Joëlle Collignon

Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) are defined by the absence of estrogen and progesterone receptors and the absence of HER2 overexpression. These cancers represent a heterogeneous breast cancer subtype with a poor prognosis. Few systemic treatment options exist besides the use of chemotherapy (CT). The heterogeneity of the disease has limited the successful development of targeted therapy in unselected patient populations. Currently, there are no approved targeted therapies for TNBC. However, intense research is ongoing to identify specific targets and develop additional and better systemic treatment options. Standard adjuvant and neoadjuvant regimens include anthracyclines, cyclophosphamide, and taxanes. Platinum-based CT has been proposed as another CT option of interest in TNBC. We review the role of this therapy in general, and particularly in patients carrying BRCA germ-line mutations. Available data concerning the role of platinum-based CT in TNBC were acquired primarily in the neoadjuvant setting. The routine use of platinum-based CT is not yet recommended by available guidelines. Many studies have reported the molecular characterization of TNBCs. Several actionable targets have been identified. Novel therapeutic strategies are currently being tested in clinical trials based on promising results observed in preclinical studies. These targets include androgen receptor, EGFR, PARP, FGFR, and the angiogenic pathway. We review the recent data on experimental drugs in this field. We also discuss the recent data concerning immunologic checkpoint inhibitors.

PURPOSE The global, phase 3, open-label, randomized TROPION-Breast01 study assessed the trophoblast cell surface antigen 2–directed antibody-drug conjugate datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) versus investigator's choice of chemotherapy (ICC) in hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancer. METHODS Adult patients with inoperable/metastatic HR+/HER2‒ breast cancer, who had disease progression on endocrine therapy, for whom endocrine therapy was unsuitable, and had received one to two previous lines of chemotherapy in the inoperable/metastatic setting, were randomly assigned 1:1 to Dato-DXd (6 mg/kg once every 3 weeks) or ICC (eribulin/vinorelbine/capecitabine/gemcitabine). Dual primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Patients were randomly assigned to Dato-DXd (n = 365) or ICC (n = 367). Dato-DXd significantly reduced the risk of progression or death versus ICC (PFS by BICR hazard ratio [HR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.76]; P < .0001). Consistent PFS benefit was observed across subgroups. Although OS data were not mature, a trend favoring Dato-DXd was observed (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.14]). The rate of grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with Dato-DXd was lower than ICC (20.8% v 44.7%). The most common TRAEs (any grade; grade ≥3) were nausea (51.1%; 1.4%) and stomatitis (50%; 6.4%) with Dato-DXd and neutropenia (grouped term, 42.5%; 30.8%) with ICC. CONCLUSION Patients receiving Dato-DXd had statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS and a favorable and manageable safety profile, compared with ICC. Results support Dato-DXd as a novel treatment option for patients with inoperable/metastatic HR+/HER2‒ breast cancer who have received one to two previous lines of chemotherapy in this setting.

BACKGROUND: Cancer seems to have an independent adverse prognostic effect on COVID-19-related mortality, but uncertainty exists regarding its effect across different patient subgroups. We report a population-based analysis of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 with prior or current solid cancer versus those without cancer. METHODS: We analysed data of adult patients registered until 24 May 2020 in the Belgian nationwide database of Sciensano. The primary objective was in-hospital mortality within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis among patients with solid cancer versus patients without cancer. Severe event occurrence, a composite of intensive care unit admission, invasive ventilation and/or death, was a secondary objective. These endpoints were analysed across different patient subgroups. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to analyse the association between cancer and clinical characteristics (baseline analysis) and the effect of cancer on in-hospital mortality and on severe event occurrence, adjusting for clinical characteristics (in-hospital analysis). RESULTS: A total of 13 594 patients (of whom 1187 with solid cancer (8.7%)) were evaluable for the baseline analysis and 10 486 (892 with solid cancer (8.5%)) for the in-hospital analysis. Patients with cancer were older and presented with less symptoms/signs and lung imaging alterations. The 30-day in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with solid cancer compared with patients without cancer (31.7% vs 20.0%, respectively; adjusted OR (aOR) 1.34; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.58). The aOR was 3.84 (95% CI 1.94 to 7.59) among younger patients (<60 years) and 2.27 (95% CI 1.41 to 3.64) among patients without other comorbidities. Severe event occurrence was similar in both groups (36.7% vs 28.8%; aOR 1.10; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based analysis demonstrates that solid cancer is an independent adverse prognostic factor for in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19. This adverse effect was more pronounced among younger patients and those without other comorbidities. Patients with solid cancer should be prioritised in vaccination campaigns and in tailored containment measurements.