AURORA aims to study the processes of relapse in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) by performing multi-omics profiling on paired primary tumors and early-course metastases. Among 381 patients (primary tumor and metastasis pairs: 252 targeted gene sequencing, 152 RNA sequencing, 67 single nucleotide polymorphism arrays), we found a driver role for GATA1 and MEN1 somatic mutations. Metastases were enriched in ESR1, PTEN, CDH1, PIK3CA, and RB1 mutations; MDM4 and MYC amplifications; and ARID1A deletions. An increase in clonality was observed in driver genes such as ERBB2 and RB1. Intrinsic subtype switching occurred in 36% of cases. Luminal A/B to HER2-enriched switching was associated with TP53 and/or PIK3CA mutations. Metastases had lower immune score and increased immune-permissive cells. High tumor mutational burden correlated to shorter time to relapse in HR+/HER2− cancers. ESCAT tier I/II alterations were detected in 51% of patients and matched therapy was used in 7%. Integration of multi-omics analyses in clinical practice could affect treatment strategies in MBC. Significance: The AURORA program, through the genomic and transcriptomic analyses of matched primary and metastatic samples from 381 patients with breast cancer, coupled with prospectively collected clinical data, identified genomic alterations enriched in metastases and prognostic biomarkers. ESCAT tier I/II alterations were detected in more than half of the patients. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 2659

In this review, we discuss biomarkers of response and resistance to PI3K inhibitors (PI3Ki) in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, both in the early and advanced settings. We analyse data regarding PIK3CA mutations, PI3K pathway activation, PTEN expression loss, Akt signalling, insulin levels, 18FFDG-PET/CT imaging, FGFR1/2 amplification, KRAS and TP53 mutations. Most of the discussed data comprise retrospective and exploratory studies, hence many results are not conclusive. Therefore, among all of these biomarkers, only PIK3CA mutations have proved to have a predictive value for treatment with the α-selective PI3Ki alpelisib (SOLAR-1 trial) and the β-sparing PI3Ki taselisib (SANDPIPER trial) in the advanced setting. Since the accuracy of current individual biomarkers is not optimal, a composite biomarker, including DNA, RNA and protein expression data, to more precisely assess the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway activation status, may arise as a promising approach. Finally, we describe the rational for new combination therapies involving PI3Ki and anti-HER2 agents, chemotherapy, CDK4/6 inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors or new endocrine treatments and discuss the ongoing trials in this field.

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.

The EORTC-Lung Cancer Group initiated a Delphi consensus process to establish a consensual definition of resectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for the use in clinical trials, including a systematic review, survey, and review of clinical cases. Here, the survey results are presented, aimed to identify areas of controversy. A survey was distributed among the members of six international organizations related to lung cancer. Respondents were interrogated on the resectability (not limited to the technical resectability) of all stage III NSCLC TNM-subsets (8th edition). Additionally, four N2-subdivisions were used. The threshold for agreement was 75%. Answers with "yes" were considered upfront resectable. "Yes" and "maybe" were grouped together and considered potentially resectable. Answers with "no" were considered unresectable. 558 responses were collected from thoracic surgeons (38%), radiation oncologists (27%), medical oncologists (17%), pulmonologists (14%), and others (4%). Most worked in a specialized center (80%), had >5 years of experience (80%), were European (76%), male (73%), and treated >20 patients with stage III NSCLC annually (77%). Agreement was found in 26 (70%) out of 37 TNM-subsets: 9 (24%) were considered (potentially) resectable, and 17 (46%) unresectable. There was no agreement for 11 (30%) TNM-subsets: smaller tumors with N2-multistation, larger tumors with N2-single station, and invasive T4-tumors with maximum N2-single station involvement. This international and multidisciplinary survey showed agreement on the resectability for the majority of stage III NSCLC TNM-subsets, but also identified several TNM-subsets for which no agreement was found.

Background Despite the international endorsement of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) for breast cancer care, implementation is suboptimal worldwide, and evidence regarding their effectiveness in developing countries is lacking. We assessed the impact on survival and the cost‐effectiveness of implementing an MTB in Mozambique, sub‐Saharan Africa. Materials and Methods This prospective cohort study included 205 patients with breast cancer diagnosed between January 2015 and August 2017 (98 before and 107 after MTB implementation), followed to November 2019. Pre‐ and post‐MTB implementation subcohorts were compared for clinical characteristics, treatments, and overall survival. We used hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI), computed by Cox proportional hazards regression. The impact of MTB implementation on the cost per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) was estimated from the provider perspective. Results We found no significant differences between pre‐ and post‐MTB subcohorts regarding clinical characteristics or treatments received. Among patients with early breast cancer (stage 0–III; n = 163), the 3‐year overall survival was 48.0% (95% CI, 35.9–59.1) in the pre‐MTB and 73.0% (95% CI, 61.3–81.6) in the post‐MTB subcohort; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27–0.81). The absolute 3‐year mean cost increase was $119.83 per patient, and the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio was $802.96 per QALY, corresponding to 1.6 times the gross domestic product of Mozambique. Conclusion The implementation of a MTB in Mozambique led to a 53% mortality decrease among patients with early breast cancer, and it was cost‐effective. These findings highlight the feasibility of implementing this strategy and the need for scaling‐up MTBs in developing countries, as a way to improve patient outcomes. Implications for Practice Currently, more than half of the deaths from breast cancer in the world occur in developing countries. Strategies that optimize care and that are adjusted for available resources are needed to improve the outcomes of patients with breast cancer in these regions. The discussion of cases at multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) may improve survival outcomes, but implementation is suboptimal worldwide, and evidence regarding their effectiveness in developing countries is lacking. This study evaluated the impact of implementing an MTB on the care and survival of patients with breast cancer in Mozambique, sub‐Saharan Africa and its cost‐effectiveness in this low‐income setting.

Immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) have revolutionized the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Currently, one-dose-fits-all maximalist regimens have been considered the standard of care, with ICBs administered at flat doses regardless of patients’ weight. Treatment duration with ICBs is often arbitrary across stages, ranging from a fixed time point to until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. However, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of ICBs differ significantly from those of traditional cytotoxic drugs and the approved and selected doses on the basis of the maximum tolerated dose are often overestimated as there is limited evidence supporting a direct relationship between therapeutic intensity and outcomes. This can lead to overtreatment of patients, resulting in an increased risk of toxicity without enhanced efficacy. In addition, the use of these drugs is associated with significant costs that burden the global health care system and exacerbate disparities in access to care. De-escalating treatment by reducing the dose, duration, and frequency of administration of ICBs could optimize treatment efficacy, reduce toxicities, improve patients' quality of life, and even decrease costs. Ultimately, de-escalation strategies may help to reduce treatment inequalities and to improve drug access worldwide. The aim of this review is to summarize and discuss the main issues and challenges regarding the de-escalation of ICBs in patients with NSCLC, focusing on dose-intensity reduction and treatment duration selection. Moreover, we assess the economic impact of implementing de-escalation approaches.