SummaryResistance to endocrine therapy is a major clinical problem in breast cancer. The role of ERα splice variants in endocrine resistance is largely unknown. We observed reduced protein expression of an N-terminally truncated ERα46 in endocrine-resistant LCC2, LCC9, and LY2 compared to MCF-7 breast cancer cells. Transfection of LCC9 and LY2 cells with hERα46 partially restored growth inhibition by TAM. Overexpression of hERα46 in MCF-7 cells reduced estradiol (E 2 )-stimulated endogenous pS2, Cyclin D1, nuclear respiratory factor-1 (NRF-1), and progesterone receptor transcription. Expression of oncomiR miR-21 was lower in TAM-resistant LCC9 and LY2 cells compared to MCF-7 cells. Transfection with ERα46 altered the pharmacology of E 2 regulation of miR-21 expression from inhibition to stimulation, consistent with the hypothesis that hERα46 inhibits ERα activity. Established miR-21 targets PTEN and PDCD4 were reduced in ERα46-transfected, E 2 -treated MCF-7 cells. In conclusion, ERα46 appears to enhance endocrine responses by inhibiting selected ERα66 responses.

Purpose Palbociclib is a selective cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor approved for metastatic ER+/HER2- breast cancer. Preclinical evidence suggests a possible synergistic effect of palbociclib when combined with radiation therapy (RT); however, the toxicity of this pairing is unknown. We report preliminary results on the use of this combination. Methods and Materials Records of patients treated with palbociclib at our institution from 2015 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who received RT for symptomatic metastases concurrently or within 14 days of palbociclib were included. Local treatment effect was assessed by clinical examination and subsequent computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging. Toxicity was graded based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Results A total of 16 women received palliative RT in close temporal proximity to palbociclib administration. Four patients received palbociclib before RT (25.0%), 5 concurrently (31.3%), and 7 after RT (43.8%). The median interval from closest palbociclib use to RT was 5 days (range, 0-14). The following sites were irradiated in decreasing order of frequency: bone (11 axial skeleton [9 vertebra and 2 other]; 4 pelvis; 3 extremity), brain (4: 3 whole brain RT and 1 stereotactic radiosurgery), and mediastinum (1). The median and mean follow-up time is 14.7 and 17.6 months (range, 1.7-38.2). Pain relief was achieved in all patients. No radiographic local failure was noted in the 13 patients with evaluable follow-up imaging. Leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were seen in 4 (25.0%), 5 (31.3%), and 1 (6.3%) patient before RT. After RT, 5 (31.3%), 1 (6.3%), and 3 (18.8%) patients were leukopenic, neutropenic, and thrombocytopenic, respectively. All but 2 (grade 2) hematologic toxicities were grade 1. No acute or late grade 2+ cutaneous, neurologic, or gastrointestinal toxicities were noted. Toxicity results did not differ based on disease site, palbociclib-RT temporal association, or irradiated site. Conclusions The use of RT in patients receiving palbociclib resulted in minimal grade 2 and no grade 3+ toxicities. This preliminary work suggests that symptomatic patients receiving palbociclib may be safely irradiated.

No abstract

Background: Limited data exists demonstrating the clinical benefit of proton radiotherapy (PRT) in breast cancer. Using the National Cancer Database, we evaluated predictors associated with PRT use for patients with breast cancer. An exploratory analysis also investigates the impact of PRT on overall survival (OS).Methods: Patients with non-metastatic breast cancer treated with adjuvant radiotherapy from 2004 to 2014 were identified. Patients were stratified based on receipt of PRT or non-PRT (i.e., photons ± electrons). A logistic regression model was used to determine predictors for PRT utilization. For OS, Multivariable analysis (MVA) was performed using Cox proportional hazard model.Results: A total of 724,492 patients were identified: 871 received PRT and 723,621 received non-PRT. 58.3% of the PRT patients were group stage 0–1. Median follow-up time was 62.2 months. On multivariate logistic analysis, the following factors were found to be significant for receipt of PRT (all p < 0.05): academic facility (odds ratio [OR] = 2.50), South (OR = 2.01) and West location (OR = 12.43), left-sided (OR = 1.21), ER-positive (OR = 1.59), and mastectomy (OR = 1.47); pT2-T4 disease predicted for decrease use (OR = 0.79). PRT was not associated with OS on MVA for all patients: Hazard Ratio: 0.85, p = 0.168. PRT remained not significant on MVA after stratifying for subsets likely associated with higher heart radiation doses, including: left-sided (p = 0.140), inner-quadrant (p = 0.173), mastectomy (p = 0.095), node positivity (p = 0.680), N2-N3 disease (p = 0.880), and lymph node irradiation (LNI) (p = 0.767).Conclusions: Receipt of PRT was associated with left-sided, ER+ tumors, mastectomy, South and West location, and academic facilities, but not higher group stages or LNI. PRT was not associated with OS, including in subsets likely at risk for higher heart doses. Further studies are required to determine non-OS benefits of PRT. In the interim, given the high cost of protons, only well-selected patients should receive PRT unless enrolled on a clinical trial.

No abstract