The long-sought discovery of HER2 as an actionable and highly sensitive therapeutic target was a major breakthrough for the treatment of highly aggressive HER2-positive breast cancer, leading to approval of the first HER2-targeted drug -the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab -almost 25 years ago. Since then, progress has been swift and the impressive clinical activity across multiple trials with monoclonal antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors and antibody-drug conjugates that target HER2 has spawned extensive efforts to develop newer platforms and more targeted therapies. This Review discusses the current standards of care for HER2-positive breast cancer, mechanisms of resistance to HER2targeted therapy and new therapeutic approaches and agents, including Nature Reviews Drug Discovery Review articlethan half of patients with metastatic HER2 + disease are diagnosed de novo, further demonstrating that most patients presenting with early disease are cured 6 .However, despite this success, metastatic HER2 + tumours inevitably develop resistance, leading to disease progression. As such, the goal of therapy in HER2 + BC is to expand the number of patients cured in the early setting and prevent recurrence. In those HER2 + cancers that do present with de novo stage IV disease or ultimately recur, development of novel therapies is needed as these tumours continue to be dependent on HER2 signalling. Therefore, extensive research is ongoing in the preclinical, translational and clinical arenas to develop original and more potent therapies for this exceptionally sensitive target, HER2.Advances in targeting HER2 include further exploitation of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), altering the linkers, payload or antibody scaffold to optimize efficacy 7,8 . Another approach is the development of bispecific antibodies, which use binding of two different HER2 epitopes to maximize efficacy 9 . As immunotherapy has shown benefit in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), attempts to mobilize the immune system in HER2 + disease are also ongoing. Immunotherapy is being approached from various angles including administering

Meningiomas that progress after standard therapies are challenging with limited effective chemotherapy options. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of everolimus plus bevacizumab in patients with recurrent, progressive meningioma after treatment with surgical resection and local radiotherapy when appropriate. Patients with recurrent meningioma (WHO grade I, II, or III) following standard treatments with surgical resection and radiotherapy received bevacizumab (10 mg/kg IV days 1 and 15) and everolimus (10 mg PO daily) each 28 day cycle. Evaluation of response occurred every 2 cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included response rate, overall survival and safety. Seventeen patients with a median age of 59 years (29-84) received study treatment. WHO grades at study entry included: I, 5 (29 %); II, 7 (41 %); III, 4 (24 %); unknown, 1 (6 %). Patients received a median of 8 cycles (1-37); all patients are off study treatment. A best response of SD was observed in 15 patients (88 %), and 6 patients had SD for >12 months. Overall median PFS was 22 months (95 % CI 4.5-26.8) and was greater for patients with WHO grade II and III compared to grade I tumors (22.0 months vs 17.5 months). Four patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity (proteinuria, 2; colitis, 1, thrombocytopenia, 1). However, other grade 3 toxicity was uncommon, and no patient had grade 4 toxicity. The combination of everolimus and bevacizumab was well-tolerated, and produced stable disease in 88 % of patients; the median duration of disease stabilization of 10 months (2-29). The median PFS from this prospective trial was similar to previous retrospective reports of bevacizumab in the treatment of recurrent meningioma.

No abstract

TNBC remains a challenging disease to treat with recent trials having demonstrated only modest improvements in outcomes. Increased understanding of the heterogeneity of this complex subtype may help tailor therapies to specific patient subgroups.

Ixabepilone and the taxanes have similar activity in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer, and ixabepilone is sometimes effective in taxane-refractory patients. We conducted a phase 2 trial to evaluate ixabepilone in combination with cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant treatment for patients with locally advanced HER2-negative breast cancer. Response to neoadjuvant treatment was correlated with the baseline 21-gene Recurrence Score® (Oncotype DX; Genomic Health Inc, Redwood City, CA). Eligible women with HER2-negative locally advanced breast cancer received ixabepilone 40 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Following 6 cycles, patients underwent definitive surgery. Primary endpoint was rate of pathologic complete response (pCR). Breast biopsy tumor samples were obtained at pretreatment and at surgery in patients with residual disease. Tumor specimens were analyzed using the 21-gene assay. One hundred sixty-eight patients (median age 52 years; 45 % triple-negative) were enrolled; 161 (96 %) underwent definitive surgery following neoadjuvant ixabepilone/cyclophosphamide. Overall, 27 patients (17 %) achieved pCR, including 19 of 73 (26 %) triple-negative patients. The most frequently occurring grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (98 patients; 58 %). Recurrence Scores were highly correlated with achievement of pCR (0/36 with low or intermediate Recurrence Scores vs. 19/72 with high Recurrence Scores; p = 0.002). There was high concordance between baseline and post-treatment Recurrence Scores in the 72 patients with paired samples. The combination of ixabepilone and cyclophosphamide yielded a pCR rate of 17 %, similar to other neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens. Pathologic complete responses occurred only in patients with high-risk baseline Recurrence Scores.