Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

Background The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions.Methods This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting.Findings Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey.Conclusions The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown.Subject terms: Breast cancer, Surgical oncology, Health care economics, Quality of life, Health policy     

Therapeutic cooperation between auranofin,a thioredoxin reductase inhibitor and anti-PD-L1 antibody for treatment of triple-negative breast cancer

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBCs) is a very aggressive and lethal form of breast cancer with no effective targeted therapy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapies and radiotherapy remains a mainstay of treatment with only 25–30% of TNBC patients responding. Thus, there is an unmet clinical need to develop novel therapeutic strategies for TNBCs. TNBC cells have increased intracellular oxidative stress and suppressed glutathione, a major antioxidant system, but still, are protected against higher oxidative stress. We screened a panel of antioxidant genes using the TCGA and METABRIC databases and found that expression of the thioredoxin pathway genes is significantly upregulated in TNBC patients compared to non-TNBC patients and is correlated with adverse survival outcomes. Treatment with auranofin (AF), an FDA-approved thioredoxin reductase inhibitor caused specific cell death and impaired the growth of TNBC cells grown as spheroids. Furthermore, AF treatment exerted a significant in vivo antitumor activity in multiple TNBC models including the syngeneic 4T1.2 model, MDA-MB-231 xenograft and patient-derived tumor xenograft by inhibiting thioredoxin redox activity. We, for the first time, showed that AF increased CD8^+Ve T-cell tumor infiltration in vivo and upregulated immune checkpoint PD-L1 expression in an ERK1/2-MYC-dependent manner. Moreover, combination of AF with anti-PD-L1 antibody synergistically impaired the growth of 4T1.2 primary tumors. Our data provide a novel therapeutic strategy using AF in combination with anti-PD-L1 antibody that warrants further clinical investigation for TNBC patients.     

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Beyond an era of chemoradiation?

Now is an exciting era of development in immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors and their effect on the treatment of NPC. While the general prognosis of R/M disease is poor, immunotherapy offers some promise in a malignancy associated with EBV and characterized by a peritumoural immune infiltrate. Our study aims to review past and on-going clinical trials of monoclonal antibody therapies against the checkpoint inhibitors (e.g. PD1 and CTLA-4), in R/M NPC. All randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitor interventions for treatment of NPC were included in the study. We utilized a validated “risk of bias” tool to assess study quality. Four separate Phase I–II trials report the potential of PD1 inhibitor treatment for patients with NPC. Within the observed groups, camrelizumab combined with chemotherapy achieved an objective response in 91% of patients as first-line treatment for metastatic NPC (PFS 68% at 1-year) but this was associated with a high rate of grade >3 adverse events (87%; CTCAE version 4.03). The remaining three studies focused on recurrent NPC disease in patients who had received at least one line of prior chemotherapy. Within this group, camrelizumab monotherapy achieved an objective response in 34% of patients (PFS 27% at 1-year; range across all three studies 20.5–34%). No NPC trial has yet reported on specific outcomes for non-PD1 checkpoint inhibitors but 11 on-going studies include alternative targets (e.g. PD-L1/CTLA-4) as combination or monotherapy treatments. In considering checkpoint immunotherapies for NPC, initial results show promise for anti-PD1 interventions. Further phase I–III trials are in progress to clarify clinical outcomes, fully determine safety profiles, and optimize drug combinations and administration schedules.