Optimal timing and interval of imaging for metastatic breast cancer.

Authors

null

Shruti Rajesh Patel

Stanford University, Stanford, CA

Shruti Rajesh Patel , Haruka Itakura , George W. Sledge Jr.

Organizations

Stanford University, Stanford, CA, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA

Research Funding

No funding received

Background: Breast cancer is a family of diseases with varying disease trajectories based on intrinsic biology of the tumor. The time of progression varies across & within subtypes, and with increasing rates of drug resistance depending on prior therapeutic exposure. There is no strong consensus about optimal surveillance and routine imaging in patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), but many oncologists report that monitoring strategies are based on strategies used in clinical trials. Methods: We reviewed 17 prior Phase III studies that led to FDA approval in mBC. We reviewed 8 studies for ER+ mBC, 5 studies for HER2+ mBC, 2 studies for triple negative (TNBC) mBC, and 2 studies for BRCA+ mBC. We calculated rates of progression or death (POD) per month for the first year on therapy using data from survival analysis tables and compared them across the different types and lines of therapy. Results: Risk of progression in mBC varies based on receptor status and line of therapy (Table). There was a significant difference in POD rates between ER+ therapies compared with all other disease types (HER2+, TNBC, BRCA) (p = 0.012). Patients with TNBC or receiving PARP inhibitors or later line HER2 therapies had higher POD rates than those with ER+ breast cancer or receiving first line HER2 therapy (6.9% vs 4.1% per month; p = 0.0004). No significant difference was seen in the monitoring frequency between ER+ and HER2+ disease (p = 0.39). Conclusions: These data suggest that shorter interval imaging should be performed for patients with TNBC or receiving PARP inhibitors or later line HER2 therapies. Surveillance imaging for patients with mBC should be based on disease biology, number of prior regimens, time since initiation of therapy, and regimen efficacy. Current imaging recommendations are not data-based and do not adjust for new agents that have been approved. Oncologists should integrate these into individualized estimates to determine optimum frequency of imaging in clinical practice and research.

Disease TypeTrial NameLine of TherapyTreatmentTreatment Arm: Risk of progression or death/monthControlControl Arm: Risk of progression or death/monthMonitoring frequency (Every X Weeks)Median PFS (months)
ER+PALOMA2FirstPalbociclib + AI3.10%AI4.20%1224.8
ER+MONARCH3FirstAbemaciclib + AI3.13%AI4.19%828.2
ER+MONARCH2SubsequentAbemaciclib + Fulvestrant4.00%Fulvestrant5.30%816.4
ER+BOLERO2SubsequentEverolimus + AI3.51%AI5.06%66.9
HER2+CLEOPATRAFirstPertuzumab + Trastuzumab + Docetaxel3.36%Trastuzumab + Docetaxel5.14%918.5
HER2+HER2CLIMBSubsequentTucatinib + Trastuzumab + Capecitabine7.29%Trastuzumab + Capecitabine8.02%6-97.8
Triple NegativeKEYNOTE 355FirstCarboplatin + Gemcitabine + Pembrolizumab6.60%Taxanes + Platinum7.18%89.7
Triple NegativeASCENTSubsequentSacituzumab Govitecan7.62%Single Agent Chemotherapy8.27%65.6
BRCA+OLYMPIADSubsequentOlaparib6.71%Single Agent Chemotherapy7.65%67

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Breast Cancer—Metastatic

Track

Breast Cancer

Sub Track

Other Breast Cancer Subtypes

Citation

J Clin Oncol 40, 2022 (suppl 16; abstr 1106)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.1106

Abstract #

1106

Poster Bd #

483

Abstract Disclosures