Background: In the phase III IMpassion130 trial, combining atezolizumab with first-line nanoparticle albumin-boundpaclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC) showed a statistically significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive populations, and a clinically meaningful overall survival (OS) effect in PD-L1-positive aTNBC. The phase III KEYNOTE-355 trial adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy for aTNBC showed similar PFS effects. IMpassion131 evaluated first-line atezolizumabepaclitaxel in aTNBC. Patients and methods: Eligible patients [no prior systemic therapy or 12 months since (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy] were randomised 2:1 to atezolizumab 840 mg or placebo (days 1, 15), both with paclitaxel 90 mg/m 2 (days 1, 8, 15), every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were tumour PD-L1 status, prior taxane, liver metastases and geographical region. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS, tested hierarchically first in the PD-L1-positive [immune cell expression 1%, VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay] population, and then in the ITT population. OS was a secondary endpoint. Results: Of 651 randomised patients, 45% had PD-L1-positive aTNBC. At the primary PFS analysis, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve investigator-assessed PFS in the PD-L1-positive population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-1.12; P ¼ 0.20; median PFS 6.0 months with atezolizumabepaclitaxel versus 5.7 months with placeboepaclitaxel]. In the PD-L1-positive population, atezolizumabepaclitaxel was associated with more favourable unconfirmed best overall response rate (63% versus 55% with placeboepaclitaxel) and median duration of response (7.2 versus 5.5 months, respectively). Final OS results showed no difference between arms (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.64; median 22.1 months with atezolizumabepaclitaxel versus 28.3 months with placeboe paclitaxel in the PD-L1-positive population). Results in the ITT population were consistent with the PD-L1-positive population. The safety profile was consistent with known effects of each study drug. Conclusion: Combining atezolizumab with paclitaxel did not improve PFS or OS versus paclitaxel alone. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03125902.

Single-cell technologies have enabled the characterization of the tumour microenvironment at unprecedented depth and have revealed vast cellular diversity among tumour cells and their niche. Anti-tumour immunity relies on cell–cell relationships within the tumour microenvironment1,2, yet many single-cell studies lack spatial context and rely on dissociated tissues3. Here we applied imaging mass cytometry to characterize the immunological landscape of 139 high-grade glioma and 46 brain metastasis tumours from patients. Single-cell analysis of more than 1.1 million cells across 389 high-dimensional histopathology images enabled the spatial resolution of immune lineages and activation states, revealing differences in immune landscapes between primary tumours and brain metastases from diverse solid cancers. These analyses revealed cellular neighbourhoods associated with survival in patients with glioblastoma, which we leveraged to identify a unique population of myeloperoxidase (MPO)-positive macrophages associated with long-term survival. Our findings provide insight into the biology of primary and metastatic brain tumours, reinforcing the value of integrating spatial resolution to single-cell datasets to dissect the microenvironmental contexture of cancer.

The identified gap in social media use between age cohorts may have negative implications for communication in oncology. Despite advancements in social media and efforts to integrate social media into medical education, most oncologists and trainees use social media rarely, which, along with the age-related gap in use, may have consequences for collaboration and education in oncology. Investigations to further understand barriers to social media use should be undertaken to enhance physician collaboration and knowledge sharing through social media.

Highlight the challenges associated with managing breast cancer in female‐to‐male (FtM) transgender individuals. This is a rare entity, requiring nuanced decision‐making regarding surgery as well as adjuvant therapies given the unique hormonal environment seen in individuals taking exogenous androgen as part of their gender identity. Contemporary case report derived from our clinical experience. Discussion focuses on a brief summation of all known cases of female‐to‐male breast cancer in FtM individuals described in the literature. A 48‐year‐old FtM transgender individual on exogenous testosterone for 19 years with stage IIA (pT1cN1M0), ER+(8/8), PR+(8/8), Androgen Receptor(AR)+(5%‐8%), Her‐2‐negative invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Due to AR positivity in tumor, cessation of testosterone was chosen after careful consideration of potential ramifications from both a cancer treatment as well as gender identity standpoint. Endocrinology consultation reassured the patient that identity affirming changes of facial hair growth and voice depth would persist after cessation of testosterone. Patient did not wish to undergo chemotherapy and as such was treated with combination of radiation to the axilla, adjuvant Anastrozole and testosterone cessation. Although breast cancer is rare in FtM transgender individuals, it can occur. Many FtM individuals take exogenous testosterone. It is important to test the tumor for the androgen receptor as this may have important implications for both gender identity and treatment. Additionally, the mastectomy commonly performed for “top” surgery in this population is not adequate for oncologic control by itself and at present there is no guidance regarding postsurgical screening in this population, especially in those individuals with a strong family history of breast cancer.