Background: Evidence to date supports continued human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) suppression beyond progression on HER2-directed therapy for advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. Data from several phase II and III trials evaluating HER2-directed therapy following second-line T-DM1 have recently become available. Methods: We performed a systematic search of the published and presented literature to identify phase II and phase III trials assessing novel HER2-targeted agents as third-line therapy or beyond for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer using search terms ‘breast cancer’ AND ‘HER2’ AND ‘advanced’ AND (‘phase II’ OR ‘phase III’). Results: Eight clinical trials reporting efficacy outcomes on third-line or greater HER2-directed therapy for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer were identified. In phase III trials, margetuximab and neratinib combinations demonstrated significant 1.3-month (hazard ratio, HR = 0.71, p < 0.001) and 0.1-month (HR = 0.76, p = 0.006) net improvements in median progression-free survival (PFS), respectively, with no significant improvements in overall survival (OS). Tucatinib added to trastuzumab and capecitabine demonstrated a significant 2.7-month improvement in median PFS (HR = 0.57, p < 0.00001) and a 5.5-month improvement in median OS (HR = 0.73, p = 0.004) in a randomized phase II trial, including significant clinical benefit for patients with brain metastases. Finally, trastuzumab-deruxtecan, zenocutuzumab, and poziotinib demonstrated benefit in phase II trials with the most robust overall response rate (62.0%) and median duration of response (18.2 months) observed for trastuzumab-deruxtecan among heavily pretreated patients. Conclusion: Tucatinib plus trastuzumab and capecitabine significantly prolongs OS, and promising preliminary response outcomes for trastuzumab-deruxtecan suggest that sequencing of these regimens following second-line therapy is reasonable.

Lung cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Early detection of lung cancer can lead to identification of the cancer at its initial treatable stages and improves survival. Low-dose CT scan (LDCT) is currently the gold standard for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals. Despite the observed stage migration and consistently demonstrated disease-specific overall survival benefit, LDCT has inherent limitations, including false-positive results, radiation exposure, and low compliance. Recently, new techniques have been investigated for early detection of lung cancer. Several studies have shown that liquid biopsy biomarkers such as circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA), microRNA molecules (miRNA), circulating tumor cells (CTCs), tumor-derived exosomes (TDEs), and tumor-educated platelets (TEPs), as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), have the power to distinguish lung cancer patients from healthy subjects, offering potential for minimally invasive and non-invasive means of early cancer detection. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) with clinical, imaging, and laboratory data has provided significant advancements and can offer potential solutions to some challenges related to early detection of lung cancer. Adopting AI-based multimodality strategies, such as multi-omics liquid biopsy and/or VOCs’ detection, with LDCT augmented by advanced AI, could revolutionize early lung cancer screening by improving accuracy, efficiency, and personalization, especially when combined with patient clinical data. However, challenges remain in validating, standardizing, and integrating these approaches into clinical practice. In this review, we described these innovative milestones and methods, as well as their advantages and limitations in screening and early diagnosis of lung cancer.

Background: Our aim was to understand cancer survivor needs prior to, and following the Alberta Cancer Exercise (ACE) pilot randomized trial as a means to inform implementation of a province-wide cancer-specific, community-based exercise program. Methods: Questionnaires and semi-structured stakeholder engagement sessions were conducted with cancer survivors to explore preferences, barriers and facilitators/benefits at two timepoints: (1) pre-ACE: prior to initiation of the ACE pilot trial (n = 13 survivors and n = 5 caregivers); and (2) post-ACE: following participation in the ACE pilot trial (n = 20 survivors). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize quantitative data from questionnaires. Stakeholder engagement data were analyzed using a framework analysis approach. Emergent themes were then mapped to actionable outcomes. Results: Pre-ACE, survivors indicated a preference for exercise programs that were (1) supervised by exercise specialists knowledgeable about cancer, (2) included support from other health care providers, (3) were held in community locations that were easily accessible. Post-ACE, participants identified (1) a lack of exercise counseling from health care providers, (2) the need for earlier introduction of exercise in the care pathway, and (3) supported referral to exercise programming. Conclusions: An integrated knowledge translation approach identified actionable outcomes to address survivor needs related to exercise in clinical cancer and community-based contexts.

A survey was conducted to identify barriers and facilitators to engaging in virtual and in-person cancer-specific exercise during COVID-19. A theory-informed, multi-method, cross-sectional survey was electronically distributed to 192 individuals with cancer investigating preferences towards exercise programming during COVID-19. Respondents had previously participated in an exercise program and comprised two groups: those who had experience with virtual exercise programming (‘Virtual’) and those who had only taken part in in-person exercise (‘In-Person’). Quantitative data were summarized descriptively. Qualitative data were thematically categorized using framework analysis and findings were mapped to an implementation model. The survey completion response rate was 66% (N = 127). All respondents identified barriers to attending in-person exercise programming during COVID-19 with concerns over the increased risk of viral exposure. Virtual respondents (n = 39) reported: (1) feeling confident in engaging in virtual exercise; and (2) enhanced motivation, accessibility and effectiveness as facilitators to virtual exercise. In-Person respondents (n = 88) identified: (1) technology as a barrier to virtual exercise; and (2) low motivation, accessibility and exercise effectiveness as barriers towards virtual exercise. Sixty-six percent (n = 58) of In-Person respondents reported that technology support would increase their willingness to exercise virtually. With appropriately targeted support, perceived barriers to accessing virtual exercise—including motivation, accessibility and effectiveness—may become facilitators. The availability of technology support may increase the engagement of individuals with cancer towards virtual exercise programming.

Previous analyses from the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 studies showed that palbociclib (PAL) plus endocrine therapy (ET) prolongs time to first subsequent chemotherapy (TTC) versus placebo (PBO) plus ET in the overall population of patients with hormone receptor‒positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‒negative (HR+/HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here, we evaluated TTC in relevant patient subgroups. These post hoc analyses evaluated TTC by subgroup using data from 2 randomized, phase 3 studies of women with HR+/HER2− ABC. In PALOMA-2, postmenopausal patients previously untreated for ABC were randomized 2:1 to receive PAL (125 mg/day, 3/1-week schedule) plus letrozole (LET; 2.5 mg/day; n = 444) or PBO plus LET (n = 222). In PALOMA-3, premenopausal or postmenopausal patients whose disease had progressed after prior ET were randomized 2:1 to receive PAL (125 mg/day, 3/1-week schedule) plus fulvestrant (FUL; 500 mg; n = 347) or PBO plus FUL (n = 174). First subsequent chemotherapy was received by 35.5% and 56.2% in PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 after progression on palbociclib plus ET or placebo plus ET. Across all subgroups analyzed, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in the PAL plus ET arm than the PBO plus ET arm. TTC was longer with PAL plus ET versus PBO plus ET across the same patient subgroups in both studies. Across all subgroups, PAL plus ET versus PBO plus ET had longer median PFS and resulted in prolonged TTC in both the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 studies. Pfizer Inc (NCT01740427, NCT01942135).