NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Breast Cancer, Version 1.2012
Version 1.2012 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2012, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 10, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2012.0086
NCCN Categories of Evidence and Consensus
Category 1: Based upon high-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.
Category 2A: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.
Category 2B: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.
Category 3: Based upon any level of evidence, there is major NCCN disagreement that the intervention is appropriate.
All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.
Clinical trials: NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged.
Overview
Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women in the United States and is second only to lung cancer as a cause of cancer death. The American Cancer Society (ACS) has estimated that 229,060 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed and 39,920 people will die of breast cancer in the United States in 2012.1 The therapeutic options for patients with noninvasive or invasive breast cancer are complex and varied. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Breast Cancer include up-to-date guidelines for the clinical management of patients with carcinoma in situ, invasive breast cancer, Paget disease, Phyllodes tumor, inflammatory breast caner, and breast cancer during pregnancy (available at NCCN.org). These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight the important updates/changes specific to the management of metastatic breast cancer in the 2012 version of the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer. These include the issue of retesting of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in patients with recurrent disease; new information regarding first-line combination endocrine therapy for metastatic disease; a new section on monitoring of patients with metastatic disease; and new information on endocrine therapy combined with an mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor as a subsequent therapeutic option.
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Breast Cancer, Version 1.2012
Version 1.2012 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2012, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 10, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2012.0086
Retesting of Biomarkers on Recurrent Disease
Assessment of ER/PR and HER2 status in patients with breast cancer is clinically relevant when selecting patients eligible for endocrine and/or anti-HER2–based therapy. NCCN Task Forces and ASCO along with the College of American Pathologists (CAP) have issued quality-control recommendations on ER/PR testing2,3 and HER2 testing4,5 in patients with breast cancer.
Discordance between the receptor status of primary and recurrent disease has been reported in several studies. The discordance rates are in the range of 3.4% to 60% for ER-negative to ER-positive; 7.2% to 31% for ER-positive to ER-negative; and 0.7% to 10% for HER2.6–12 Discordance in receptor status between the primary tumor and recurrence may be a result of several factors, including a change in disease biology, differential effect of prior treatment on clonal subsets, tumor heterogeneity, and less-than-perfect accuracy and reproducibility of receptor and gene amplification assays.
The knowledge of a change in receptor status from negative in primary tumor to positive in metastatic disease can be beneficial to the therapeutic decision process in the metastatic setting, because effective, relatively nontoxic therapeutic options of endocrine therapy and/or HER2-targeted therapy become available. Retesting, however, carries with it the potential for denying a patient endocrine therapy/HER2-targeted therapy because of a false-negative result on a second biopsy. According to the NCCN Breast Cancer Panel, retesting the receptor status of recurrent disease is especially important in cases when it was previously unknown, originally negative, or not overexpressed. Clinical judgment remains important. For patients with clinical courses consistent with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, or with prior positive hormone receptor results, the panel agreed that a course of endocrine therapy is reasonable regardless of whether the receptor assay is repeated or is the result of the most recent hormone receptor assay.
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Breast Cancer, Version 1.2012
Version 1.2012 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2012, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.®
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 10, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2012.0086
NCCN Recommendations
The NCCN Breast Cancer Panel recommends that metastatic disease at presentation or first recurrence of disease be biopsied as part of the workup for patients with recurrent or stage IV disease (see BINV-16; on page 822). This ensures accurate determination of metastatic/recurrent disease and tumor histology, and allows for biomarker determination and selection of appropriate treatment. The status of the tumor biomarkers ER/PR and HER2 should be determined if unknown, originally negative, or not overexpressed (category 2A). The panel cautions in a footnote that “false negative ER and/or PR determinations occur, and there may be discordance between the ER and/or PR determination between the primary and metastatic tumor(s). Therefore, endocrine therapy with its low attendant toxicity may be considered in patients with non-visceral or asymptomatic visceral tumors, especially in patients with clinical characteristics predicting for a hormone receptor positive tumor (e.g., long disease free interval, limited sites of recurrence, indolent disease, or older age).”
Combination Endocrine Therapy: An Option for First-Line Treatment
Combination endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive, previously untreated metastatic breast cancer has been reported in 2 studies comparing single-agent anastrozole versus anastrozole plus fulvestrant. In the first study (FACT trial), combination endocrine therapy was not superior to single-agent anastrozole (time to progression hazard rate, 0.99; 95% Cl, 0.81–1.20; P = .91).13 In the second study (S0226), the progression-free survival (hazard rate, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68–0.94, stratified log-rank P = .007) and overall survival (hazard rate, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65–1.00; stratified P = .049) were superior with combination anastrozole plus fulvestrant.14 An unplanned subset analysis of this trial suggested that patients without prior adjuvant tamoxifen experienced the greatest benefit with the combination endocrine therapy. The reason for the divergent outcomes in the 2 studies is not known.
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Breast Cancer, Version 1.2012
Version 1.2012 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2012, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 10, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2012.0086
NCCN Recommendations
Because of the contradictory results of the FACT13 and S022614 trials, the NCCN Breast Cancer Panel has not made specific recommendations for including combination endocrine therapy in the main algorithm of the guidelines. However, the panel included a footnote on algorithm page BINV-18 (see page 823) stating, “A single study (S0226) in women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer and no prior chemotherapy, biological therapy, or endocrine therapy for metastatic disease demonstrated that the addition of fulvestrant to anastrozole resulted in prolongation of time to progression (hazard rate for recurrence, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68–0.94; stratified log-rank P =.007) and improvement in overall survival (hazard rate, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65–1.00; stratified log-rank P = .049). Subset analysis suggested that patients without prior adjuvant tamoxifen and more than 10 years since diagnosis experienced the greatest benefit. A study of similar design (FACT) demonstrated no advantage in time to progression with the addition of fulvestrant to anastrozole (hazard rate, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81–1.20; P = .91).”
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Breast Cancer, Version 1.2012
Version 1.2012 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2012, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 10, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2012.0086
Monitoring of Metastatic Disease
Very little high-level evidence exists on monitoring patients with metastatic breast cancer during the course of disease and treatment. Monitoring patients with metastatic disease is extremely important to determine whether the therapy administered is effective. Monitoring of disease activity during treatment helps ensure that the patient does not experience toxicity from an ineffective therapy. The panel included a new section in the 2012 version of the guidelines titled “Principles of Metastatic Disease Monitoring.” This section includes a discussion and recommendations on how metastatic disease should be monitored. The monitoring recommendations primarily reflect those from the prospective clinical trials on which the current treatment decisions are based.
NCCN Recommendations
In the new section “Principles of Monitoring of Metastatic Disease” (see BINV-M; on pages 824–826, the panel first stressed the importance of monitoring metastatic disease, and has provided the definition of progression of disease and outlined a series of components of monitoring that includes periodic assessment of symptoms, physical examination, routine laboratory tests, imaging studies, and, where appropriate, use of blood biomarkers (see BINV-M 1 of 3; on page 824). The panel acknowledges that, although integration of all of these components is important, in practice it can be challenging because the information obtained may be contradictory. Therefore, prudent clinical judgement is important to negotiate the differences in these cases.
The panel recommends objective criteria for assessing disease response, stable disease, and disease progression (see BINV-M 2 of 3; on page 825), and specifically encourages using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)15 or WHO criteria16 as a system for assigning disease activity.
The panel acknowledges the challenges of functional imaging, such as bone or PET/CT scans. These specific imaging studies monitor biologic function of the tumor as opposed to size of the tumor as the end point. With bone scan, responding disease may show a “flare,” or as increased activity, which may be easily misinterpreted as disease progression. The main challenge with using PET/CT scanning to monitor metastatic disease is that there is an absence of a reproducible, validated, and widely accepted set of standards for disease activity assessment. According to RECIST criteria, only progression of disease can be assessed with PET scan when a new site of PET abnormality occurs. In no other instances do the WHO or RECIST criteria allow use of PET/CT scan to declare response, disease stability, or disease progression.
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Breast Cancer, Version 1.2012
Version 1.2012 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2012, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 10, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2012.0086
The panel has provided a table outlining general recommendations for the frequency and type of monitoring as a baseline before initiation of new therapy and for monitoring the effectiveness of cytotoxic chemotherapy, monitoring the effectiveness of endocrine therapy, and assessment in the presence of evidence of disease progression. They have indicated in a footnote that the frequency of monitoring can be reduced in patients who have long-term stable disease.
Endocrine Therapy Plus an mTOR Inhibitor: A Subsequent Therapy Option
Resistance to endocrine therapy in women with hormone receptor–positive disease is frequent. One mechanism of endocrine resistance is activation of the mTOR signal transduction pathway. Two randomized studies have investigated the use of aromatase inhibition in combination with inhibitors of the mTOR pathway.
A phase III study (BOLERO-2) in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer that had progressed or recurred during treatment with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor randomized patients to exemestane with or without the mTOR inhibitor everolimus.17 The results of this study showed the median progression-free survival was increased with the addition of everolimus to exemestane from 2.8 to 6.9 months (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.35–0.54; log-rank P < .001).17 The results also showed that the toxicity of combination exemestane and everolimus was substantially greater than exemestane alone. The most common all-grade adverse events in patients who received everolimus versus those who did not included stomatitis (56% vs. 11%), rash (36% vs. 6%), fatigue (33% vs. 26%), diarrhea (30% vs. 16%), decreased appetite (29% vs. 10%), noninfectious pneumonitis (12% vs. 0%), and hyperglycemia (13% vs. 2%).17 Thus, in this study, the addition of everolimus prolonged time to progression but it also added substantial toxicity. No survival data have yet been reported.
Another trial phase III trial randomized postmenopausal women with advanced, hormone receptor–positive breast cancer with no prior endocrine therapy to letrozole with or without the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus.18 In this study, progression-free survival was not different between the treatment arms (hazard rate, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75–1.05; long-rank P = .18).
The reasons for the difference in the outcomes of the 2 endocrine therapy with or without an mTOR inhibitor studies are uncertain, but may be related to the issues of patient selection, or the type and extent of prior endocrine therapy. A footnote has been added to the guidelines that lists subsequent endocrine therapy for systemic disease.
NCCN Recommendations
The panel unanimously agreed that the evidence from the BOLERO-2 trial is compelling enough to consider the addition of everolimus to exemestane in women who fulfill the entry criteria for BOLERO-2.
On the page in the algorithm listing subsequent endocrine therapy for patients (see BINV-N; on page 827), the panel added a footnote stating “A single study (BOLERO-2) in women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and prior therapy with a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor demonstrated improvement in time to progression with the addition of everolimus (an mTOR inhibitor) to exemestane (hazard rate, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36-0.53; log-rank P = <1 x10-16) and with increase in toxicity. No survival analysis is available. A randomized study using the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in combination with endocrine therapy did not demonstrate any improvement in outcome. Consider the addition of everolimus to exemestane in women who fulfill the eligibility criteria of BOLERO-2.”
Conclusions
These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight the important updates/changes specific to the management of metastatic breast cancer in the 2012 version of the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer (to view the most recent version of these guidelines, visit NCCN.org). The NCCN Guidelines are in continuous evolution. They are updated annually, or sometimes more often if new high-quality clinical data become available in the interim. The recommendations in the NCCN Guidelines, with few exceptions, are based on evidence from clinical trials. Expert medical clinical judgment is required to apply these guidelines in the context of an individual to provide optimal care. The physician and the patient have the responsibility to jointly explore and select the most appropriate option from among the available alternatives. When possible, consistent with NCCN philosophy, the panel strongly encourages patient/physician participation in prospective clinical trials.
References
- 2↑
Allred DC, Carlson RW, Berry DA et al.. NCCN Task Force Report: estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor testing in breast bancer by immunohistochemistry. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009;7(Suppl 6):S1–21.
- 3↑
Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M et al.. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2784–2795.
- 4↑
Carlson RW, Moench SJ, Hammond ME et al.. HER2 testing in breast cancer: NCCN Task Force report and recommendations. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2006;4(Suppl 3):S1–22.
- 5↑
Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN et al.. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:118–145.
- 6↑
Bogina G, Bortesi L, Marconi M et al.. Comparison of hormonal receptor and HER-2 status between breast primary tumours and relapsing tumours: clinical implications of progesterone receptor loss. Virchows Arch 2011;459:1–10.
- 7
Fabi A, Di Benedetto A, Metro G et al.. HER2 protein and gene variation between primary and metastatic breast cancer: significance and impact on patient care. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:2055–2064.
- 8
Karlsson E, Lindström LS, Wilking U et al.. Discordance in hormone receptor status in breast cancer during tumor progression [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:(Suppl):Abstract 1009.
- 9
Sari E, Guler G, Hayran M et al.. Comparative study of the immunohistochemical detection of hormone receptor status and HER-2 expression in primary and paired recurrent/metastatic lesions of patients with breast cancer. Med Oncol 2011;28:57–63.
- 10
Simmons C, Miller N, Geddie W et al.. Does confirmatory tumor biopsy alter the management of breast cancer patients with distant metastases? Ann Oncol 2009;20:1499–1504.
- 11
Gong Y, Booser DJ, Sneige N. Comparison of HER-2 status determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization in primary and metastatic breast carcinoma. Cancer 2005;103:1763–1769.
- 12↑
Tapia C, Savic S, Wagner U et al.. HER2 gene status in primary breast cancers and matched distant metastases. Breast Cancer Res 2007;9:R31.
- 13↑
Bergh J, Jönsson P, Lidbrink E et al.. First results from FACT – an open-label, randomized phase III study investigating loading dose of fulvestrant combined with anastrozole versus anastrozole at first relapse in hormone receptor positive breast cancer [abstract]. Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract 23.
- 14↑
Mehta R, Barlow W, Albain K et al.. A Phase III randomized trial of anastrozole versus anastrozole and fulvestrant as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer: SWOG S0226 [abstract]. Presented at the 34th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 6–10, 2011; San Antonio, Texas. Abstract 1.
- 15↑
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al.. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228–247.
- 16↑
Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981;47:207–214.
- 17↑
Baselga J, Campone M, Piccart M et al.. Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;366:520–529.
- 18↑
Chow L, Sun Y, Jassem J et al.. Phase 3 study of temsirolimus with letrozole or letrozole alone in postmenopausal women with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer [abstract]. Presented at the 29th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 14–17, 2006; San Antonio, Texas. Abstract 6091.
