With the advent of new targeted drugs in hematology and oncology patient prognosis is improved. Combination with antifungal prophylaxis challenges clinicians due to pharmacological profiles prone to drug–drug interactions (DDI). Midostaurin is a novel agent for FLT3-TKD/-ITD^mut-acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and metabolized via cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4). Posaconazole is a standard of care antifungal agent used for prophylaxis during induction treatment of AML and a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor. Concomitant administration of both drugs leads to elevated midostaurin exposure. Both drugs improve overall survival at low numbers needed to treat. The impact of CYP3A4-related DDI remains to be determined. Severe adverse events have been observed; however, it remains unclear if they can be directly linked to DDI. The lack of prospective clinical studies assessing incidence of invasive fungal infections and clinical impact of DDI contributes to neglecting live-saving antifungal prophylaxis. Management strategies to combine both drugs have been proposed, but evidence on which approach to use is scarce. In this review, we discuss several approaches in the specific clinical setting of concomitant administration of midostaurin and posaconazole and give examples from everyday clinical practice. Therapeutic drug monitoring will become increasingly important to individualize and personalize antineoplastic concomitant and antifungal treatment in the context of DDI. Pharmaceutical companies addressing the issue in clinical trials may take a pioneer role in this field. Other recently developed and approved drugs for the treatment of AML likely inhere potential of DDI marking a foreseeable issue in future treatment of this life-threatening disease.

Chemo-immunotherapy is the first-line standard of care for patients with PD-L1 positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). SYNERGY (NCT03616886) is a dose-finding phase I and a randomized phase II, open-label trial evaluating if targeting the immunosuppressive adenosine pathway can enhance the antitumor activity of chemo-immunotherapy. The phase I part included 6 patients with untreated locally-advanced or mTNBC to determine the safety and recommended phase II dose of the anti-CD73 antibody oleclumab in combination with the anti-PD-L1 durvalumab and 12 cycles of weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel. In the phase II part, 127 women were randomized 1:1 to receive chemo-immunotherapy, with (arm A) or without (arm B) oleclumab. The primary endpoint was the clinical benefit rate at week 24, defined as stable disease, partial or complete response per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, duration of response, survival outcomes (progression-free survival and overall survival), and safety. The trial did not meet its primary endpoint, as the 24-week clinical benefit rate was not significantly improved by adding oleclumab (43% vs. 44%, p = 0.61). Exploratory median progression-free survival was 5.9 months in arm A as compared to 7.0 months in arm B (p = 0.90). The safety profile was manageable in both arms.

Background Several endocrine therapy (ET)-based treatments are available for patients with advanced breast cancer. We assessed the efficacy of different ET-based treatments in patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with endocrine-sensitive or endocrine-resistant disease. Methods We searched Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 15 October 2019 and abstracts from major conferences from 2016 to October 2019. We included phase II/III randomised trials, comparing ≥2 ET-based treatments. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed by network meta-analyses using MTC Bayesian models based on both fixed-effect and random-effect models; relative treatment effects were measured as HRs and 95% credibility intervals (CrI). All statistical tests were two-sided. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed and this systematic review is registered in the PROSPERO database. Results 55 publications reporting on 32 trials (n=12 293 patients) were included. Regarding PFS in the endocrine sensitive setting (n=5200; 12 trials), the combination of cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK)4/6-inhibitors (CDK4/6i)+fulvestrant 500 mg (F500) was likely the most effective treatment (surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA)=97.3%), followed by CDK4/6i+aromatase inhibitor ±goserelin; there was no significant difference between them (HR 0.82; 95% CrI 0.54–1.25). Regarding OS (n=2157; five trials), the most effective treatment was probably CDK4/6i+F500 (SUCRA=97.3%); comparing CDK4/6i+F500 versus F500 held a HR of 0.77 (95% CrI 0.63–0.95). Regarding PFS in the endocrine-resistant setting (n=6635; 20 trials), CDK4/6i+F500 was likely the most effective treatment (SUCRA=95.7%), followed by capivasertib+F500, without significant difference between them (HR 0.91; 95% CrI 0.60–1.36). For OS (n=4377; 11 trials), the most effective treatments were capivasertib+F500 (SUCRA=84.7%) and CDK4/6i+F500 (SUCRA=69.9%). Comparing CDK4/6i+F500 versus F500 held a HR of 0.77 (95% CrI 0.67–0.89). Conclusions CDK4/6i+F500 is likely the best treatment option in both endocrine-sensitive and endocrine-resistant diseases for PFS, and in endocrine-sensitive patients for OS. Concerning OS in endocrine-resistant patients, capivasertib+F500 and CDK4/6i+F500 are likely the best treatments. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018104628.

The prognostic performance of PREDICT in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC) treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies is unclear. Therefore, we investigated its prognostic performance using data extracted from ALTTO, a phase III trial evaluating adjuvant lapatinib ± trastuzumab vs. trastuzumab alone in patients with HER2-positive EBC. Our analysis included 2794 patients. After a median follow-up of 6.0 years (IQR, 5.8–6.7), 182 deaths were observed. Overall, PREDICT underestimated 5-year OS by 6.7% (95% CI, 5.8–7.6): observed 5-year OS was 94.7% vs. predicted 88.0%. The underestimation was consistent across all subgroups, including those according to the type of anti HER2-therapy. The highest absolute differences were observed for patients with hormone receptor negative-disease, nodal involvement, and large tumor size (13.0%, 15.8%, and 15.3%, respectively). AUC under the ROC curve was 73.7% (95% CI 69.7–77.8) in the overall population, ranging between 61.7% and 77.7% across the analyzed subgroups. In conclusion, our analysis showed that PREDICT highly underestimated OS in HER2-positive EBC. Hence, it should be used with caution to give prognostic estimation to HER2-positive EBC patients treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies.

Purpose: There is evidence that statins might improve the outcome of patients with breast cancer. The role of statins in patients with early HER2-positive breast cancer is unknown. Therefore, we explored the association between statin use and survival outcomes in early HER2-positive breast cancer patients in the phase III APHINITY trial (adjuvant pertuzumab/trastuzumab). Methods: All patients (intent-to-treat population, n = 4804) were included (6.2 years median follow-up database). The primary objective was to investigate the association of statin use on invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), distant relapse-free interval (DRFI), and overall survival (OS). Patients who received statins at baseline, or started statins within 1 year from randomization were considered statin users. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. We used a Cox proportional hazards model for multivariate analysis. Results: Overall, 423 (8.8%) patients were classified as statin users. They were older, more often postmenopausal, had a higher body mass index, more often diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease and hyperlipidemia, had smaller sized tumors, were treated more often with breast conserving surgery, and less often with anthracycline-containing regimens. Overall, 508 IDFS events (12.8% among statin users and 10.4% among non-statin users) and 272 deaths (8.5% and 5.4%, respectively) occurred. In multivariate analysis, statin use was not associated with IDFS (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.80–1.52), DRFI (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.81–1.81) nor OS (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.78–1.73). Conclusion: In APHINITY, statin use was not associated with improved survival outcomes. These results must be interpreted with caution due to the exploratory nature of the analysis and the associated limitations.

In the "Discussion" section of the original manuscript, the authors reported information and data related to an unpublished work (Metoikidou C. and colleagues). Considering the confidential nature of these data, it has been decided to remove the related paragraph from the "Discussion"