Summary Background The oral AKT inhibitor ipatasertib is being investigated in cancers with a high prevalence of PI3K/AKT pathway activation, including triple-negative breast cancer. The LOTUS trial investigated the addition of ipatasertib to paclitaxel as first-line therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. Methods In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial, women aged 18 years or older with measurable, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer previously untreated with systemic therapy were recruited from 44 hospitals in South Korea, the USA, France, Spain, Taiwan, Singapore, Italy, and Belgium. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15) with either ipatasertib 400 mg or placebo once per day (days 1–21) every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was by stratified permuted blocks (block size of four) using an interactive web-response system with three stratification criteria: previous (neo)adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy-free interval, and tumour PTEN status. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population and progression-free survival in the PTEN-low (by immunohistochemistry) population. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02162719). Findings Between Sept 2, 2014, and Feb 4, 2016, 166 patients were assessed for eligibility and 124 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to paclitaxel plus ipatasertib (n=62) or paclitaxel plus placebo (n=62). Median follow-up was 10·4 months (IQR 6·5–14·1) in the ipatasertib group and 10·2 months (6·0–13·6) in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 6·2 months (95% CI 3·8–9·0) with ipatasertib versus 4·9 months (3·6–5·4) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·60, 95% CI 0·37–0·98; p=0·037) and in the 48 patients with PTEN-low tumours, median progression-free survival was 6·2 months (95% CI 3·6–9·1) with ipatasertib versus 3·7 months (1·9–7·3) with placebo (stratified HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·26–1·32, p=0·18). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were diarrhoea (14 [23%] of 61 ipatasertib-treated patients vs none of 62 placebo-treated patients), neutrophil count decreased (five [8%] vs four [6%]), and neutropenia (six [10%] vs one [2%]). No colitis, grade 4 diarrhoea, or treatment-related deaths were reported with ipatasertib. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 17 (28%) of 61 patients in the ipatasertib group and nine (15%) of 62 patients in the placebo group. Interpretation Progression-free survival was longer in patients who received ipatasertib than in those who received placebo. To our knowledge, these are the first results supporting AKT-targeted therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. Ipatasertib warrants further investigation for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Purpose Studies suggest that a subset of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) have tumors that express the androgen receptor (AR) and may benefit from an AR inhibitor. This phase II study evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of enzalutamide in patients with locally advanced or metastatic AR-positive TNBC. Patients and Methods Tumors were tested for AR with an immunohistochemistry assay optimized for breast cancer; nuclear AR staining > 0% was considered positive. Patients received enzalutamide 160 mg once per day until disease progression. The primary end point was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 16 weeks. Secondary end points included CBR at 24 weeks, progression-free survival, and safety. End points were analyzed in all enrolled patients (the intent-to-treat [ITT] population) and in patients with one or more postbaseline assessment whose tumor expressed ≥ 10% nuclear AR (the evaluable subgroup). Results Of 118 patients enrolled, 78 were evaluable. CBR at 16 weeks was 25% (95% CI, 17% to 33%) in the ITT population and 33% (95% CI, 23% to 45%) in the evaluable subgroup. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.7 months) in the ITT population and 3.3 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 4.1 months) in the evaluable subgroup. Median overall survival was 12.7 months (95% CI, 8.5 months to not yet reached) in the ITT population and 17.6 months (95% CI, 11.6 months to not yet reached) in the evaluable subgroup. Fatigue was the only treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse event with an incidence of > 2%. Conclusion Enzalutamide demonstrated clinical activity and was well tolerated in patients with advanced AR-positive TNBC. Adverse events related to enzalutamide were consistent with its known safety profile. This study supports additional development of enzalutamide in advanced TNBC.

No abstract

Globally, cancer is the second leading cause of death, with numbers greatly exceeding those for human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. Limited access to timely diagnosis, to affordable, effective treatment, and to high‐quality care are just some of the factors that lead to disparities in cancer survival between countries and within countries. In this article, the authors consider various factors that prevent access to cancer medicines (particularly access to essential cancer medicines). Even if an essential cancer medicine is included on a national medicines list, cost might preclude its use, it might be prescribed or used inappropriately, weak infrastructure might prevent it being accessed by those who could benefit, or quality might not be guaranteed. Potential strategies to address the access problems are discussed, including universal health coverage for essential cancer medicines, fairer methods for pricing cancer medicines, reducing development costs, optimizing regulation, and improving reliability in the global supply chain. Optimizing schedules for cancer therapy could reduce not only costs, but also adverse events, and improve access. More and better biomarkers are required to target patients who are most likely to benefit from cancer medicines. The optimum use of cancer medicines depends on the effective delivery of several services allied to oncology (including laboratory, imaging, surgery, and radiotherapy). Investment is necessary in all aspects of cancer care, from these supportive services to technologies, and the training of health care workers and other staff.

Background Breast cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death among women. Advances in our understanding of the disease have translated into better diagnostics and more effective therapeutics, leading to earlier detection and improved outcomes. Several studies have pointed at lifestyle and environmental factors as contributory for the onset and progression of the disease. Obesity and cholesterol stand out for their potential causal relationship with breast cancer and ease of modification. Main text Obesity and cholesterol represent risk factors for breast cancer, but their impact is largely affected by cofounding variables including menopausal status, disease subtype, and inflammation. Establishing a causal relationship between lifestyle factors and clinical outcomes may be challenging. Epidemiological studies and meta-analyses have rendered conflicting or sometimes contradictory results, possibly owing to the multifactorial nature of the disease. We discuss the supporting evidence and limitations in our understanding of obesity and cholesterol as risk factors for breast cancer. Conclusions There is sufficient evidence that obesity and cholesterol impact clinical outcomes. Physicians are advised to take steps to help patients with their weight, such as recommending dietary and lifestyle interventions.