Tag Archive for: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium

Metastatic BC Research: How Can You Advocate for the Latest Treatment?

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

Metastatic BC Research: How Can You Advocate for the Latest Treatment? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What do metastatic breast cancer patients need to know about the latest research news? Dr. Megan Kruse shares highlights from the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), along with her advice for advocating for the right testing to help guide treatment options.

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

See More From INSIST! Metastatic Breast Cancer

Related Resources:

 

What Could Advances in Breast Cancer Research Mean for You?

How Can You Advocate for the Best Breast Cancer Care?

Factors That Guide a Metastatic Breast Cancer Treatment Decision

 

Transcript:

Dr. Kruse:                   

At this year’s San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, there were a few interesting presentations about the treatment of first-line metastatic triple-negative breast cancer that I think patients should be aware of.

Two of the presentations centered around trials that were presented in the past. Those reporting, patients reported outcomes from the IMpassion 130 study, which looked at chemotherapy for metastatic triple-negative disease plus the immunotherapy atezolizumab. And then, there was also an update on the results from the KEYNOTE-355 study, which was a study again of chemotherapy for metastatic triple-negative patients in combination with pembrolizumab, a different immunotherapy. And both of these studies showed that there was benefit for women in certain sub-groups of triple-negative breast cancer when looking at addition of immunotherapy.

And so, what I’d like to draw patients’ attention to with these presentations is that you have to be aware of if you fall into one of these categories so you know if you’re a candidate for the particular type of immunotherapy that can be added to chemotherapy. There are two different ways to test for if a patient is a candidate for immunotherapy and they are both tests that can be done on biopsies of metastatic or cancer recurrent sites in the body.

They can also be sent off of original breast cancer tumors. And what we now know is that for patients who do not have markers that suggest immune activation or where the immune system would be responsive to immunotherapy the addition of that extra therapy really does not help to improve cancer control over chemotherapy alone. And I think that’s a really important topic because everyone is very interested in immunotherapy, but it does have side effects of its own and it can actually be lasting side effects in terms of inflammation in organs like the liver, the colon, and the lungs.

And then, the third presentation that I’d like to bring up is the IPATunity study, which looked at the addition of a targeted therapy called ipatasertib to, again, chemotherapy for the first treatment of metastatic triple-negative disease.

And so, this is getting into an area of targeted therapy for metastatic triple-negative disease. And again, only looks at patients that have a particular marker that suggests sensitivity to this drug. And those are certain genetic markers, predominately changes in a DNA marker called PIK3CA. In this study, we actually found that there was no benefit for the targeted therapy added to chemotherapy for patients that had that genetic mutation, which was different than what was seen in earlier studies of the same combination. So, I think there’s more work to be done and it’s probably too early to say that this targeted therapy will not be used in treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

But what all of these research studies show together is that metastatic triple-negative cancer is not really just one disease. It’s very clear that within that one name, there are multiple different patient types and tumor types that need to be cared for differently.

And so, again, I think the theme from these abstracts and these research presentations is that we have to look into the right therapy for the right patient at the right time, which largely involved DNA-based testing.

So, when patients are thinking about their treatment options and how to best help with their providers about what treatment options exist for them, I think it’s important to recognize the type of testing that may be advantageous in your cancer type.

And so, for all metastatic breast cancer patients, we really recommend that they’ve had genetic testing to look for DNA changes like BRCA mutations that will lead to treatment options. For metastatic triple-negative disease, it’s important to make sure that you’re providers are testing for PDL1, which would make you a candidate for immunotherapy. And then, the more we learn about clinical trials, the more we have options for patients that have had drug-based DNA or genome-based testing. So, that’s an important term for patients to become familiar with is genomic testing.

And I think when you bring that up with your providers, they’ll know what you’re talking about and they’ll know that what you’re potentially interested in is new targeted therapy for the cancer that may either come in combination with chemotherapy or as a standalone treatment option. If you don’t have those options that are available, and FDA approved basis for regular routine patient care, there is always the option of clinical trials.

And so, if that is something that you’re interested in, genomic testing will often open the way. So, I think as you’re writing notes when you’re talking to your providers, you might wanna jot down whether or not you’ve had genetic testing and whether or not you’ve had genomic testing in the past, as both of those things will help potentially address all of your treatment options.

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.

 

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.