Francesco Ravera, MD, PhD, on the Rationale for Comparing cfDNA to MRI for Predicting pCR After Neoadjuvant Therapy in Breast Cancer

Video

CancerNetwork® spoke with Francesco Ravera, MD, PhD, during the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021 to discuss a study that looked at cell-free DNA assessment compared with traditional MRI for determining pathological complete response in patients with locally advanced breast cancer.

CancerNetwork® sat down with Francesco Ravera, MD, PhD, fellow in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Genoa in Italy, to discuss research that was presented at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2021. The research examined plasma cell-free DNA as an accurate alternative for assessing pathological complete response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. To understand why the investigators looked into this comparison with traditional MRI, Ravera explained the rationale for their hypothesis.

Transcription:

Today, the standard of care for the assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in [patients with breast cancer] is based on magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, which is the best radiological procedure for this purpose but presents data [with] suboptimal accuracy, especially in regard to the assessment of [nodal disease]. In radiological complete responders, [this requires] the assessment of nodal disease biopsy and lymph node biopsy, which is not as invasive as complete resection, but may cause collateral side effects. On the other end, cell-free DNA integrity has already shown potential for diagnostic and predictive purposes in breast cancer.

Reference

Cirmena G, Ferrando L, Ravera F, et al. Plasma cell-free DNA integrity predicts the achievement of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Presented at: AACR Annual Meeting 2021; April 10-15, 2021; virtual. Abstract LB063.

Recent Videos
A third of patients had a response [to lifileucel], and of the patients who have a response, half of them were alive at the 4-year follow-up.
We are seeing that, in those patients who have relapsed/refractory melanoma with survival measured as a few weeks and no effective treatments, about a third of these patients will have a response.
We have the current CAR [T-cell therapies], which target CD19; however, we need others.
“Every patient [with multiple myeloma] should be offered CAR T before they’re offered a bispecific, with some rare exceptions,” said Barry Paul, MD.
Barry Paul, MD, listed cilta-cel, anito-cel, and arlo-cel as 3 of the CAR T-cell therapies with the most promising efficacy in patients with multiple myeloma.
Jose Sandoval Sus, MD, discussed standard CAR T-cell therapies in patients across multiple high-risk lymphoma indications.
Elucidating nonresponses to bispecific T-cell engagers may be an important research consideration in the multiple myeloma field.
Barriers to access and financial toxicities are challenges that must be addressed for CAR T-cell therapies in LBCL, according to Jose Sandoval Sus, MD.
Fixed treatment durations with bispecific antibodies followed by observation may help in mitigating infection-related AEs, according to Shebli Atrash, MD.
Shebli Atrash, MD, stated that MRD should be considered carefully as an end point, given potential recurrence despite MRD negativity.
Related Content