PURPOSE To update recommendations on appropriate use of breast cancer biomarker assay results to guide adjuvant endocrine and chemotherapy decisions in early-stage breast cancer. METHODS An updated literature search identified randomized clinical trials and prospective-retrospective studies published from January 2016 to October 2021. Outcomes of interest included overall survival and disease-free or recurrence-free survival. Expert Panel members used informal consensus to develop evidence-based recommendations. RESULTS The search identified 24 studies informing the evidence base. RECOMMENDATIONS Clinicians may use Onco type DX, MammaPrint, Breast Cancer Index (BCI), and EndoPredict to guide adjuvant endocrine and chemotherapy in patients who are postmenopausal or age > 50 years with early-stage estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative (ER+ and HER2–) breast cancer that is node-negative or with 1-3 positive nodes. Prosigna and BCI may be used in postmenopausal patients with node-negative ER+ and HER2– breast cancer. In premenopausal patients, clinicians may use Onco type in patients with node-negative ER+ and HER2– breast cancer. Current data suggest that premenopausal patients with 1-3 positive nodes benefit from chemotherapy regardless of genomic assay result. There are no data on use of genomic tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with ≥ 4 positive nodes. Ki67 combined with other parameters or immunohistochemistry 4 score may be used in postmenopausal patients without access to genomic tests to guide adjuvant therapy decisions. BCI may be offered to patients with 0-3 positive nodes who received 5 years of endocrine therapy without evidence of recurrence to guide decisions about extended endocrine therapy. None of the assays are recommended for treatment guidance in individuals with HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer. Treatment decisions should also consider disease stage, comorbidities, and patient preferences. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

PURPOSE CALGB 40601 assessed whether dual versus single human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) –targeting drugs added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased pathologic complete response (pCR). Here, we report relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and gene expression signatures that predict pCR and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS Three hundred five women with untreated stage II and III HER2-positive breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive weekly paclitaxel combined with trastuzumab plus lapatinib (THL), trastuzumab (TH), or lapatinib (TL). The primary end point was pCR, and secondary end points included RFS, OS, and gene expression analyses. mRNA sequencing was performed on 264 pretreatment samples. RESULTS One hundred eighteen patients were randomly allocated to THL, 120 to TH, and 67 to TL. At more than 7 years of follow-up, THL had significantly better RFS and OS than did TH (RFS hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.71; P = .005; OS hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.94; P = .037), with no difference between TH and TL. Of 688 previously described gene expression signatures, significant associations were found in 215 with pCR, 45 with RFS, and only 22 with both pCR and RFS (3.2%). Specifically, eight immune signatures were significantly correlated with a higher pCR rate and better RFS. Among patients with residual disease, the immunoglobulin G signature was an independent, good prognostic factor, whereas the HER2-enriched signature, which was associated with a higher pCR rate, showed a significantly shorter RFS. CONCLUSION In CALGB 40601, dual HER2-targeting resulted in significant RFS and OS benefits. Integration of intrinsic subtype and immune signatures allowed for the prediction of pCR and RFS, both overall and within the residual disease group. These approaches may provide means for rational escalation and de-escalation treatment strategies in HER2-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE Women have more adverse events (AEs) from chemotherapy than men, but few studies have investigated sex differences in immune or targeted therapies. We examined AEs by sex across different treatment domains. METHODS We analyzed treatment-related AEs by sex in SWOG phase II and III clinical trials conducted between 1980 and 2019, excluding sex-specific cancers. AE codes and grade were categorized using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Symptomatic AEs were defined as those aligned with the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcome–Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; laboratory-based or observable/measurable AEs were designated as objective (hematologic v nonhematologic). Multivariable logistic regression was used, adjusting for age, race, and disease prognosis. Thirteen symptomatic and 14 objective AE categories were examined. RESULTS In total, N = 23,296 patients (women, 8,838 [37.9%]; men, 14,458 [62.1%]) from 202 trials experiencing 274,688 AEs were analyzed; 17,417 received chemotherapy, 2,319 received immunotherapy, and 3,560 received targeted therapy. Overall, 64.6% (n = 15,051) experienced one or more severe (grade ≥ 3) AEs. Women had a 34% increased risk of severe AEs compared with men (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.42; P < .001), including a 49% increased risk among those receiving immunotherapy (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.78; P < .001). Women experienced an increased risk of severe symptomatic AEs among all treatments, especially immunotherapy (OR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.01; P < .001). Women receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy experienced increased severe hematologic AE. No statistically significant sex differences in risk of nonhematologic AEs were found. CONCLUSION The greater severity of both symptomatic AEs and hematologic AEs in women across multiple treatment modalities indicates that broad-based sex differences exist. This could be due to differences in AE reported, pharmacogenomics of drug metabolism/disposition, total dose received, and/or adherence to therapy. Particularly large sex differences were observed for patients receiving immunotherapy, suggesting that studying AEs from these agents is a priority.

Response to a complex trastuzumab-based regimen is affected by multiple features of the tumor and its microenvironment. Developing a predictive algorithm is key to optimizing HER2-targeting therapy. We analyzed 137 pretreatment tumors with mRNA-seq and DNA exome sequencing from CALGB 40601, a neoadjuvant phase III trial of paclitaxel plus trastuzumab with or without lapatinib in stage II to III HER2-positive breast cancer. We adopted an Elastic Net regularized regression approach that controls for covarying features within high-dimensional data. First, we applied 517 known gene expression signatures to develop an Elastic Net model to predict pCR, which we validated on 143 samples from four independent trials. Next, we performed integrative analyses incorporating clinicopathologic information with somatic mutation status, DNA copy number alterations (CNA), and gene signatures. The Elastic Net model using only gene signatures predicted pCR in the validation sets (AUC = 0.76). Integrative analyses showed that models containing gene signatures, clinical features, and DNA information were better pCR predictors than models containing a single data type. Frequently selected variables from the multiplatform models included amplifications of chromosome 6p, mutation, HER2-enriched subtype, and immune signatures. Variables predicting resistance included Luminal/ER features. Models using RNA only, as well as integrated RNA and DNA models, can predict pCR with improved accuracy over clinical variables. Somatic DNA alterations (mutation, CNAs), tumor molecular subtype (HER2E, Luminal), and the microenvironment (immune cells) were independent predictors of response to trastuzumab and paclitaxel-based regimens. This highlights the complexity of predicting response in HER2-positive breast cancer. .

PURPOSE To update the ASCO biomarkers to guide systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) guideline. METHODS An Expert Panel conducted a systematic review to identify randomized clinical trials and prospective-retrospective studies from January 2015 to January 2022. RESULTS The search identified 19 studies informing the evidence base. RECOMMENDATIONS Candidates for a regimen with a phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor and hormonal therapy should undergo testing for PIK3CA mutations using next-generation sequencing of tumor tissue or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in plasma to determine eligibility for alpelisib plus fulvestrant. If no mutation is found in ctDNA, testing in tumor tissue, if available, should be used. Patients who are candidates for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy should undergo testing for germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutations to determine eligibility for a PARP inhibitor. There is insufficient evidence for or against testing for a germline PALB2 pathogenic variant to determine eligibility for PARP inhibitor therapy in the metastatic setting. Candidates for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy should undergo testing for expression of programmed cell death ligand-1 in the tumor and immune cells to determine eligibility for treatment with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. Candidates for an immune checkpoint inhibitor should also undergo testing for deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high to determine eligibility for dostarlimab-gxly or pembrolizumab, as well as testing for tumor mutational burden. Clinicians may test for NTRK fusions to determine eligibility for TRK inhibitors. There are insufficient data to recommend routine testing of tumors for ESR1 mutations, for homologous recombination deficiency, or for TROP2 expression to guide MBC therapy selection. There are insufficient data to recommend routine use of ctDNA or circulating tumor cells to monitor response to therapy among patients with MBC. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .