Background There is no standard treatment recommended at category 1 level in international guidelines for subsequent therapy after cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6) based therapy. We aimed to evaluate which subsequent treatment oncologists prefer in patients with disease progression under CDKi. In addition, we aimed to show the effectiveness of systemic treatments after CDKi and whether there is a survival difference between hormonal treatments (monotherapy vs. mTOR-based). Methods A total of 609 patients from 53 centers were included in the study. Progression-free-survivals (PFS) of subsequent treatments (chemotherapy (CT, n:434) or endocrine therapy (ET, n:175)) after CDKi were calculated. Patients were evaluated in three groups as those who received CDKi in first-line (group A, n:202), second-line (group B, n: 153) and ≥ 3rd-line (group C, n: 254). PFS was compared according to the use of ET and CT. In addition, ET was compared as monotherapy versus everolimus-based combination therapy. Results The median duration of CDKi in the ET arms of Group A, B, and C was 17.0, 11.0, and 8.5 months in respectively; it was 9.0, 7.0, and 5.0 months in the CT arm. Median PFS after CDKi was 9.5 (5.0–14.0) months in the ET arm of group A, and 5.3 (3.9–6.8) months in the CT arm (p = 0.073). It was 6.7 (5.8–7.7) months in the ET arm of group B, and 5.7 (4.6–6.7) months in the CT arm (p = 0.311). It was 5.3 (2.5–8.0) months in the ET arm of group C and 4.0 (3.5–4.6) months in the CT arm (p = 0.434). Patients who received ET after CDKi were compared as those who received everolimus-based combination therapy versus those who received monotherapy ET: the median PFS in group A, B, and C was 11.0 vs. 5.9 (p = 0.047), 6.7 vs. 5.0 (p = 0.164), 6.7 vs. 3.9 (p = 0.763) months. Conclusion Physicians preferred CT rather than ET in patients with early progression under CDKi. It has been shown that subsequent ET after CDKi can be as effective as CT. It was also observed that better PFS could be achieved with the subsequent everolimus-based treatments after first-line CDKi compared to monotherapy ET.

Aim of the study Although early diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) is often associated with a good prognosis, there is currently no biomarker with high sensitivity serving this purpose. B7H3, a recently identified member of the B7 family, appears to inhibit antitumor immunity. We investigated the soluble B7H3 (sB7H3) level in BC and its relationship with clinicopathological variables and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs). Material and methods The study, which was designed as a cross-sectional trial between January 2020 and September 2021, included 93 BC patients, 20 patients with benign breast disease (BBD) and 14 healthy volunteers as the control group. Serum sB7H3 levels were measured using the ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) method and sTILs were measured by immunohistochemistry using Tru-cut biopsy materials. Results sB7H3 levels in BC patients were significantly higher than those in patients with BBD and healthy volunteers. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis results showed that sB7H3 level may be a potential biomarker for distinguishing patients with BC from those with BBD (AUC: 0.807; sensitivity: 0.786; specificity: 0.706) and from healthy volunteers (AUC: 0.731; sensitivity: 0.700; specificity: 0.692). Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to investigate the relationship between sB7H3 and disease parameters in BC. We found that sB7H3 may be a clinically practical and meaningful biomarker in differentiating BC from BBD. In order to evaluate the relationship of B7H3 with clinical variables in BC, and especially with sTILs, tissue-based studies with higher numbers of patients are needed.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer receiving an active systemic therapy are at a high risk for coronavirus disease (COVID-19); however, the antibody response and long-term results of the inactivated whole-virion SARS-CoV-2 (CoronaVac) vaccine in these patients compared to the non-cancer population are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare seroconversion for SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) specifi c IgG positivity against two doses of the CoronaVac vaccine in breast and lung cancer patients receiving systemic therapy, to determine the factors affecting seropositivity, and to observe long-term results up to a secondary booster vaccine. RESULTS: The analysis included 201 cancer patients (99 breasts, 102 lungs; median age: 59 years (range: 28-92), 42.3 % men) and 97 controls (median age: 62 years (range: 24-87), 38.1 % men). The seropositivity rate for RBD IgG after 2 doses of vaccine in the cancer group was 81.6 % (n = 164) and 93.8 % (n = 91) in the control group (p = 0.005). The median IgG titer of cancer patients was signifi cantly lower than in the control group ( 338 (IQR, 95-933) AU/mL vs 676 (IQR, 389-1270) AU/mL; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis of all the patients determined that having cancer (OR: 0.303, 95%CI: 0.123-0.750, p = 0.010) and being over 60 years of age (OR: 0.447, 95%CI: 0.218-0.917, p = 0.028) was associated with a reduced vaccine response. A subgroup analysis of cancer patients revealed that seroconversion was lower in men than in women (75.3 % vs 86.2 %, p=0.049) and lower in ≥60 patients than in < 60 patients (75.9 % vs 89.4 %, p = 0.014). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Cancer patients receiving an active systemic therapy with two doses of the CoronaVac vaccine had a lower antibody response than the non-cancer population, and deaths due to COVID-19 may occur in these patients despite the vaccine. Therefore, extensive protective measures should be taken to protect against COVID-19 in cancer patients aged 60 years and older, who have received two doses of the CoronaVac vaccine (Tab. 4, Fig. 4, Ref. 27).

Sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) is a reliable method that provides axillary staging in clinical node-negative (cN0) breast cancer patients before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). However, it is not a standard method on its own due to the high false-negative rates (FNR) reported in initially clinical node-positive patients (cN1-cN3). The contribution of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to SLND after chemotherapy is not well understood. In our study, we aimed to investigate the contribution of post-NACT MRI to SLND in breast cancer patients receiving NACT. Between January 2014 and December 2020, patients who had MRI images including the axilla after NACT and had axillary lymph nodes evaluation performed simultaneously with SLND were included in the study. MRI images of all patients were re-evaluated by 2 experienced clinicians. MRI and SLND results were analyzed to detect axillary lymph node metastasis. 117 patients were included in the study. The median age of the patients was 49 years. Before chemotherapy, 108 patients (92.3%) had tumor metastases in their axilla pathologically confirmed by tru-cut biopsy. Axillary downstage was obtained in 48.1% (n=52) of the patients after NACT. Of the 56 patients with axillary node positivity, 3 patients had no metastasis in the SLND evaluation (FNR=5.4%). The sensitivity of post-NACT MRI in detecting node positivity was 69.6%, the specificity was 90.2%, the positive predictive value (PPV) was 86.7% and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 76.4. SLND together with MRI predicted all node-positive patients (FNR=0%). In summary, SLND may not detect a group of patients with residual axillary lymph node metastases after NACT. We have shown that MRI can contribute to identifying these patients. If no metastases are detected by both methods (SLND and MRI), avoidance of axillary dissection may be an acceptable choice.