor. So, again, back to defining the options based on the molecular profile of the tumor. So, this newer oral drug also partnered with anti-estrogen therapy, has been an important breakthrough for the treatment of patients who harbor this specific molecular abnormality. So, important to define whether that’s an option by some of these molecular testing.

There’s also newer drugs and studies of newer drugs that affect the estrogen receptor in different ways than some of our traditional medications.

And this is an ongoing area of significant research. So, that’s the estrogen receptor positive tumors.

For patients who have HER2-positive tumors, these are tumors that tend to be more aggressive, that tend to require more aggressive upfront treatment, which usually involves drugs that specifically target HER2. So, again, defining what’s driving the tumor and hopefully having drugs available that can target that specific abnormality. So, HER2 targeted drugs have evolved quite a bit over the last couple of decades.

Initially, we just had a drug called Herceptin and then a drug called Perjeta or pertuzumab was developed. Then more recently a drug called Kadcyla. And then even in just the last six to 10 months, two new drugs that target that HER2 protein. One of them is called tucatinib, the other one is called Enhertu. They’re not necessarily appropriate for the first line of treatment, but really sort of expands our toolbox in terms of how we treat these types of tumors. And these are developments that have occurred, for one of the drugs, just in the last six months, and the other within the last year. So, a lot of progress.

And then for the third subset of tumors, which are the triple-negative tumors, those are the ones that do not over-express estrogen, do not have estrogen or progesterone receptors, and don’t overexpressed HER2. This has been historically an area of unmet need. So, tumors where we can’t use anti-estrogen therapies, we can’t use HER2 targeted drugs. And so, the main stay has always been chemotherapy. And even for this subset, we’ve had progress.

So, one of the drug classes that’s been approved in the last couple years for triple-negative breast cancers is immunotherapy. So, immunotherapy has gotten a lot of press. It’s been really breakthrough treatment for a lot of different cancers, has lagged behind to some degree in breast cancer, but has become now one of the early treatment options for people with metastatic disease, specifically those that harbor a molecular marker, an immune marker, something called PD-L1. So, another example of the tumor’s biology dictating potentially one of the treatment options.

There have been other drugs that have been approved for triple-negative breast cancers in women who have BRCA mutation, so who have germline genetic predisposition to breast cancer. And that opens another array of treatment tools that have been approved in the last few years. And then more recently, just over the last six months, another drug that’s been approved for triple-negative breast cancer, which is a drug called sacituzumab, again, not first treatment, but something that defines potentially future lines of treatment. So, big picture, there has been a lot of progress that increasingly alters our treatment tools for patients and allows us to have sequential treatments that can be effective if their given treatment is no longer effective.

Metastatic Breast Cancer Treatment Decisions: Which Path is Best for You?

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Metastatic Breast Cancer Treatment Decisions: Which Path is Best for You? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

 For each metastatic breast cancer patient, there are several variables to consider to access the best treatment path. Dr. Lisa Flaum explains key factors to consider, and discusses how the risks and benefits are weighed when making treatment decisions for an individual patient.

Dr. Lisa Flaum is a Medical Oncologist at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University. Learn more here.

See More From The Pro-Active Breast Cancer Patient Toolkit

Related Resources:

Are You Prepared for Your Breast Cancer Appointment?

Essential Testing Following a Metastatic Breast Cancer Diagnosis

What Do Breast Cancer Patients Need to Know About COVID?
 

Transcript:

Dr. Flaum:                  

So, when we’re determining a treatment approach, there are a number of variables. So, to some degree, based on a patient’s individual characteristics, their age, their other health issues, may guide what treatments are available or indicated or even desirable from a patient’s standpoint. To some degree, the locations and extent of disease are important. So, if someone has cancer and that’s causing a particular symptom, with bony sites being a particular example, there may be a role for something targeted; Something like radiation, and in rare cases, surgery to target a specific symptomatic or worrisome spot of metastatic cancer.

In general, the mainstay of treatment for metastatic breast cancer is what we call systemic treatment or medical treatment, treatment that’s going to go everywhere and treat the cancer wherever it is. In some situations, we may be deciding between more or less aggressive treatment, and the locations and sites of disease may be important in determining that. If someone has extensive disease, for instance in a vital organ like the lung, the liver, the brain, we may start with something more versus less aggressive to try to get it better under control quickly. Whereas people with more limited metastatic disease may be able to start with something less aggressive.

And then beyond that, a lot of the decision-making is based on those molecular markers that I alluded to, which are defined by the hormone receptor status. So, whether the tumor expresses those estrogen and progesterone receptors, and whether the tumor over-expresses HER2. And then to a lesser degree, based on other markers that may be defined by additional tests.

So, every treatment discussion we have is a two-way street. So, our job is to present the data, present options, present recommendations. And often, we have an opinion on where we would fall and if there are a number of different options. But to me, it’s a collaborative discussion. And if there are options, it’s weighing what potential benefit do we get from a single option or from adding something to that particular option versus what are the downsides? And some of it is discussion about logistics. Do we do something IV versus oral? Is there a particular side effect that we’re hoping to avoid, such as hair loss? Which of course, we’re trying to avoid. Some treatments may have a higher likelihood of working, but a higher likelihood of causing hair loss. That may factor into our decision.

So, whether it’s the first decision point when we’re deciding on preliminary therapy or future decision points as we go through this journey, there is always a discussion about this is where we are, these are what our options are. Here’s how we’re going to weigh the pros and cons. And then it comes back to a collaborative decision about how we weigh the risks and rewards and where we’re going with an individual patient.

So, clinical trials are always part of at least the conversation, so they’re always a consideration at each step of our discussion. So, from a preliminary treatment standpoint, we’re always going to go through here are our standard options. Here’s, again, what we think is most appropriate. And if there’s a clinical trial that’s appropriate in that scenario, we’ll lay that out there as an option. So, a clinical trial is always worth discussing. It’s always worth asking that your doctor, “Is a clinical trial appropriate for me at this point?” But it’s not always the right recommendation.

So, there are a lot of scenarios, especially at the beginning of treatment for metastatic disease where we have so many options, and so many new and novel treatment options and drugs that have been approved fairly recently that have defined the standard of care, that the standard is going to be often what we recommend. And a clinical trial may be something that we would use if that treatment fails to work or at some future point down the line. And at other points in time, we have very good, appropriate clinical trials that could be indicated at any step along the way. So, it’s worth the discussion. Whether it’s the recommendation or not depends on the circumstances, it depends on the time. What we have today was very different than what we might’ve had available six months ago and six months from now. But clinical trials are out there, and if the location that a patient is going doesn’t have access to clinical trials, it’s always reasonable to ask too, “Should I be going somewhere else to see if a clinical trial is appropriate?”