IMPORTANCEThe choice between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy as first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2 (also known as HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer is usually based on the presence of clinical features associated with a poor prognosis. In this setting, a high circulating tumor cell (CTC) count (Ն5 CTCs/7.5 mL) is a strong adverse prognostic factor for overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS).OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of a clinician-driven treatment choice vs a CTC-driven choice for first-line treatment. INTERVENTIONSIn the CTC arm, patients received chemotherapy or endocrine therapy according to the CTC count (chemotherapy if Ն5 CTCs/7.5 mL; endocrine therapy if <5 CTCs/7.5 mL), whereas in the control arm, the choice was left to the investigator. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn the STIC CTC randomized, open-label, noninferiority phase 3 trial, participants were randomized to a clinician-driven choice of first-line treatment or a CTC count-driven first-line treatment choice. Eligible participants were premenopausal and postmenopausal women 18 years or older diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Data were collected at 17 French cancer centers

No abstract

No abstract

IMPORTANCE ERBB2-low (ie, ERBB2 immunohistochemistry score of 1+ or 2+ in the absence of ERBB2 gene amplification) breast cancer (BC) is a new entity, with emerging dedicated treatments. Little is known about its prognosis and response to conventional therapy compared with ERBB2-zero breast tumors (ie, those with an immunohistochemistry score of 0). OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes for patients with ERBB2-low metastatic BC (MBC) with those of patients with ERBB2-zero MBC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study was conducted from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics MBC platform and included patients with MBC

Background Endocrine therapy is recommended as a first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (HR+MBC) patients. No biomarker has been validated to predict tumor progression in that setting. We aimed to prospectively compare the risk of early progression according to circulating ESR1 mutations, CA-15.3, and circulating cell-free DNA in MBC patients treated with a first-line aromatase inhibitor (AI). Methods Patients with MBC treated with a first-line AI were prospectively included. Circulating biomarker assessment was performed every 3 months. The primary objective was to determine the risk of progression or death at the next follow-up visit (after 3 months) in case of circulating ESR1 mutation detection among patients treated with a first-line AI for HR+MBC. Results Overall, 103 patients were included, and 70 (68%) had progressive disease (PD). Circulating ESR1 mutations were detected in 22/70 patients with PD and in 0/33 patients without progression (p < 0.001). Among the ESR1-mutated patients, 18/22 had a detectable mutation prior to progression, with a median delay of 110 days from first detection to PD. The detection of circulating ESR1 mutations was associated with a 4.9-fold (95% CI 3.0–8.0) increase in the risk of PD at 3 months. Using a threshold value of 25% or 100%, a CA-15.3 increase was also correlated with progression (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively). In contrast to ESR1, the CA-15.3 increase occurred concomitantly with PD in most cases, in 27/47 (57%) with a 25% threshold and in 21/25 (84%) with a 100% threshold. Using a threshold value of either 25% or 100%, cfDNA increase was not correlated with progression. Conclusion The emergence of circulating ESR1 mutations is associated with a 4.9-fold increase in the risk of early PD during AI treatment in HR+MBC. Our results also highlighted that tracking circulating ESR1 mutations is more relevant than tracking CA-15.3 or cfDNA increase to predict progression in this setting. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02473120. Registered 16 June 2015—retrospectively registered after one inclusion (first inclusion 1 June 2015)