A phase II randomized trial of cobimetinib plus chemotherapy, with or without atezolizumab, as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (COLET): primary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to standard chemotherapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is associated with upregulation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. Cobimetinib, an MAPK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (MEK) inhibitor, may increase sensitivity to taxanes and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors. COLET is a three-cohort phase II study evaluating first-line cobimetinib plus chemotherapy, with or without atezolizumab, in patients with locally advanced or mTNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were ≥18 years with locally advanced or mTNBC. Following a safety run-in, patients in cohort I were randomized 1:1 to cobimetinib (60 mg, D3-D23 of each 28-day cycle) or placebo, plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2, D1, 8, and 15). Additional patients were randomized (1:1) to cohort II or III to receive cobimetinib plus atezolizumab (840 mg, D1 and D15) and either paclitaxel (cohort II) or nab-paclitaxel [cohort III (100 mg/m2, D1, D8, and D15)]. Primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) (cohort I) and confirmed objective response rate (ORR) (cohorts II/III). Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: In the expansion stages, median PFS was 5.5 months for cobimetinib/paclitaxel versus 3.8 months for placebo/paclitaxel in cohort I [hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.24; P = 0.25]. In cohort I, ORR was 38.3% (95% CI 24.40-52.20) for cobimetinib/paclitaxel and 20.9% (95% CI 8.77-33.09) for placebo/paclitaxel; ORRs in cohorts II and III were 34.4% (95% CI 18.57-53.19) and 29.0% (95% CI 14.22-48.04), respectively. Diarrhea was the most common grade ≥3 adverse events across all cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Cobimetinib added to paclitaxel did not lead to a statistically significant increase in PFS or ORR, although a nonsignificant trend toward a numerical increase was observed. Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab and a taxane did not appear to increase ORR. This demonstrates the potential activity of a combinatorial MEK inhibitor, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in this difficult-to-treat population.

Efficacy and safety of CT-P6 versus reference trastuzumab in HER2-positive early breast cancer: updated results of a randomised phase 3 trial.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant CT-P6, a trastuzumab biosimilar, demonstrated equivalent efficacy to reference trastuzumab in a phase 3 trial of HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer (EBC) (NCT02162667). We report post hoc analyses evaluating pathological complete response (pCR) and breast pCR alongside additional efficacy and safety measures. METHODS: Following neoadjuvant treatment and surgery, patients received adjuvant CT-P6 or trastuzumab (6 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for ≤ 1 year. RESULTS: In total, 271 and 278 patients received CT-P6 and trastuzumab, respectively. pCR and breast pCR rates were comparable between treatment groups regardless of age, region, or clinical stage. Overall, 47.6% (CT-P6) and 52.2% (trastuzumab) of patients experienced study drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including 17 patients reporting heart failure (CT-P6: 10; trastuzumab: 7). Two CT-P6 and three trastuzumab patients discontinued adjuvant treatment due to TEAEs. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant CT-P6 demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to trastuzumab at 1 year in patients with HER2-positive EBC, supporting CT-P6 and trastuzumab comparability.

ESMO International Consortium Study on the availability, out-of-pocket costs and accessibility of antineoplastic medicines in countries outside of Europe.

BACKGROUND: The availability and affordability of safe, effective, high-quality, affordable anticancer therapies are a core requirement for effective national cancer control plans. METHOD: Online survey based on a previously validated approach. The aims of the study were to evaluate (i) the availability on national formulary of licensed antineoplastic medicines across the globe, (ii) patient out-of-pocket costs for the medications, (iii) the actual availability of the medication for a patient with a valid prescription, (iv) information relating to possible factors adversely impacting the availability of antineoplastic agents and (v) the impact of the country's level of economic development on these parameters. A total of 304 field reporters from 97 countries were invited to participate. The preliminary set of data was posted on the ESMO website for open peer review and amendments have been incorporated into the final report. RESULTS: Surveys were submitted by 135 reporters from 63 countries and additional peer-review data were submitted by 54 reporters from 19 countries. There are substantial differences in the formulary availability, out-of-pocket costs and actual availability for many anticancer medicines. The most substantial issues are in lower-middle- and low-income countries. Even among medications on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) the discrepancies are profound and these relate to high out-of-pocket costs (in low-middle-income countries 32.0% of EML medicines are available only at full cost and 5.2% are not available at all, and for low-income countries, the corresponding figures are even worse at 57.7% and 8.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide global variation in formulary availability, out-of-pocket expenditures and actual availability for most licensed anticancer medicines. Low- and low-middle-income countries have significant lack of availability and high out-of-pocket expenditures for cancer medicines on the WHO EML, with much less availability of new, more expensive targeted agents compared with high-income countries.

ESMO European Consortium Study on the availability, out-of-pocket costs and accessibility of antineoplastic medicines in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The management of cancer is predicated on the availability and affordability of anticancer therapies, which may be either curative or noncurative. AIM: The primary aims of the study were to evaluate (i) the formulary availability of licensed antineoplastic medicines across Europe; (ii) patient out-of-pocket costs for the medications and (iii) the actual availability of the medication for a patient with a valid prescription. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey tool was based on the previous ESMO studies that addressed the availability and accessibility of opioids for the management of cancer pain. A total of 185 field reporters from 49 countries were invited to participate. The preliminary set of data was posted on the ESMO website for open peer-review, and amendments have been incorporated into the final report. RESULTS: There are substantial differences in the formulary availability, out-of-pocket costs and actual availability for many anticancer medicines. The most profound lack of availability is in countries with lower levels of economic development, particularly in Eastern Europe, and these are largely related to the cost of targeted agents approved in the last 10 years. Discrepancies are less profound among medications on the WHO model essential medicines list (EML) for cancer and in curative settings. However, medicine shortages also affect WHO EML medicines, with relevant therapeutic implications for many patients. CONCLUSIONS: The cost and affordability of anticancer treatments with recent market approval is the major factor contributing to inequity of access to anticancer medications. This is especially true with regards to new medications used in the management of EGFR- or ALK-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer, metastatic melanoma, metastatic renal cell cancer, RAS/RAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, HER2 overexpressed breast cancer and castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer.

Hurdles and delays in access to anti-cancer drugs in Europe.

Demographic changes in the world population will cause a significant increase in the number of new cases of cancer. To handle this challenge, societies will need to adapt how they approach cancer prevention and treatment, with changes to the development and uptake of innovative anticancer drugs playing an important role. However, there are obstacles to implementing innovative drugs in clinical practice. Prior to being incorporated into daily practice, the drug must obtain regulatory and reimbursement approval, succeed in changing the prescription habits of physicians, and ultimately gain the compliance of individual patients. Developing an anticancer drug and bringing it into clinical practice is, therefore, a lengthy and complex process involving multiple partners in several areas. To optimize patient treatment and increase the likelihood of implementing health innovation, it is essential to have an overview of the full process. This review aims to describe the process and discuss the hurdles arising at each step.

Selecting first-line bevacizumab-containing therapy for advanced breast cancer: TURANDOT risk factor analyses.

BACKGROUND: The randomised phase III TURANDOT trial compared first-line bevacizumab-paclitaxel (BEV-PAC) vs bevacizumab-capecitabine (BEV-CAP) in HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). The interim analysis revealed no difference in overall survival (OS; primary end point) between treatment arms; however, progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate were significantly superior with BEV-PAC. We sought to identify patient populations that may be most appropriately treated with one or other regimen. METHODS: Patients with HER2-negative LR/mBC who had received no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomised to either BEV-PAC (bevacizumab 10 mg kg(-1) days 1 and 15 plus paclitaxel 90 mg m(-2) days 1, 8 and 15 q4w) or BEV-CAP (bevacizumab 15 mg kg(-1) day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg m(-2) bid days 1-14 q3w). The study population was categorised into three cohorts: triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), high-risk hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and low-risk HR+. High- and low-risk HR+ were defined, respectively, as having ⩾2 vs ⩽1 of the following four risk factors: disease-free interval ⩽24 months; visceral metastases; prior (neo)adjuvant anthracycline and/or taxane; and metastases in ⩾3 organs. RESULTS: The treatment effect on OS differed between cohorts. Non-significant OS trends favoured BEV-PAC in the TNBC cohort and BEV-CAP in the low-risk HR+ cohort. In all three cohorts, there was a non-significant PFS trend favouring BEV-PAC. Grade ⩾3 adverse events were consistently less common with BEV-CAP. CONCLUSIONS: A simple risk factor index may help in selecting bevacizumab-containing regimens, balancing outcome, safety profile and patient preference. Final OS results are expected in 2015 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00600340).

Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab in combination with standard neoadjuvant anthracycline-containing and anthracycline-free chemotherapy regimens in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer: a randomized phase II cardiac safety study (TRYPHAENA).

BACKGROUND: Pertuzumab (P) combined with trastuzumab (H)-based chemotherapy improves efficacy in early and advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. We assessed the tolerability, with particular focus on cardiac safety, of H and P with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label phase II study, patients with operable, locally advanced, or inflammatory breast cancer were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to receive six neoadjuvant cycles q3w (Arm A: 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide [FEC] + H + P ×3 → docetaxel [T] + H + P ×3; Arm B: FEC ×3 → T + H + P ×3; Arm C: T + carboplatin + H [TCH]+P ×6). pCR was assessed at surgery and adjuvant therapy given to complete 1 year of H. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-five patients were randomized. During neoadjuvant treatment, two patients (2.7%; Arm B) experienced symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and 11 patients (Arm A: 4 [5.6%]; Arm B: 4 [5.3%]; Arm C: 3 [3.9%]) had declines in left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥10% points from baseline to <50%. Diarrhea was the most common adverse event. pCR (ypT0/is) was reported for 61.6% (Arm A), 57.3% (Arm B), and 66.2% (Arm C) of patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of P with H and standard chemotherapy resulted in low rates of symptomatic LVSD.

XM02 is superior to placebo and equivalent to Neupogen in reducing the duration of severe neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in cycle 1 in breast cancer patients receiving docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) such as Filgrastim are used to treat chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. We investigated a new G-CSF, XM02, and compared it to Neupogen after myelotoxic chemotherapy in breast cancer (BC) patients. METHODS: A total of 348 patients with BC receiving docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy were randomised to treatment with daily injections (subcutaneous 5 microg/kg/day) for at least 5 days and a maximum of 14 days in each cycle of XM02 (n = 140), Neupogen (n = 136) or placebo (n = 72). The primary endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1. RESULTS: The mean DSN in cycle 1 was 1.1, 1.1, and 3.9 days in the XM02, Neupogen, and placebo group, respectively. Superiority of XM02 over placebo and equivalence of XM02 with Neupogen could be demonstrated. Toxicities were similar between XM02 and Neupogen. CONCLUSION: XM02 was superior to placebo and equivalent to Neupogen in reducing DSN after myelotoxic chemotherapy.