Tisotumab Vedotin as Second- or Third-Line Therapy for Recurrent Cervical Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent cervical cancer is a life-threatening disease, with limited treatment options available when disease progression occurs after first-line combination therapy. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, multinational, open-label trial of tisotumab vedotin as second- or third-line therapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive tisotumab vedotin monotherapy (2.0 mg per kilogram of body weight every 3 weeks) or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 502 patients underwent randomization (253 were assigned to the tisotumab vedotin group and 249 to the chemotherapy group); the groups were similar with respect to demographic and disease characteristics. The median overall survival was significantly longer in the tisotumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (11.5 months [95% confidence interval {CI}, 9.8 to 14.9] vs. 9.5 months [95% CI, 7.9 to 10.7]), results that represented a 30% lower risk of death with tisotumab vedotin than with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.89; two-sided P = 0.004). The median progression-free survival was 4.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 4.4) with tisotumab vedotin and 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 3.1) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; two-sided P<0.001). The confirmed objective response rate was 17.8% in the tisotumab vedotin group and 5.2% in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.1 to 7.6; two-sided P<0.001). A total of 98.4% of patients in the tisotumab vedotin group and 99.2% in the chemotherapy group had at least one adverse event that occurred during the treatment period (defined as the period from day 1 of dose 1 until 30 days after the last dose); grade 3 or greater events occurred in 52.0% and 62.3%, respectively. A total of 14.8% of patients stopped tisotumab vedotin treatment because of toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recurrent cervical cancer, second- or third-line treatment with tisotumab vedotin resulted in significantly greater efficacy than chemotherapy. (Funded by Genmab and Seagen [acquired by Pfizer]; innovaTV 301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04697628.).

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy for metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer (BEATcc): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The GOG240 trial established bevacizumab with chemotherapy as standard first-line therapy for metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. In the BEATcc trial (ENGOT-Cx10-GEICO 68-C-JGOG1084-GOG-3030), we aimed to evaluate the addition of an immune checkpoint inhibitor to this standard backbone. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients from 92 sites in Europe, Japan, and the USA with metastatic (stage IVB), persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer that was measurable, previously untreated, and not amenable to curative surgery or radiation were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard therapy (cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve of 5, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, all on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) with or without atezolizumab 1200 mg. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient withdrawal, or death. Stratification factors were previous concomitant chemoradiation (yes vs no), histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs adenocarcinoma including adenosquamous carcinoma), and platinum backbone (cisplatin vs carboplatin). Dual primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 and overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03556839, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Oct 8, 2018, and Aug 20, 2021, 410 of 519 patients assessed for eligibility were enrolled. Median progression-free survival was 13·7 months (95% CI 12·3-16·6) with atezolizumab and 10·4 months (9·7-11·7) with standard therapy (hazard ratio [HR]=0·62 [95% CI 0·49-0·78]; p<0·0001); at the interim overall survival analysis, median overall survival was 32·1 months (95% CI 25·3-36·8) versus 22·8 months (20·3-28·0), respectively (HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·52-0·88]; p=0·0046). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 79% of patients in the experimental group and in 75% of patients in the standard group. Grade 1-2 diarrhoea, arthralgia, pyrexia, and rash were increased with atezolizumab. INTERPRETATION: Adding atezolizumab to a standard bevacizumab plus platinum regimen for metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer significantly improves progression-free and overall survival and should be considered as a new first-line therapy option. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Atezolizumab and chemotherapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (AtTEnd): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: At the time of AtTEnd trial design, standard treatment for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer included carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. This trial assessed whether combining atezolizumab with chemotherapy might improve outcomes in this population. METHODS: AtTEnd was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done in 89 hospitals in 11 countries across Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. Enrolled patients were aged 18 years or older, and had advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma or carcinosarcoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and received no previous systemic chemotherapy for recurrence. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using an interactive web response system (block size of six) to either atezolizumab 1200 mg or placebo given intravenously with chemotherapy (carboplatin at area under the curve of 5 or 6 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 21 days) for 6-8 cycles, then continued until progression. Stratification factors were country, histological subtype, advanced or recurrent status, and mismatch repair (MMR) status. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The hierarchically tested co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (in patients with MMR-deficient [dMMR] tumours, and in the overall population) and overall survival (in the overall population). Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who gave their full consent to participation in the study and data processing. Safety was assessed in all patients included in the intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of study treatment. Here, we report the primary progression-free survival and the interim overall survival results. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03603184. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2018, and Jan 7, 2022, 551 patients were randomly assigned to atezolizumab (n=362) or placebo (n=189). Two patients in the atezolizumab group were excluded from all analyses due to lack of consent. Median follow-up was 28·3 months (IQR 21·2-37·6). 81 (23%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 44 (23%) patients in the placebo group had dMMR disease by central assessment. In the dMMR population, median progression-free survival was not estimable (95% CI 12·4 months-not estimable [NE]) in the atezolizumab group and 6·9 months (6·3-10·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·36, 95% CI 0·23-0·57; p=0·0005). In the overall population, median progression-free survival was 10·1 months (95% CI 9·5-12·3) in the atezolizumab group and 8·9 months (8·1-9·6) in the placebo group (HR 0·74, 95% CI 0·61-0·91; p=0·022). Median overall survival was 38·7 months (95% CI 30·6-NE) in the atezolizumab group and 30·2 months (25·0-37·2) in the placebo group (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·63-1·07; log-rank p=0·048). The p value for the interim analysis of overall survival did not cross the stopping boundary; therefore, the trial will continue until the required number of events are recorded. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (97 [27%] of 356 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 51 [28%] of 185 in the placebo group) and anaemia (49 [14%] vs 24 [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 46 (13%) patients in the atezolizumab group and six (3%) patients in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in two patients (pneumonia in one patient in each group). INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy increased progression-free survival in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma, particularly in those with dMMR carcinomas, suggesting the addition of atezolizumab to standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment in this specific subgroup. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Everolimus plus endocrine therapy beyond CDK4/6 inhibitors progression for HR+ /HER2- advanced breast cancer: a real-world evidence cohort.

PURPOSE: Everolimus in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) was formerly approved as 2nd-line therapy in HR(+)/HER2(-) advanced breast cancer (aBC) patients (pts) progressing during or after a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). Since this approval, the treatment landscape of aBC has changed dramatically, particularly with the arrival of CDK 4-6 inhibitors. Endocrine monotherapy after progression to CDK4/6 inhibitors has shown a limited progression-free survival (PFS), below 3 months. Evidence of the efficacy of everolimus plus ET after CDK4/6 inhibitors is scarce. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of patients with aBC treated with everolimus and ET beyond CDK4/6-i progression compiled from February 2015 to December 2022 in 4 Spanish hospitals was performed. Clinical and demographic data were collected from medical records. The main objective was to estimate the median progression-free survival (mPFS). Everolimus adverse events (AE) were registered. Quantitative variables were summarized with medians; qualitative variables with proportions and the Kaplan-Meier method were used for survival estimates. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-one patients received everolimus plus ET (exemestane: 96, fulvestrant: 54, tamoxifen: 10, unknown: 1) after progressing on a CDK4/6 inhibitor. The median follow-up time was 15 months (interquartile range: 1-56 months). The median age at diagnosis was 49 years (range: 35-90 years). The estimated mPFS was 6.0 months (95%CI 5.3-7.8 months). PFS was longer in patients with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy lasting for > 18 months (8.7 months, 95%CI 6.6-11.3 months), in patients w/o visceral metastases (8.0 months, 95%CI 5.8-10.5 months), and chemotherapy-naïve in the metastatic setting (7.2 months, 95%CI 5.9-8.4 months). CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis cohort of everolimus plus ET in mBC patients previously treated with a CDK4/6 inhibitor suggests a longer estimated mPFS when compared with the mPFS with ET monotherapy obtained from current randomized clinical data. Everolimus plus ET may be considered as a valid control arm in novel clinical trial designs.

Proactive assessment of patient reported outcomes in ovarian cancer studies: a systematic review and call for action in future studies.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to evaluate the proactive or real-time assessment of patient reported outcomes in studies involving patients with ovarian cancer undergoing systemic therapy. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (from database inception until February 2022), and prospective ovarian cancer studies (experimental or observational) that incorporated patient reported outcomes, including quality of life, were included. The primary objective was to assess the ratio of studies incorporating real-time use of patient reported outcomes among those studies performing patient reported outcomes. A secondary objective was to describe the patient reported outcome reporting. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist was followed. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: 3071 articles were screened, with 117 included in the final analysis. Studies were published between 1990 and 2022, and consisted of 35 735 patients (median 140 patients per study; interquartile range 58-415). Median time from patient enrollment initiation to study publication was 7 years (range 1-15). Most studies were experimental/clinical trials (n=93, 79%) followed by observational (n=23, 20%). Therapeutic strategies were assessed in 98% (91/93) of experimental studies, most frequently chemotherapy (n=53, 58%), followed by antiangiogenics or poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (n=8, 9%, each). Patient reported outcomes were the primary endpoint in 7.5% (7/93) and 83% (19/23) of experimental and observational studies, respectively. The ratio of real-time patient reported outcomes assessment/evaluation was 0.9% (1/117). CONCLUSIONS: Completion of patient reported outcome questionnaires involves time and effort for patients with ovarian cancer. Responses to these questionnaires were only assessed in real time in <1% of analyzed studies. Efforts should be made to incorporate proactive assessment of patient reported outcomes to optimize patient care and safety.

Updated progression-free survival and final overall survival with maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab according to clinical risk in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer in the phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial (NCT02477644), adding maintenance olaparib to bevacizumab provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, irrespective of clinical risk. Subsequently, a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival was reported with olaparib plus bevacizumab in the HRD-positive subgroup. We report updated progression-free survival and overall survival by clinical risk and HRD status. METHODS: Patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab received maintenance olaparib (up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (up to 15 months in total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. This post hoc analysis evaluated 5-year progression-free survival and mature overall survival in patients classified by clinical risk and HRD status. RESULTS: Of 806 randomized patients, 74% were higher-risk and 26% were lower-risk. In higher-risk HRD-positive patients, the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival was 0.46 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.34 to 0.61), with 5-year progression-free survival of 35% with olaparib plus bevacizumab versus 15% with bevacizumab alone; and the HR for overall survival was 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.00), with 5-year overall survival of 55% versus 42%, respectively. In lower-risk HRD-positive patients, the HR for progression-free survival was 0.26 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.45), with 5-year progression-free survival of 72% with olaparib plus bevacizumab versus 28% with bevacizumab alone; and the HR for overall survival was 0.31 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.66), with 5-year overall survival of 88% versus 61%, respectively. No benefit was seen in HRD-negative patients regardless of clinical risk. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis indicates that in patients with newly diagnosed advanced HRD-positive ovarian cancer, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab should not be limited to those considered at higher risk of disease progression. Five-year progression-free survival rates support long-term remission and suggest an increased potential for cure with particular benefit suggested in lower-risk HRD-positive patients.

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab monotherapy in the maintenance of patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive advanced ovarian cancer after response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The PAOLA-1 trial confirmed that adding olaparib to bevacizumab significantly increased clinical benefit following response to platinum-based chemotherapy in homologous recombination deficiency-positive ovarian cancer. The objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone as maintenance treatment for patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive advanced ovarian cancer from the Spanish National Health System perspective. METHODS: A lifetime partitioned survival model with four health states (progression-free, post-progression 1, post-progression 2, and death) and monthly cycles was developed. Long-term survival, defined as 60 months, was included as a landmark to extrapolate progression-free survival from PAOLA-1. Weibull distribution was selected as the most accurate survival model for progression-free survival extrapolation. Time to second progression and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric survival models. Mortality was obtained from the overall survival and adjusted by Spanish women mortality rates. Health state utilities and utility decrements for adverse events were included. An expert panel validated data and assumptions. Direct costs (in 2021 euros (€)) were obtained from local sources and included drug acquisition and administration, subsequent therapies, monitoring costs, adverse events, and palliative care. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared with bevacizumab alone, olaparib plus bevacizumab increased QALYs and life-years by 2.39 and 2.77, respectively, at an incremental cost of €58 295.31, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €24 371/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that olaparib plus bevacizumab had a 49.5% and 90.3% probability of being cost-effective versus bevacizumab alone at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25 000 and €60 000 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSION: For patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive advanced ovarian cancer, olaparib plus bevacizumab is a cost-effective maintenance therapy compared with bevacizumab alone in Spain.

Modeling the Prognostic Impact of Circulating Tumor Cells Enumeration in Metastatic Breast Cancer for Clinical Trial Design Simulation.

Despite the strong prognostic stratification of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) enumeration in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), current clinical trials usually do not include a baseline CTCs in their design. This study aimed to generate a classifier for CTCs prognostic simulation in existing datasets for hypothesis generation in patients with MBC. A K-nearest neighbor machine learning algorithm was trained on a pooled dataset comprising 2436 individual MBC patients from the European Pooled Analysis Consortium and the MD Anderson Cancer Center to identify patients likely to have CTCs ≥ 5/7 mL blood (StageIVaggressive vs StageIVindolent). The model had a 65.1% accuracy and its prognostic impact resulted in a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.89 (Simulatedaggressive vs SimulatedindolentP < .001), similar to patients with actual CTCs enumeration (HR 2.76; P < .001). The classifier's performance was then tested on an independent retrospective database comprising 446 consecutive hormone receptor (HR)-positive HER2-negative MBC patients. The model further stratified clinical subgroups usually considered prognostically homogeneous such as patients with bone-only or liver metastases. Bone-only disease classified as Simulatedaggressive had a significantly worse overall survival (OS; P < .0001), while patients with liver metastases classified as Simulatedindolent had a significantly better prognosis (P < .0001). Consistent results were observed for patients who had undergone CTCs enumeration in the pooled population. The differential prognostic impact of endocrine- (ET) and chemotherapy (CT) was explored across the simulated subgroups. No significant differences were observed between ET and CT in the overall population, both in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. In contrast, a statistically significant difference, favoring CT over ET was observed among Simulatedaggressive patients (HR: 0.62; P = .030 and HR: 0.60; P = .037, respectively, for PFS and OS).

Rucaparib in recurrent ovarian cancer: real-world experience from the rucaparib early access programme in Spain - A GEICO study.

BACKGROUND: Rucaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved in Europe as maintenance therapy for recurrent platinum-sensitive (Pt-S) ovarian cancer (OC). The Rucaparib Access Programme (RAP) was designed to provide early access to rucaparib for the above-mentioned indication, as well as for patients with BRCA-mutated Pt-S or platinum-resistant (Pt-R) OC and no therapeutic alternatives. METHODS: In this observational, retrospective study we analysed the efficacy and safety of rucaparib within the RAP in Spain. Hospitals associated with the Spanish Ovarian Cancer Research Group (GEICO) recruited patients with high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer treated with rucaparib 600 mg twice daily as maintenance or treatment (Pt-S/Pt-R) in the RAP. Baseline characteristics, efficacy, and safety data were collected. RESULTS: Between July 2020 and February 2021, 51 patients treated in 22 hospitals in the RAP were included in the study. Eighteen patients with a median of 3 (range, 1-6) prior treatment lines received rucaparib as maintenance; median progression-free survival (PFS) for this group was 9.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2-11.6 months). Among 33 patients (median 5 [range, 1-9] prior treatment lines) who received rucaparib as treatment, 7 and 26 patients had Pt-S and Pt-R disease, respectively. Median PFS was 10.6 months (95% CI, 2.5 months-not reached) in the Pt-S group and 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.1-3.2 months) in the Pt-R group. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 39% of all patients, the most common being anaemia (12% and 15% in the maintenance and treatment groups, respectively). At data cut-off, 5 patients remained on treatment. CONCLUSION: Efficacy results in these heavily pre-treated patients were similar to those from previous trials. The safety profile of rucaparib in real life was predictable and manageable.

Therapeutic targeting of HER2-CB2R heteromers in HER2-positive breast cancer.

Although human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapies have dramatically improved the clinical outcome of HER2-positive breast cancer patients, innate and acquired resistance remains an important clinical challenge. New therapeutic approaches and diagnostic tools for identification, stratification, and treatment of patients at higher risk of resistance and recurrence are therefore warranted. Here, we unveil a mechanism controlling the oncogenic activity of HER2: heteromerization with the cannabinoid receptor CB2R. We show that HER2 physically interacts with CB2R in breast cancer cells, and that the expression of these heteromers correlates with poor patient prognosis. The cannabinoid Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) disrupts HER2-CB2R complexes by selectively binding to CB2R, which leads to (i) the inactivation of HER2 through disruption of HER2-HER2 homodimers, and (ii) the subsequent degradation of HER2 by the proteasome via the E3 ligase c-CBL. This in turn triggers antitumor responses in vitro and in vivo. Selective targeting of CB2R transmembrane region 5 mimicked THC effects. Together, these findings define HER2-CB2R heteromers as new potential targets for antitumor therapies and biomarkers with prognostic value in HER2-positive breast cancer.

Efficacy and safety of tisotumab vedotin in previously treated recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (innovaTV 204/GOG-3023/ENGOT-cx6): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Few effective second-line treatments exist for women with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tisotumab vedotin, a tissue factor-directed antibody-drug conjugate, in this patient population. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study was done across 35 academic centres, hospitals, and community practices in Europe and the USA. The study included patients aged 18 years or older who had recurrent or metastatic squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous cervical cancer; disease progression on or after doublet chemotherapy with bevacizumab (if eligible by local standards); who had received two or fewer previous systemic regimens for recurrent or metastatic disease; had measurable disease based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1); and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients received 2·0 mg/kg (up to a maximum of 200 mg) tisotumab vedotin intravenously once every 3 weeks until disease progression (determined by the independent review committee) or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate based on RECIST (version 1.1), as assessed by the independent review committee. Activity and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of the drug. This study is ongoing with recruitment completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03438396. FINDINGS: 102 patients were enrolled between June 12, 2018, and April 11, 2019; 101 patients received at least one dose of tisotumab vedotin. Median follow-up at the time of analysis was 10·0 months (IQR 6·1-13·0). The confirmed objective response rate was 24% (95% CI 16-33), with seven (7%) complete responses and 17 (17%) partial responses. The most common treatment-related adverse events included alopecia (38 [38%] of 101 patients), epistaxis (30 [30%]), nausea (27 [27%]), conjunctivitis (26 [26%]), fatigue (26 [26%]), and dry eye (23 [23%]). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were reported in 28 (28%) patients and included neutropenia (three [3%] patients), fatigue (two [2%]), ulcerative keratitis (two [2%]), and peripheral neuropathies (two [2%] each with sensory, motor, sensorimotor, and neuropathy peripheral). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 13 (13%) patients, the most common of which included peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy (two [2%] patients) and pyrexia (two [2%]). One death due to septic shock was considered by the investigator to be related to therapy. Three deaths unrelated to treatment were reported, including one case of ileus and two unknown causes. INTERPRETATION: Tisotumab vedotin showed clinically meaningful and durable antitumour activity with a manageable and tolerable safety profile in women with previously treated recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Given the poor prognosis for this patient population and the low activity of current therapies in this setting, tisotumab vedotin, if approved, would represent a new treatment for women with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. FUNDING: Genmab, Seagen, Gynaecologic Oncology Group, and European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups.

FGFR1 amplification or overexpression and hormonal resistance in luminal breast cancer: rationale for a triple blockade of ER, CDK4/6, and FGFR1.

BACKGROUND: FGFR1 amplification, but not overexpression, has been related to adverse prognosis in hormone-positive breast cancer (HRPBC). Whether FGFR1 overexpression and amplification are correlated, what is their distribution among luminal A or B HRPBC, and if there is a potential different prognostic role for amplification and overexpression are currently unknown features. The role of FGFR1 inhibitors in HRPBC is also unclear. METHODS: FGFR1 amplification (FISH) and overexpression (RNAscope) were investigated in a N = 251 HRPBC patients cohort and the METABRIC cohort; effects on survival and FISH-RNAscope concordance were determined. We generated hormonal deprivation resistant (LTED-R) and FGFR1-overexpressing cell line variants of the ER+ MCF7 and T47-D and the ER+, FGFR1-amplified HCC1428 cell lines. The role of ER, CDK4/6, and/or FGFR1 blockade alone or in combinations in Rb phosphorylation, cell cycle, and survival were studied. RESULTS: FGFR1 overexpression and amplification was non-concordant in > 20% of the patients, but both were associated to a similar relapse risk (~ 2.5-fold; P < 0.05). FGFR1 amplification or overexpression occurred regardless of the luminal subtype, but the incidence was higher in luminal B (16.3%) than A (6.6%) tumors; P < 0.05. The Kappa index for overexpression and amplification was 0.69 (P < 0.001). Twenty-four per cent of the patients showed either amplification and/or overexpression of FGFR1, what was associated to a hazard ratio for relapse of 2.6 (95% CI 1.44-4.62, P < 0.001). In vitro, hormonal deprivation led to FGFR1 overexpression. Primary FGFR1 amplification, engineered mRNA overexpression, or LTED-R-acquired FGFR1 overexpression led to resistance against hormonotherapy alone or in combination with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib. Blocking FGFR1 with the kinase-inhibitor rogaratinib led to suppression of Rb phosphorylation, abrogation of the cell cycle, and resistance-reversion in all FGFR1 models. CONCLUSIONS: FGFR1 amplification and overexpression are associated to similar adverse prognosis in hormone-positive breast cancer. Capturing all the patients with adverse prognosis-linked FGFR1 aberrations requires assessing both features. Hormonal deprivation leads to FGFR1 overexpression, and FGFR1 overexpression and/or amplification are associated with resistance to hormonal monotherapy or in combination with palbociclib. Both resistances are reverted with triple ER, CDK4/6, and FGFR1 blockade.

Safety and efficacy of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy in older patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer: an age-specific subgroup analysis of MONARCH 2 and 3 trials.

PURPOSE: Abemaciclib in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) has demonstrated significant efficacy benefits in HR+ , HER2- advanced breast cancer patients in the Phase 3 studies MONARCH 2 (fulvestrant as ET) and MONARCH 3 (letrozole or anastrozole as ET). Here, we report age-specific safety and efficacy outcomes. METHODS: Exploratory analyses of MONARCH 2 and 3 were performed for 3 age groups (<65, 65-74, and ≥75 years). For safety, data were pooled from both studies; for efficacy, a subgroup analysis of PFS was performed for each trial independently. RESULTS: Pooled safety data were available for 1152 patients. Clinically relevant diarrhea (Grade 2/3) was higher in older patients receiving abemaciclib + ET (<65, 39.5%; 65-74, 45.2%; ≥75, 55.4%) versus placebo + ET (<65, 6.8%; 65-74, 4.5%; ≥75, 16.0%). Nausea, decreased appetite, and venous thromboembolic events were all moderately higher in older patients. Neutropenia (Grade ≥ 3) did not differ as a function of age in the abemaciclib + ET arm (<65, 25.8%; 65-74, 27.4%; ≥75, 18.1%). Dose adjustments and discontinuation rates were slightly higher in older patients. Abemaciclib + ET improved PFS compared with placebo + ET independent of patient age, with no significant difference in abemaciclib treatment effect between the 3 age groups (MONARCH 2: interaction p-value, 0.695; MONARCH 3: interaction p-value, 0.634). Estimated hazard ratios ranged from 0.523-0.633 (MONARCH 2) and 0.480-0.635 (MONARCH 3). CONCLUSIONS: While higher rates of adverse events were reported in older patients, they were manageable with dose adjustments and concomitant medication. Importantly, a consistent efficacy benefit was observed across all age groups. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02107703 (first posted April 8, 2014) and NCT02246621 (first posted September 23, 2014).

A multivariable prognostic score to guide systemic therapy in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer: a retrospective study with an external evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer, escalation or de-escalation of systemic therapy is a controversial topic. As an aid to treatment decisions, we aimed to develop a prognostic assay that integrates multiple data types for predicting survival outcome in patients with newly diagnosed HER2-positive breast cancer. METHODS: We derived a combined prognostic model using retrospective clinical-pathological data on stromal tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes, PAM50 subtypes, and expression of 55 genes obtained from patients who participated in the Short-HER phase 3 trial. The trial enrolled patients with newly diagnosed, node-positive, HER2-positive breast cancer or, if node negative, with at least one risk factor (ie, tumour size >2 cm, histological grade 3, lymphovascular invasion, Ki67 >20%, age ≤35 years, or hormone receptor negativity), and randomly assigned them to adjuvant anthracycline plus taxane-based combinations with either 9 weeks or 1 year of trastuzumab. Trastuzumab was administered intravenously every 3 weeks (8 mg/kg loading dose at first cycle, and 6 mg/kg thereafter) for 18 doses or weekly (4 mg/kg loading dose in the first week, and 2 mg/kg thereafter) for 9 weeks, starting concomitantly with the first taxane dose. Median follow-up was 91·4 months (IQR 75·1-105·6). The primary objective of our study was to derive and evaluate a combined prognostic score associated with distant metastasis-free survival (the time between randomisation and distant recurrence or death before recurrence), an exploratory endpoint in Short-HER. Patient samples in the training dataset were split into a training set (n=290) and a testing set (n=145), balancing for event and treatment group. The training set was further stratified into 100 iterations of Monte-Carlo cross validation (MCCV). Cox proportional hazard models were fit to MCCV training samples using Elastic-Net. A maximum of 92 features were assessed. The final prognostic model was evaluated in an independent combined dataset of 267 patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer treated with different neoadjuvant and adjuvant anti-HER2-based combinations and from four other studies (PAMELA, CHER-LOB, Hospital Clinic, and Padova) with disease-free survival outcome data. FINDINGS: From Short-HER, data from 435 (35%) of 1254 patients for tumour size (T1 vs rest), nodal status (N0 vs rest), number of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (continuous variable), subtype (HER2-enriched and basal-like vs rest), and 13 genes composed the final model (named HER2DX). HER2DX was significantly associated with distant metastasis-free survival as a continuous variable (p<0·0001). HER2DX median score for quartiles 1-2 was identified as the cutoff to identify low-risk patients; and the score that distinguished quartile 3 from quartile 4 was the cutoff to distinguish medium-risk and high-risk populations. The 5-year distant metastasis-free survival of the low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk populations were 98·1% (95% CI 96·3-99·9), 88·9% (83·2-95·0), and 73·9% (66·0-82·7), respectively (low-risk vs high-risk hazard ratio [HR] 0·04, 95% CI 0·0-0·1, p<0·0001). In the evaluation cohort, HER2DX was significantly associated with disease-free survival as a continuous variable (HR 2·77, 95% CI 1·4-5·6, p=0·0040) and as group categories (low-risk vs high-risk HR 0·27, 0·1-0·7, p=0·005). 5-year disease-free survival in the HER2DX low-risk group was 93·5% (89·0-98·3%) and in the high-risk group was 81·1% (71·5-92·1). INTERPRETATION: The HER2DX combined prognostic score identifies patients with early-stage, HER2-positive breast cancer who might be candidates for escalated or de-escalated systemic treatment. Future clinical validation of HER2DX seems warranted to establish its use in different scenarios, especially in the neoadjuvant setting. FUNDING: Instituto Salud Carlos III, Save the Mama, Pas a Pas, Fundación Científica, Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer, Fundación SEOM, National Institutes of Health, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the Veneto Institute of Oncology, and Italian Association for Cancer Research.

Immuno-priming durvalumab with bevacizumab in HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: a pilot clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical research suggests that the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in breast cancer can be enhanced by combining them with antiangiogenics, particularly in a sequential fashion. We sought to explore the efficacy and biomarkers of combining the anti-PD-L1 durvalumab plus the antiangiogenic bevacizumab after bevacizumab monotherapy for advanced HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS: Patients had advanced HER2-negative disease that progressed while receiving single-agent bevacizumab maintenance as a part of a previous chemotherapy plus bevacizumab regimen. Treatment consisted of bi-weekly durvalumab plus bevacizumab (10 mg/kg each i.v.). Peripheral-blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were obtained before the first durvalumab dose and every 4 weeks and immunophenotyped by flow-cytometry. A fresh pre-durvalumab tumor biopsy was obtained; gene-expression studies and immunohistochemical staining to assess vascular normalization and characterize the immune infiltrate were conducted. Patients were classified as "non-progressors" if they had clinical benefit (SD/PR/CR) at 4 months. The co-primary endpoints were the changes in the percentage T cell subpopulations in PBMCs in progressors versus non-progressors, and PFS/OS time. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were accrued. Median PFS and OS were 3.5 and 11 months; a trend for a longer OS was detected for the hormone-positive subset (19.8 versus 7.4 months in triple-negatives; P = 0.11). Clinical benefit rate at 2 and 4 months was 60% and 44%, respectively, without significant differences between hormone-positive and triple-negative (P = 0.73). Non-progressors' tumors displayed vascular normalization features as a result of previous bevacizumab, compared with generally abnormal patterns observed in progressors. Non-progressors also showed increased T-effector and T-memory signatures and decreased TREG signatures in gene expression studies in baseline-post-bevacizumab-tumors compared with progressors. Notably, analysis of PBMC populations before durvalumab treatment was concordant with the findings in tumor samples and showed a decreased percentage of circulating TREGs in non-progressors. CONCLUSIONS: This study reporting on sequential bevacizumab+durvalumab in breast cancer showed encouraging activity in a heavily pre-treated cohort. The correlative studies agree with the preclinical rationale supporting an immunopriming effect exerted by antiangiogenic treatment, probably by reducing TREGs cells both systemically and in tumor tissue. The magnitude of this benefit should be addressed in a randomized setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (www.clinicaltrials.gov): NCT02802098 . Registered on June 16, 2020.

Abemaciclib, a CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitor for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

The addition of CDK4 and 6 inhibitors (abemaciclib, palbociclib or ribociclib) to endocrine therapy, as first-line treatment or following progression after initial endocrine therapy, significantly increased progression-free survival, objective response rates and in some trials overall survival, compared with endocrine therapy alone in HR+ and HER2- breast metastatic breast cancer. These CDK4 and 6 inhibitors are now approved in this context and have become a new standard of care. A hypothesis-generating exploratory analysis suggested that the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy showed the largest effects in subgroups of women with indicators of poor prognosis, although these data require confirmation. This review provides updated clinical trial data for all three drugs in metastatic breast cancer, focusing on abemaciclib, the most recently approved agent.

A Pilot, Phase II, Randomized, Open-Label Clinical Trial Comparing the Neurotoxicity of Three Dose Regimens of Nab-Paclitaxel to That of Solvent-Based Paclitaxel as the First-Line Treatment for Patients with Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Type 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to characterize the neurotoxicity of three different regimens of nab-paclitaxel compared with a standard regimen of solvent-based (sb) paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer based on the Total Neurotoxicity Score (TNS), a tool specifically developed to assess chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label study testing 4-week cycles of 80 mg/m2 sb-paclitaxel (PACL80/w) on days 1, 8, and 15; 100 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 (NAB100/w); 150 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 (NAB150/w); and 150 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel on days 1 and 15 (NAB150/2w). In addition to the TNS, neuropathy was assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE). Tumor response and quality of life were also evaluated. RESULTS: Neurotoxicity, as evaluated by the TNS, did not significantly differ between the sb-paclitaxel group and any of the nab-paclitaxel groups. The frequency of (any grade) polyneuropathy, as measured by the NCI-CTCAE, was lower in the PACL80/w (n = 7, 50%) and NAB150/2w (n = 10, 62.5%) groups than in the NAB100/w (n = 13, 81.3%) or NAB150/w (n = 11, 78.6%) group. Although the differences were not statistically significant, compared with the other groups, in the NAB150/w group, the time to occurrence of grade ≥2 polyneuropathy was shorter, and the median time to recovery from grade ≥2 polyneuropathy was longer. Dose delays and reductions due to neurotoxicity and impact of neurotoxicity on the patients' experience of symptoms and functional limitations was greater with NAB150/w. Among the seven polymorphisms selected for genotyping, the variant alleles of EPHA5-rs7349683, EPHA6-rs301927, and EPHA8-rs209709 were associated with an increased risk of paclitaxel-induced neuropathy. CONCLUSION: The results of this exploratory study showed that, regardless of the dose, nab-paclitaxel did not differ from sb-paclitaxel in terms of neurotoxicity as evaluated with the TNS. However, results from NCI-CTCAE, dose delays and reductions, and functional tools consistently indicate that NAB150/w regimen is associated with a greater risk of chemotherapy-induced neuropathy. Thus, our results question the superiority of the TNS over NCI-CTCAE for evaluating chemotherapy-induced neuropathy and guiding treatment decisions in this context. The selection of the nab-paclitaxel regimen should be individualized based on the clinical context and potentially supported by pharmacogenetic analysis. Registry: EudraCT, 2012-002361-36; NCT01763710 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results of this study call into question the superiority of the Total Neurotoxicity Score over the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events for evaluating chemotherapy-induced neuropathy and guiding treatment decisions in this context and suggest that a regimen of 150 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel administered on days 1, 8, and 15 is associated with a greater risk of chemotherapy-induced neuropathy and hematological toxicity compared with other lower-dose nab-paclitaxel regimens or a standard regimen of solvent-based paclitaxel. The selection of the nab-paclitaxel regimen should be individualized based on the clinical context and could benefit from pharmacogenetics analysis.

Safety of eribulin as third-line chemotherapy in HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer pre-treated with taxanes and anthracycline: OnSITE study.

Eribulin is active and safe in heavily pre-treated metastatic breast cancer patients. Few safety data have been published in third line. We aimed to report the specific safety profile on third line beyond taxanes and anthracyclines in advanced breast cancer (ABC). A multicenter phase II, prospective study was conducted in anthracyclines and taxanes pre-treated HER2-negative ABC, programmed to receive eribulin as third-line chemotherapy. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed and classified according to CTCAE. In addition, efficacy, in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and the dynamics of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) during treatment were assessed. 59 patients fulfilled the criteria. All but one showed AEs with a cumulative number of 598 AEs. The most frequent grade 3/4 drug-related AEs were neutropenia (1.7%), febrile neutropenia (0.5%), leukopenia (0.5%), alopecia (0.5%), asthenia (0.3%), elevated gamma glutamyl transferase levels (0.2%), and respiratory tract infection (0.2%). Median PFS was 4 months (95% CI 3.1-5.9) and median OS was 13.6 months (11.8-not reached). The mean number of CTCs in peripheral blood was significantly reduced from baseline to cycle 2 (16.8 vs 5.4 CTCs; P < 0.001). Median OS was significantly longer in <5 baseline CTC patients compared to ≥5 baseline CTC patients (13.1 months [95% CI: 11.8-not reached] vs 12.5 months [95% CI: 7.6-not reached]; P = 0.045). A significant correlation (P = 0.0129) was observed between CTC levels at cycle 2 and death when CTCs were analyzed using cox regression. Eribulin chemotherapy is effective and safe as third line in advanced HER2-negative breast cancer. CTC levels correlate with overall survival.

Balixafortide plus eribulin in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a phase 1, single-arm, dose-escalation trial.

BACKGROUND: The C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4)-stromal cell-derived factor-1α (SDF-1α) axis regulates function and trafficking of immune cells and the tumour microenvironment. CXCR4 antagonists have been shown to enhance the activity of different anticancer treatments in preclinical models. We assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary phase 1 activity of the CXCR4 antagonist, balixafortide, in combination with eribulin chemotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This single-arm, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial enrolled patients at 11 sites in Spain and the USA. Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older who had histologically confirmed HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, evidence of tumour cell CXCR4 expression, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had previously received between one and three chemotherapy regimens for metastatic breast cancer, and at least one endocrine therapy if they had hormone receptor-positive disease, unless they were considered unsuitable for endocrine therapy. A standard 3+3 dose-escalation design was used, followed by an expanded cohort at the established maximum tolerated dose or highest dose if no dose-limiting toxicity was observed for the combination. After a treatment-related fatal adverse event in the first cohort who received 21-day cycles of treatment with eribulin and balixafortide, a protocol amendment modified the study design to be done in two parts. Patients enrolled to part 1 received an initial 28-day run-in cycle, with some cohorts receiving de-escalated doses of eribulin plus balixafortide to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of the combination. The evaluation of part 1 did not confirm any dose-limiting toxicities or eribulin-balixafortide interactions, and therefore part 2 started enrolling patients to receive eribulin at the originally planned dose of 1·4 mg/m2 on days 2 and 9 of a 21-day cycle and balixafortide from a starting dose of 2 mg/kg with dose increments of 0·5 or 1 mg/kg on days 1-3 and 8-10 of the 21-day cycle. Both drugs were administered as intravenous infusions. All patients were to receive treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events, and the establishment of a maximum tolerated dose or recommended phase 2 dose, and pharmacokinetic parameters. Safety analysis was done in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Analysis of antitumour activity was done in all patients who received at least one full cycle of study treatment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01837095, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Jan 28, 2014, and Oct 4, 2016, 56 patients were enrolled into the trial. No dose-limiting toxicities were confirmed and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The highest dose was established as eribulin 1·4 mg/m2 on days 2 and 9, and balixafortide 5·5 mg/kg on days 1-3 and 8-10 of the 21-day cycle. Objective responses (all partial responses) were observed in 16 (30%; 95% CI 18-44) of 54 patients who were evaluable for antitumour activity. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were fatigue (44 [79%] of 56 patients), neutropenia (32 [57%]), infusion-related reactions (27 [48%]), alopecia (26 [46%]), constipation (26 [46%]), and nausea (25 [45%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 21 (38%) of 56 patients, including febrile neutropenia in five (9%) of 56 patients, neutrophil count decrease in two (4%) patients, constipation in two (4%) patients, pneumonia in two (4%) patients, and urinary tract infection in three (5%) patients. Two (4%) of 56 patients died while receiving study treatment; one from septic shock and one from pneumonia. INTERPRETATION: The safety and tolerability of balixafortide plus eribulin seems to be similar to that of eribulin or balixafortide monotherapy, and the preliminary activity of the combination seems promising in patients with HER-negative metastatic breast cancer. The results suggest that balixafortide plus eribulin has potential to provide a new therapeutic option in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer and warrants further investigation in randomised trials. FUNDING: Polyphor.