“The PHERGain study explores an individualized 18F-FDG-PET-based, pCR-adapted strategy that allows patients who are sensitive to exclusive neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab and pertuzumab to omit chemotherapy. … Strong 3-year outcomes were observed among … 18F-FDG-PET-responder patients who obtained a pCR with trastuzumab and pertuzumab and never received chemotherapy without any metastatic relapse,” wrote lead study author Jose Manuel Perez Garcia, M.D., the director of the Medical International Breast Cancer Center (IBCC) at the Teknon Medical Center in Barcelona, Spain, and colleagues.
The study authors also pointed out that the first treatment group had a 29 percent higher incidence of treatment-related grade 3-4 toxicities and serious adverse events (62 percent) in comparison to the second treatment group (33 percent) and those PET-responder patients who achieved a pCR (1 percent).
Three Key Takeaways
- PET-guided monitoring enhances treatment response evaluation. The use of positron emission tomography (PET) for monitoring pathologic complete response (pCR) in HER2-positive early breast cancer patients may allow for personalized treatment strategies. PET responders who achieved pCR with trastuzumab and pertuzumab (with or without endocrine therapy, exhibited a strong 3-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) rate of nearly 95%.
- Chemotherapy de-escalation in selected patients: PET-guided treatment approach enabled the omission of chemotherapy in select patients who responded well to trastuzumab and pertuzumab. Patients achieving pCR without chemotherapy demonstrated an iDFS rate of 96.4% at three years, suggesting the potential for treatment de-escalation in certain cases.
- Consideration for alternative imaging modalities. Access issues and the cost associated with 18F-FDG-PET warrant exploration of alternative imaging modalities such as breast MRI or ultrasound for monitoring treatment response, especially in settings lacking PET infrastructure. Further research is needed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of these alternatives in guiding treatment decisions for early breast cancer patients.
While the researchers emphasize caution about the possibility of de-escalation treatments in a curative setting, they suggested that the results of this study and prior research examining the use of adjunctive paclitaxel and trastuzumab warrant consideration for patients with early breast cancer.
“The inclusion of patients with clinical stage I cancer is of special interest, considering that the current standard of care for this patient population is the combination of chemotherapy with trastuzumab,” noted Perez Garcia and colleagues.
Given potential access issues with 18F-FDG-PET, the researchers called for further research to assess the possibility of employing conventional imaging modalities to assist with pCR monitoring in this patient population.
“It would be valuable to explore the use of breast MRI or ultrasound instead of 18F-FDG-PET as an alternative assessment method of early treatment response in (centers) without access to 18F-FDG-PET,” added Perez Garcia and colleagues.
(Editor’s note: For related content, see “Positron Emission Tomography and De-Escalation of Breast Cancer Treatment: What Emerging Research Reveals,” “Assessing the Potential of Positron Emission Mammography: an Interview with Vivianne Freitas, MD” and “Current Perspectives on PET/CT Imaging in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer.”)
In regard to study limitations, the authors acknowledged a limited cohort size and a short follow-up period. They conceded that there is limited access to 18F-FDG-PET and said the expensive imaging modality has a learning curve. The researchers also noted that trastuzumab emtansine, an adjunctive treatment utilized for patients who are resistant to trastuzumab and pertuzumab, was not available prior to the study.