Dec 7, 2020 11:35PM Karenfizedbo15 wrote:
That’s very helpful Lumpie...I’m looking at what 3rd line treatment might look like for me, so this info gives me a chance to discuss with my MO. Good timing too as I speak with her this week!
Share your research articles, interpretations and experiences here. Let us know how these studies affect you and your decisions.
Posted on: Nov 21, 2017 04:31PM - edited Nov 21, 2017 04:35PM by Lumpie
Lumpie wrote:
I watch for research news on breast cancer, treatments, etc., and frequently see interesting articles. There is a topic on BCO called "Breaking Research News from Breastcancer.org." One of the moderators suggested that another topic might be appropriate for posting links and synopses of reports on research found elsewhere. So here it is! Please post links to reports on research form reliable sources. Thanks for sharing!
Posts 2431 - 2460 (2,558 total)
Dec 7, 2020 11:35PM Karenfizedbo15 wrote:
That’s very helpful Lumpie...I’m looking at what 3rd line treatment might look like for me, so this info gives me a chance to discuss with my MO. Good timing too as I speak with her this week!
Dec 8, 2020 03:23AM - edited Dec 8, 2020 03:23AM by AlabamaDee
Lumpie
I asked my MDACC team if I was in the match trial. They said yes, but never once contacted me about anything potential. I am learning that you have to be proactive to get on a trial and that sometimes it's all about timing.
My local MO read that erubulin paper. He said I can keep it in my bucket but he prefers me to try a platinum drug combo next because of the Neuroendocrine part.
Thanks for keeping us all informed!
Dee
Dec 8, 2020 03:35AM - edited Dec 8, 2020 03:37AM by 2019whatayear
I got this email from onclive -re. MBC if anyone wants to register for the webinar- Webinar for MBC
if the link doesn't work and you want to,you can LMK your email and I can forward the email to you?
Dec 8, 2020 03:36AM Lumpie wrote:
Dee: Yes, it can seem kind of random getting on trials. Part of it is definitely timing. Other times it is all sorts of factors from timing to reaching the right person to the sheer luck of matching what is needed at any given moment. NIH tells me that they have a "desk" that is supposed to screen prospective participants for all of their breast cancer trials, but I have not felt like there was much clarity around how that screen/match process operated - you just have to trust it. I have sometimes thought .... it would be great if there were a central service that would screen and match you for all available clinical trials approved in the US. Seems to me like that might promote participation, fill trials more efficiently and allow for better management of patient participation. But I suppose that would be a sizable undertaking. Maybe someday.
Dec 8, 2020 04:12AM - edited Dec 8, 2020 04:44AM by moth
re finding trials, I signed with Cancer Research Insititute and the service gave me a list of potential trials and there is an option for them to notify you if something new pops up. I doubt it will work well in Canada but I did it just to see. https://app.emergingmed.com/emed/home
Dec 8, 2020 07:48AM buttonsmachine wrote:
I stumbled upon this article, and thought it was a very good (but sobering) article about the mechanisms of metastatic recurrence in breast cancer. This article covers the how, why, when, where, and what we can do about it.
I had my first metastatic recurrences this year. I went from NED after a local recurrence to innumerable metastatic lesions in only a few months. That blindsided me, and hit me like a freight train. In these situations it sometimes helps me to understand the science and the mechanisms behind why and how these things happen. I thought this article might be helpful for others, too.
Here are a few key takeaways from the conclusions sections, but the whole article is really interesting:
"[O]ur current understanding of metastatic dormancy, metastatic evolution, acquired resistance and metastatic niches suggests that detecting and treating recurrence earlier might be our best opportunity to improve patient outcomes.
Despite metastatic disease being the main cause of death in cancer patients, knowledge about the biology of this lethal process is lacking. However, with advances in genomic sequencing technologies and accumulating data in favour of the predominance of the parallel model over the linear model of dissemination, four important lessons have been learned. First, in most patients who will experience recurrence, metastases are already present at the time of diagnosis. Second, despite their genomic similarity to the trunk of the tumour's evolutionary tree, metastases are distinct biological entities, containing important phenotypic differences compared with their primary source. Third, metastases, as well as primary neoplasms, are subject to evolution dictated by pharmacological pressure, tissue-specific environments and cellular plasticity. Finally, some micrometastases might exist in a non-proliferative, dormant-like state for months to decades.
Altogether, these data have significant clinical implications. First, attempts to prevent initial metastatic dissemination might hold little therapeutic benefit—even though early detection and treatment of most primary breast tumours is curative, tumours that are 'born to be bad' probably disseminate prior to diagnosis. Next, caution must be taken when using primary tumours as a proxy for clinical decisions on systemic therapies to prevent or treat metastatic disease, unless little divergence between paired lesions is observed. In this respect, non-invasive liquid biopsy biomarker assays could help to identify molecular changes in metastases. In addition, an urgent need exists to assess the phenotypic properties of DTCs in their native states, in order to understand how some DTCs, but not others, contribute to metastatic recurrence. Finally, it might be possible to exploit tumour dormancy in some, but probably not all, cases as a window of opportunity to tackle MRD and/or prevent metastatic relapse (Table 1).
Future directions should be centred on identifying dangerous versus indolent DTCs and finding new DTC drug targets, while also using modern imaging and biomarker assays to accurately determine who needs such therapy, in order to avoid overtreatment. Importantly, all of the above strategies—prevent, reverse, prolong and eradicate dormancy (Table 1)—will require the development and use of more clinically relevant models and human samples, as well as clinical trials of new 'intensive' follow-up monitoring programmes. With progress in these areas, it is hoped that new knowledge will converge in the near future to prevent recurrences and deaths from cancer."
Dec 8, 2020 07:58AM BevJen wrote:
buttons machine,
Really interesting article that is readable and makes a lot of sense.
I had my initial recurrence as a single site metastasis in 2006. At the time, I urged my oncologist to hit it hard -- fulvestrant was just coming into the picture, and I asked her if we could try that. Her answer was no. But I found this interesting in the article:" However, our current understanding of metastatic dormancy, metastatic evolution, acquired resistance and metastatic niches suggests that detecting and treating recurrence earlier might be our best opportunity to improve patient outcomes." It does upset me to read that, and to know that the guidelines at the time were telling docs that they should only go so far in treating metastases.
However, there is hope on the horizon with the advent of ctDNA and other new methods of genomic testing that may help many of us. Hopefully our MOs will be up to date on the new technologies and use them to our advantage moving forward.
Dec 8, 2020 06:22PM BSandra wrote:
Bev, 2006??? Are you kidding me? Science should be investigating you in and out - you are one of a kind!:) Best of luck for Friday again... Saulius
Dec 8, 2020 11:40PM JoynerL wrote:
buttonsmachine, thanks so much for posting the excellent article about the mysteries of metastasis.
My BC recurred after 26 years. I was on Tamoxifen for 12 years or so after my initial surgery/chemo in 1991 (my initial MO just didn't want to "mess with success" and kept me on it, even though then current guidelines said 5 years only), and when my original MO retired, I changed to a supposedly preeminent MO who immediately changed me from Taxoxifen to Evista (raloxifene). I remained on raloxifene until metastasis was discovered in my bones 14 years later. Look at what I found online:
Switched from tamoxifen to raloxifene:
This means that raloxifene reduces risk of non-invasive breast cancer by about 38 percent compared to tamoxifen reducing risk for this type of cancer by about 50 percent; or raloxifene is about 78 percent as effective as tamoxifen in reducing the risk of noninvasive breast cancer over almost 7 years.Apr 19, 2010
When I changed from the preeminent MO to my current one, he replied to my question as to whether changing from tamoxifen to faloxifene might have "unleashed the beast", "Yes, it surely could have".
Thanks for the very helpful article.
Dec 9, 2020 12:32AM BevJen wrote:
Lynn,
Wow. I hadn't focused before on the fact that you were 26 years out when you had recurrence. That's a wild story. Saulius noted that scientists should follow me, now 16 years out from that first metastasis; likewise, they should be studying you. Your story and mine simply highlight how much science does not understand the mechanism of metastasis, especially metastasis after a long period of dormancy.
Dec 9, 2020 01:41AM JoynerL wrote:
Bev-Jen-
Agreed. I didn't realize how far out you were, either!
And on the length of my period of dormancy, my most recent MO, head of a cancer center, said that my 26 years was his longest period of dormancy in one of his patients. I just pray that the length of that dormancy may in some fashion bode well for holding it now at bay for a while. We shall see.....
Dec 10, 2020 06:00AM Lumpie wrote:
ctDNA in Neoadjuvant-Treated Breast Cancer Reflects Response and SurvivalDecember 03, 2020
Dec 10, 2020 06:06AM - edited Dec 10, 2020 06:07AM by LillyIsHere
2020 NCI Press ReleasePostmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer that has spread to a limited number of lymph nodes, and whose recurrence risk is relatively low, do not benefit from chemotherapy when it is added to hormone therapy, according to initial results from a clinical trial presented at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer SymposiumExit Disclaimer.
Some postmenopausal women with breast cancer may forgo chemotherapyDec 10, 2020 06:33AM Lumpie wrote:
New Assay Platform Enhances Detection of Circulating Breast Cancer CellsNovember 26, 2020
Detection of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in a breast cancer model was improved by a novel assay platform that uses a dual-receptor recognition and signal amplification strategy, researchers say.
"Considering the urgent need for early diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer and recent advances in functional nucleic acid-mediated bioassays from our group, we designed the platform and demonstrated its feasibility for CTC detection," Dr. Zai-Sheng Wu of Fuzhou University in China told Reuters Health...
"...the newly developed...assay system is suitable for screening CTCs in complex environments and is expected to be a promising tool for estimating distant metastasis and predicting the recurrence of tumors."
Dr. Wu said, "The detection of CTCs from patients with breast cancer remains technically challenging because of their heterogeneity. Nevertheless, our group is already collaborating with scientists in Fujian Cancer Hospital to promote the transition from the laboratory to clinic trials."
The article contains discussion about methodology and shortcomings of the approach.
"The ability to detect rarer CTC populations would be helpful for risk stratification after surgery and to facilitate diagnosis or biomarker testing when there is limited tissue."
"Comparison of this technique using human blood samples from the clinic and CTC detection with this platform versus existing platforms would be a key step," he said, "then focusing on the clinical impact of more sensitive CTC detection, perhaps to determine need for adjuvant chemotherapy in certain post-operative settings."
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/941629?src=wn...
https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.0c01082
{Free access to full article.}
Dec 10, 2020 06:51AM Lumpie wrote:
Trastuzumab Interruption Linked to Worse Outcomes in ERBB2-Positive DiseaseOctober 22, 2020
A single-center study of trastuzumab interruption in patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer found that dose interruption was associated with higher rates of disease recurrence and death compared with uninterrupted treatment.
Researchers from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center conducted the study because "findings from the PHARE and PERSEPHONE trials on the noninferiority of 6- vs 12-month durations of trastuzumab are conflicting, thus the clinical significance of early trastuzumab interruption on breast cancer outcomes remains uncertain."
The study included 1396 patients who had been treated with trastuzumab between 2004 and 2013. Early interruption was defined as a 6-week or longer interval between scheduled trastuzumab doses.
Findings indicated that the total dose of trastuzumab "plays an important role in breast cancer outcomes." Trastuzumab interruption with a cumulative dose of 56 mg/kg or less was associated with a reduced recurrence-free survival (adjusted HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.16-3.33).
"Given that most patients in this study were treated with anthracyclines, our findings may not be generalizable to patients receiving nonanthracycline treatment regimens," the researchers noted.
https://www.oncologynurseadvisor.com/home/cancer-t...
Reference: Copeland-Halperin RS, Al-Sadawi M, Patil S, et al. Early trastuzumab interruption and recurrence-free survival in ERBB2-positive breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. Published online October 15, 2020.doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4749
{Reporting and abstract available free. Subscription or $30 per article charge for full journal article.}
Dec 10, 2020 08:02AM LillyIsHere wrote:
Thank you Lumpie. I do believe that giving cancer cells a "vacation time" makes them mutate and re-organize to metastasis. Sneaky disease.
Dec 10, 2020 08:38AM AlabamaDee wrote:
😳 Didn’t expect this from SABCS20. Looks like I will be going back on a low carb diet. Before metastasis I lost 50 lbs on KETO. Kept off 45 and eat what I want. I will ask Dr Hamilton what she thinks on Monday.
Dee
Dec 10, 2020 11:13AM Olma61 wrote:
AlabamaDee, thanks for posting this! More motivation for me to stick to my low carb eating plan! That was the only way I could lose any significant amount of weight post-menopause.
Some good info coming out of virtual SABCS
Dec 10, 2020 11:37AM moth wrote:
I thought low glycemic isn't the same as low carb or keto?
I gotta say don't think much of animal models anyway so I'm ambivalent about this
Dec 10, 2020 11:58AM 2019whatayear wrote:
You are correct it isn't the same Moth, I would say it's more flexible.
Here is a handy chart-
Dec 10, 2020 02:57PM MountainMia wrote:
AlabamaDee, thanks. Yes, it's good motivation to eat a low glycemic diet. It partly depends on how much you are eating and what foods you're eating together, because of how food metabolizes. My registered dietician cousin recommends I eat a diabetic's diet to maintain stable blood sugar. My weight is healthy and stable; my glucose and A1c are high-normal but basically stable. But I could do a lot better job with what I eat. sigh...
Dec 10, 2020 03:47PM AlabamaDee wrote:
yes low glycemic and KETO are different. I just lived KETO for a year and know it worked for me. My A1c and glucose are fine and I have always been an overweight person. Not doing anything drastic until after Xmas.
Dec 10, 2020 04:04PM Olma61 wrote:
yes, more flexible and, by definition, with low carb, I am eliminating most if not all of those high glycemic foods on that list. And, I would not eat some of lower glycemic carbs on a daily basis either. When I do choose a grain product or a fruit, I do consider the glycemic index.
Most people I know who do full keto are doing the same...it is pretty much automatically a low glycemic diet.
Nice chart, 2019whatayear, thanks for the link.
Dec 10, 2020 10:01PM JoynerL wrote:
Dee, do you have a link to that article (if it was an article)? Thanks!
Dec 10, 2020 10:19PM JoynerL wrote:
Lots of BC information in this Oncology Business Review daily. I hope that the link will open. It is possible to subscribe to this daily oncology journal.
Oncology Business Review 12-9-20
Dec 10, 2020 11:16PM debbew wrote:
Study can orient use of melatonin in the treatment of breast cancer
A Brazilian study published in the Journal of Pineal Research describes a group of genes potentially regulated by the hormone melatonin in some types of cancer, especially breast cancer. According to the authors, the results can be used to guide future personalized therapies for the disease...
As a result, they were able to understand how melatonin works in several cellular signaling pathways. "These genes targeted by melatonin relate to important biological processes in cancer, such as cell cycle regulation, cell death, and cell migration and senescence," he explained. "Melatonin appears to act more strongly on breast, oral, and stomach cancer...
According to Chuffa, genes regulated by melatonin in breast cancer are potential targets for the treatment of the disease. "Melatonin is a multitasking molecule and acts on various cellular substrates, so we're now taking the study deeper to find out how the hormone influences microRNA expression and hence the regulation of the cellular mechanisms identified," he said.
Dec 11, 2020 02:27AM AlabamaDee wrote:
JoynerL
The low glycemic study was a presentation at SABCS20 that my trial doc commented on in Twitter. I can’t search the abstracts right now. Sorry. I do plan to ask her more about it on Monday
Dee
Dec 11, 2020 02:31AM 2019whatayear wrote:
Wait, I just realized-- Dee, your doctor is Dr. Hamilton? She seems to be pretty awesome. I follow her on twitter.
There isn't an article to link the info was from a presentation at the San Antonio BC Symposium. There might be info here: SABCS News Or you can find some commentary from doctors and patients re. on twitter if you search the hastag #SABCS20
I'm sure more info will be coming out. The takeaway is really that a healthy diet is a low glycemic diet so the more you can follow that the better your overall health will be long term.
Dec 11, 2020 02:39AM JoynerL wrote:
Thanks, all!
Dec 11, 2020 02:50AM BevJen wrote:
Re: whether common cholesterol drugs might improve the reach of immunotherapy--
https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents...