Purpose: Experimental data suggest a complex cross-talk between HER-2 and estrogen receptor, and it has been hypothesized that HER-2-positive tumors may be less responsive to certain endocrine treatments. Clinical data, however, have been conflicting. We have conducted a meta-analysis on the interaction between the response to endocrine treatment and the overexpression of HER-2 in metastatic breast cancer. Experimental Design: Studies have been identified by searching the Medline, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstract databases. Selection criteria were (a) metastatic breast cancer, (b) endocrine therapy (any line of treatment), and (c) evaluation of HER-2 expression (any method). For each study, the relative risk for treatment failure for HER-2-positive over HER-2-negative patients with 95% confidence interval was calculated as an estimate of the predictive effect of HER-2. Pooled estimates of the relative risk were computed by the Mantel-Haenszel method. Results: Twelve studies (n = 2,379 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall relative risk was 1.42 (95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.52; P < 0.00001; test for heterogeneity = 0.380). For studies involving tamoxifen, the pooled relative risk was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.48; P < 0.00001; test for heterogeneity = 0.97); for studies involving other hormonal drugs, a pooled relative risk of 1.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.64; P < 0.00001; test for heterogeneity = 0.08) was estimated. A second meta-analysis limited to tumors that were either estrogen receptor positive, estrogen receptor unknown, or estrogen receptor negative/progesterone receptor positive yielded comparable results. Conclusions: HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer is less responsive to any type of endocrine treatment. This effect holds in the subgroup of patients with positive or unknown steroid receptors.

At the time of the initial analysis of overall survival (OS) for the Comparison of Faslodex in Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, approximately 50% of patients had died. A final analysis of OS was subsequently planned for when 75% of patients had died. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to fulvestrant 500 mg administered as two 5-mL intramuscular injections on days 0, 14, and 28 and every 28 (±3) days thereafter or fulvestrant 250 mg administered as two 5-mL intramuscular injections (one fulvestrant and one placebo [identical in appearance to study drug]) on days 0, 14 (two placebo injections only), and 28 and every 28 (±3) days thereafter. OS was analyzed using an unadjusted log-rank test. No adjustments were made for multiplicity. Serious adverse events (SAEs) and best response to subsequent therapy were also reported. All statistical tests were two-sided. In total, 736 women (median age = 61.0 years) were randomly assigned to fulvestrant 500mg (n = 362) or 250mg (n = 374). At the final survival analysis, 554 of 736 (75.3%) patients had died. Median OS was 26.4 months for fulvestrant 500mg and 22.3 months for 250mg (hazard ratio = 0.81; 95% confidence interval = 0.69–0.96; nominal P = .02). There were no clinically important differences in SAE profiles between the treatment groups; no clustering of SAEs could be detected in either treatment group. Type of first subsequent therapy and objective responses to first subsequent therapy were well balanced between the two treatment groups. In patients with locally advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, fulvestrant 500mg is associated with a 19% reduction in risk of death and a 4.1-month difference in median OS compared with fulvestrant 250mg. Fulvestrant 500mg was well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were identified.

The recent arrival of CDK4/6 inhibitor agents, with an approximate doubling of progression-free survival (PFS) associated with their use in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (BC), has radically changed the approach to managing this disease. However, resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors is considered a near-inevitability in most patients. Mechanisms of resistance to these agents are multifactorial, and research in this field is still evolving. Biomarkers with the ability to identify early resistance, or to predict the likelihood of successful treatment using CDK4/6 inhibitors are yet to be identified, and represent an area of unmet clinical need. Here we present selected mechanisms of resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors, largely focussing on roles of Rb, cyclin E1, and the PIK3CA pathway, with discussion of associated biomarkers which have been investigated and applied in recent pre-clinical and clinical studies. These biological drivers may furthermore influence clinical treatment strategies adopted beyond CDK4/6 resistance.

Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs) represent a “liquid biopsy of the tumor” which might allow real‐time monitoring of cancer biology and therapies in individual patients. CTCs are extremely rare in the blood stream and their analysis is technically challenging.The CellSearch® system provides the enumeration of CTCs with prognostic significance in patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), but it does not allow their molecular characterization, which might be useful to identify therapeutically relevant targets for individualized treatment. Combining the CellSearch® and DEPArray™ technologies allows the recovery of single CTCs as a pure sample for molecular analysis.The purpose of the study was to investigate the heterogeneity of PIK3CA mutational status within single CTCs isolated from individual mBC patients.CTCs were enriched and enumerated by CellSearch® in blood samples collected from 39 mBC patients. In 20 out of 39 patients enriched samples with ≥5 CTCs were sorted using DEParray™ to isolate single CTCs or pools of CTCs to be submitted to Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) before sequencing analysis. In 18 out of 20 patients, it was possible to perform PIK3CA sequencing on exons 9 and 20.Twelve subjects were wild type (wt) for the PIK3CA gene. PIK3CA status could also be assessed in pools of CTCs in seven of these patients, with consistent wt status found. Six patients (33%) had a PIK3CA mutation identified. In 2 of the six patients, molecular heterogeneity was detected when mutational analysis was performed on more than one single CTC, including one patient with loss of heterozygosity on both single and pooled CTCs, and one patient with three different PIK3CA variants on single CTCs but PIK3CA wt status on pooled CTC samples. In six out of the 18 cases PIK3CA status was also evaluable on a primary tumor sample. In one of the six cases a discordance in PIK3CA status between the primary (wild‐type) and the matched CTC (exon 20 mutation) was observed.This study demonstrates the feasibility of a non‐invasive approach based on the liquid biopsy in mBC patients.Moreover, our data suggest the importance of characterizing CTCs at the single cell level in order to investigate the molecular heterogeneity within cells from the same patient.