ESMO expert consensus statements (ECS) on the definition, diagnosis, and management of HER2-low breast cancer.

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low breast cancer has recently emerged as a targetable subset of breast tumors, based on the evidence from clinical trials of novel anti-HER2 antibody-drug conjugates. This evolution has raised several biological and clinical questions, warranting the establishment of consensus to optimally treat patients with HER2-low breast tumors. Between 2022 and 2023, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process focused on HER2-low breast cancer. The consensus included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of breast cancer from nine different countries. The aim of the consensus was to develop statements on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline. The main topics identified for discussion were (i) biology of HER2-low breast cancer; (ii) pathologic diagnosis of HER2-low breast cancer; (iii) clinical management of HER2-low metastatic breast cancer; and (iv) clinical trial design for HER2-low breast cancer. The expert panel was divided into four working groups to address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above. A review of the relevant scientific literature was conducted in advance. Consensus statements were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This article presents the developed statements, including findings from the expert panel discussions, expert opinion, and a summary of evidence supporting each statement.

Veliparib monotherapy following carboplatin/paclitaxel plus veliparib combination therapy in patients with germline BRCA-associated advanced breast cancer: results of exploratory analyses from the phase III BROCADE3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the BROCADE3 trial, addition of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, veliparib, to carboplatin/paclitaxel improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.57-0.88; P = 0.002) in patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, germline BRCA1/2-mutated breast cancer. A subset of patients discontinued both carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression and continued on veliparib/placebo maintenance monotherapy until progression. Analyses in this patient subgroup are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel or placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel. Veliparib (120 mg twice daily) or placebo was given on days -2 to 5, carboplatin (area under the curve 6 mg/ml) on day 1, and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 21-day cycles. Patients who discontinued both carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression received blinded study drug monotherapy at an increased dose of 300-400 mg twice daily continuously. PFS was the primary endpoint. Exploratory analyses were carried out in the subgroup of patients who received blinded study drug as monotherapy. A time-varying Cox model including data from all patients was also used to evaluate treatment effect in the combination and monotherapy phases. RESULTS: A total of 136 of 337 patients randomized to veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel and 58/172 patients randomized to placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel discontinued both carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression and continued on blinded veliparib or placebo monotherapy. In this blinded monotherapy subgroup, investigator-assessed median PFS from randomization was 25.7 months with veliparib versus 14.6 months with placebo. Hazard ratios from a time-varying Cox model favored veliparib during both combination therapy and monotherapy. Any-grade adverse events occurring in the monotherapy phase were primarily gastrointestinal. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia and anemia (4% each with veliparib; 5% and 2%, respectively, with placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Veliparib maintenance monotherapy had a tolerable safety profile and may extend PFS following combination chemotherapy.

First-line atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel for unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: IMpassion130 final overall survival analysis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (A + nP) for first-line treatment of unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer expressing programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) on tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC), based on IMpassion130. We report the final overall survival (OS) and safety of that study as per the prespecified analysis plan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to nP 100 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) with atezolizumab 840 mg (A + nP) or placebo (P + nP; days 1 and 15), until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival [intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1 IC-positive populations] and OS (tested hierarchically in the ITT population and, if significant, in the PD-L1 IC-positive population). RESULTS: Each arm comprised 451 patients; 666 (73.8%) had died by the final OS analysis cut-off (median follow-up, 18.8 months; interquartile range, 8.9-34.7 months). Median OS in the ITT population was 21.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 19.0-23.4 months] with A + nP, and 18.7 months (95% CI, 16.9-20.8 months) with P + nP [stratified hazard ratio (HR), 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.02; P = 0.077]. Exploratory analysis in the PD-L1 IC-positive population showed a median OS of 25.4 months (95% CI, 19.6-30.7 months) with A + nP (n = 185) and 17.9 months (95% CI, 13.6-20.3 months) with P + nP (n = 184; stratified HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86). Safety outcomes were consistent with previous analyses and the known toxicity profiles of each agent. Immune-mediated adverse events of special interest were reported in 58.7% and 41.6% of patients treated with A + nP and P + nP, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although the OS benefit in the ITT population was not statistically significant, precluding formal testing, clinically meaningful OS benefit was observed with A + nP in PD-L1 IC-positive patients, consistent with prior interim analyses. This combination remained safe and tolerable with longer follow-up.

Phase III randomized study of taselisib or placebo with fulvestrant in estrogen receptor-positive, PIK3CA-mutant, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer: the SANDPIPER trial.

BACKGROUND: The phase III SANDPIPER study assessed taselisib (GDC-0032), a potent, selective PI3K inhibitor, plus fulvestrant in estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, PIK3CA-mutant locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with disease recurrence/progression during/after an aromatase inhibitor were randomized 2 : 1 to receive taselisib (4 mg; taselisib arm) or placebo (placebo arm) plus fulvestrant (500 mg). Stratification factors were visceral disease, endocrine sensitivity, and geographic region. Patients with PIK3CA-mutant tumors (central cobas® PIK3CA Mutation Test) were randomized separately from those without detectable mutations. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (INV-PFS) in patients with PIK3CA-mutant tumors. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, overall survival, clinical benefit rate, duration of objective response, PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR-PFS), safety, and time to deterioration in health-related quality of life. RESULTS: The PIK3CA-mutant intention-to-treat population comprised 516 patients (placebo arm: n = 176; taselisib arm: n = 340). INV-PFS was significantly improved in the taselisib {7.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.26-9.07]} versus placebo arm (5.4 months [95% CI, 3.68-7.29]) (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.89; P = 0.0037) and confirmed by BICR-PFS (HR 0.66). Secondary endpoints, including objective response rate, clinical benefit rate, and duration of objective response, showed consistent improvements in the taselisib arm. Safety was assessed in all randomized patients who received at least one dose of taselisib/placebo or fulvestrant regardless of PIK3CA-mutation status (n = 629). Serious adverse events were lower in the placebo versus taselisib arm (8.9% versus 32.0%). There were more discontinuations (placebo arm: 2.3%; taselisib arm: 16.8%) and dose reductions (placebo arm: 2.3%; taselisib arm: 36.5%) in the taselisib arm. CONCLUSION: SANDPIPER met its primary endpoint; however, the combination of taselisib plus fulvestrant has no clinical utility given its safety profile and modest clinical benefit.

Biomarker analyses in the phase III ASCENT study of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The pivotal phase III ASCENT trial demonstrated improved survival outcomes associated with sacituzumab govitecan (SG), an anti-trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (anti-Trop-2) antibody-drug conjugate linked with the topoisomerase-inhibitor SN-38, over single-agent chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). This prespecified, exploratory biomarker analysis from the ASCENT trial evaluates the association between tumor Trop-2 expression and germline BRCA1/2 mutation status with clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mTNBC refractory to or progressing after two or more prior chemotherapies, with one or more in the metastatic setting, were randomized to receive SG (10 mg/kg intravenously days 1 and 8, every 21 days) or TPC (capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Biopsy or surgical specimens were collected at study entry to determine Trop-2 expression level using a validated immunohistochemistry assay and histochemical scoring. Germline BRCA1/2 mutation status was collected at baseline. RESULTS: Of 468 assessable patients, 290 had Trop-2 expression data [64% (n = 151 SG) versus 60% (n = 139 TPC)] and 292 had known BRCA1/2 mutation status [63% (n = 149 SG) versus 61% (n = 143 TPC)]. Median progression-free survival in SG- versus TPC-treated patients was 6.9, 5.6, and 2.7 months versus 2.5, 2.2, and 1.6 months for high, medium, and low Trop-2 expression, respectively. Median overall survival (14.2, 14.9, and 9.3 months versus 6.9, 6.9, and 7.6 months) and objective response rates (44%, 38%, and 22% versus 1%, 11%, and 6%) were numerically higher with SG versus TPC in patients with high, medium, and low Trop-2 expression, respectively. Efficacy outcomes were numerically higher with SG versus TPC in patients with and without germline BRCA1/2 mutations. CONCLUSIONS: SG benefits patients with previously treated mTNBC expressing high/medium Trop-2 compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy and regardless of germline BRCA1/2 mutation status. The small number of patients with low Trop-2 expression precludes definitive conclusions on the benefit of SG in this subgroup.

Patient-reported outcomes from the phase III IMpassion130 trial of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is incurable. A key treatment goal is providing palliation while maintaining patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). IMpassion130 demonstrated progression-free survival benefit with atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel (A + nP) versus placebo + nab-paclitaxel (Pl + nP) in first-line treatment of mTNBC patients with programmed death-ligand 1 positive (PD-L1+) tumors. We report data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which capture patient perspectives of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated advanced or mTNBC received atezolizumab (840 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks in combination with nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle until progression or intolerance. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its Breast Cancer Module (QLQ-BR23) on day 1 of each cycle, at end of treatment, and every 4 weeks during 1 year of follow-up. Time-to-deterioration (TTD) in HRQoL (first ≥10-point decrease from baseline lasting two cycles) was a secondary end point. Exploratory end points included TTD in functioning and mean and mean change from baseline scores in HRQoL, functioning, and disease- and treatment-related symptoms. RESULTS: Baseline completion of PROs was 92% (QLQ-C30) and 89% (QLQ-BR23) and remained >80% through cycle 20 in intent-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1+ patients. No differences between arms in median TTD in PD-L1+ patients were observed for HRQoL {hazard ratio (HR) 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.28]} or physical [HR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76-1.37)] or role [HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.57-1.04)] functioning. Mean baseline scores for A + nP versus Pl + nP for HRQoL (67.5 versus 65.0) and physical (82.8 versus 79.4) and role (73.7 versus 71.7) functioning were comparable between arms and throughout the course of treatment, with no clinically meaningful (≥10 point) changes from baseline until patients discontinued treatment. No differences in clinically meaningful worsening in treatment symptoms (fatigue, diarrhea, or nausea/vomiting) were observed between arms. Results in ITT patients were similar. CONCLUSIONS: A + nP as first-line treatment for mTNBC delayed progression without compromising patients' day-to-day functioning or HRQoL or worsening treatment symptoms. CLINICALTRIAL. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02425891.

Long-term survival in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer treated with first-line trastuzumab: results from the french real-life curie database.

BACKGROUND: Outcome of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients has improved since the use of trastuzumab. However, most HER2-positive MBC patients will progress within 1 year of trastuzumab-based therapy. Only limited data are available concerning long-term responders. METHODS: The primary objective of this study was to compare overall survival (OS) of HER2+ MBC patients with long-term response to first-line trastuzumab with overall survival of those with non-long-term response, based on two institutional databases: the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics program and the Breast Database. Long-term responders (LTR) were defined as patients with non-progressive disease for ≥ 2 years on first-line trastuzumab. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), and predictive factors for LTR status. RESULTS: From 2004 to 2014, 422 HER2-positive MBC patients received first-line trastuzumab. With a median follow-up of 48 months, median OS and PFS were 63 months (CI95%, 50-71), and 18 months (CI95%, 15-21) respectively. In 111 patients (26.3%) classified as LTR, median OS was 110 months (CI95%, 95-not reached) versus 56 months in non-LTR patients (CI95%, 47-68). In multivariate logistic regressions, the following factors were independently associated with LTR status: number of metastatic sites (≤ 2 versus > 2, p = 0.01); endocrine therapy for metastatic disease (p = 0.001) and taxane-based first-line chemotherapy (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Several features are associated with long-term response to trastuzumab: few metastatic sites, taxane-based chemotherapy and maintenance endocrine therapy in HR+ patients. Further studies are needed to identify patients in whom trastuzumab can be stopped after several years of sustained response.

Palbociclib plus letrozole as first-line therapy in estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer with extended follow-up.

PURPOSE: In the initial PALOMA-2 (NCT01740427) analysis with median follow-up of 23 months, palbociclib plus letrozole significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58; P < 0.001]. Herein, we report results overall and by subgroups with extended follow-up. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 study, post-menopausal women with ER+/HER2- ABC who had not received prior systemic therapy for their advanced disease were randomized 2:1 to palbociclib-letrozole or placebo-letrozole. Endpoints include investigator-assessed PFS (primary), safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: After a median follow-up of approximately 38 months, median PFS was 27.6 months for palbociclib-letrozole (n = 444) and 14.5 months for placebo-letrozole (n = 222) (HR 0.563; 1-sided P < 0.0001). All subgroups benefited from palbociclib treatment. The improvement of PFS with palbociclib-letrozole was maintained in the next 2 subsequent lines of therapy and delayed the use of chemotherapy (40.4 vs. 29.9 months for palbociclib-letrozole vs. placebo-letrozole). Safety data were consistent with the known profile. Patients' quality of life was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: With approximately 15 months of additional follow-up, palbociclib plus letrozole continued to demonstrate improved PFS compared with placebo plus letrozole in the overall population and across all patient subgroups, while the safety profile remained favorable and quality of life was maintained. These data confirm that palbociclib-letrozole should be considered the standard of care for first-line therapy in patients with ER+/HER2- ABC, including those with low disease burden or long disease-free interval. Sponsored by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01740427.

Impact of palbociclib plus letrozole on patient-reported health-related quality of life: results from the PALOMA-2 trial.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes are integral in benefit-risk assessments of new treatment regimens. The PALOMA-2 study provides the largest body of evidence for patient-reported health-related quality of life (QOL) for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving first-line endocrine-based therapy (palbociclib plus letrozole and letrozole alone). Patients and methods: Treatment-naïve postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) MBC were randomized 2 : 1 to palbociclib plus letrozole (n = 444) or placebo plus letrozole (n = 222). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, day 1 of cycles 2 and 3, and day 1 of every other cycle from cycle 5 using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-Breast and EuroQOL 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires. Results: As of 26 February 2016, the median duration of follow-up was 23 months. Baseline scores were comparable between the two treatment arms. No significant between-arm differences were observed in change from baseline in FACT-Breast Total, FACT-General Total, or EQ-5D scores. Significantly greater improvement in pain scores was observed in the palbociclib plus letrozole arm (-0.256 versus -0.098; P = 0.0183). In both arms, deterioration of FACT-Breast Total score was significantly delayed in patients without progression versus those with progression and patients with partial or complete response versus those without. No significant difference was observed in FACT-Breast and EQ-5D index scores in patients with and without neutropenia. Conclusions: Overall, women with MBC receiving first-line endocrine therapy have a good QOL. The addition of palbociclib to letrozole maintains health-related QOL and improves pain scores in treatment-naïve postmenopausal patients with ER+/HER2- MBC compared with letrozole alone. Significantly greater delay in deterioration of health-related QOL was observed in patients without progression versus those who progressed and in patients with an objective response versus non-responders. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01740427 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01740427).

Clinical considerations of the role of palbociclib in the management of advanced breast cancer patients with and without visceral metastases.

Background: This report assesses the efficacy and safety of palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) in women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) with or without visceral metastases. Patients and methods: Pre- and postmenopausal women with disease progression following prior ET (PALOMA-3; N = 521) and postmenopausal women untreated for ABC (PALOMA-2; N = 666) were randomized 2 : 1 to ET (fulvestrant or letrozole, respectively) plus palbociclib or placebo. Progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) were evaluated by prior treatment and visceral involvement. Results: Visceral metastases incidence was higher in patients with prior resistance to ET (58.3%, PALOMA-3) than in patients naive to ET in the ABC setting (48.6%, PALOMA-2). In patients with prior resistance to ET and visceral metastases, median PFS (mPFS) was 9.2 months with palbociclib plus fulvestrant versus 3.4 months with placebo plus fulvestrant [hazard ratio (HR), 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.35-0.61], and objective response rate (ORR) was 28.0% versus 6.7%, respectively. In patients with nonvisceral metastases, mPFS was 16.6 versus 7.3 months, HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.36-0.77. In patients with visceral disease and naive to ET in the advanced disease setting, mPFS was 19.3 months with palbociclib plus letrozole versus 12.9 months with placebo plus letrozole (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.47-0.85); ORR was 55.1% versus 40.0%; in patients with nonvisceral disease, mPFS was not reached with palbociclib plus letrozole versus 16.8 months with placebo plus letrozole (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.36-0.70). In patients with prior resistance to ET with visceral metastases, palbociclib plus fulvestrant significantly delayed deterioration of QoL versus placebo plus fulvestrant, whereas patient-reported QoL was maintained with palbociclib plus letrozole in patients naive to endocrine-based therapy for ABC. Conclusions: Palbociclib plus ET prolonged mPFS in patients with visceral metastases, increased ORRs, and in patients previously treated for ABC, delayed QoL deterioration, presenting a standard treatment option among patients with visceral metastases amenable to endocrine-based therapy. Clinical trial registration: NCT01942135, NCT01740427.

Veliparib with temozolomide or carboplatin/paclitaxel versus placebo with carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with BRCA1/2 locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer: randomized phase II study.

Background: Homologous recombination defects in BRCA1/2-mutated tumors result in sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, which interfere with DNA damage repair. Veliparib, a potent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, enhanced the antitumor activity of platinum agents and temozolomide in early phase clinical trials. This phase II study examined the safety and efficacy of intermittent veliparib with carboplatin/paclitaxel (VCP) or temozolomide (VT) in patients with BRCA1/2-mutated breast cancer. Patients and methods: Eligible patients ≥18 years with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer and a deleterious BRCA1/2 germline mutation were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to VCP, VT, or placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel (PCP). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR). Results: Of 290 randomized patients, 284 were BRCA+, confirmed by central laboratory. For VCP versus PCP, median PFS was 14.1 and 12.3 months, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 0.789; 95% CI 0.536-1.162; P = 0.227], interim median OS 28.3 and 25.9 months (HR 0.750; 95% CI 0.503-1.117; P = 0.156), and ORR 77.8% and 61.3% (P = 0.027). For VT (versus PCP), median PFS was 7.4 months (HR 1.858; 95% CI 1.278-2.702; P = 0.001), interim median OS 19.1 months (HR 1.483; 95% CI 1.032-2.131; P = 0.032), and ORR 28.6% (P < 0.001). Safety profile was comparable between carboplatin/paclitaxel arms. Adverse events (all grades) of neutropenia, anemia, alopecia, and neuropathy were less frequent with VT versus PCP. Conclusion: Numerical but not statistically significant increases in both PFS and OS were observed in patients with BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent/metastatic breast cancer receiving VCP compared with PCP. The addition of veliparib to carboplatin/paclitaxel significantly improved ORR. There was no clinically meaningful increase in toxicity with VCP versus PCP. VT was inferior to PCP. An ongoing phase III trial is evaluating VCP versus PCP, with optional continuation single-agent therapy with veliparib/placebo if chemotherapy is discontinued without progression, in this patient population. Clinical trial information: NCT01506609.

Safety and immunogenicity of neoadjuvant treatment using WT1-immunotherapeutic in combination with standard therapy in patients with WT1-positive Stage II/III breast cancer: a randomized Phase I study.

PURPOSE: This Phase I, multicenter, randomized study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01220128) evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of recombinant Wilms' tumor 1 (WT1) protein combined with the immunostimulant AS15 (WT1-immunotherapeutic) as neoadjuvant therapy administered concurrently with standard treatments in WT1-positive breast cancer patients. METHODS: Patients were treated in 4 cohorts according to neoadjuvant treatment (A: post-menopausal, hormone receptor [HR]-positive patients receiving aromatase inhibitors; B: patients receiving chemotherapy; C: HER2-overexpressing patients on trastuzumab-chemotherapy combination; D: HR-positive/HER2-negative patients on chemotherapy). Patients (cohorts A-C) were randomized (2:1) to receive 6 or 8 doses of WT1-immunotherapeutic or placebo together with standard neoadjuvant treatment in a double-blind manner; cohort D patients received WT1-immunotherapeutic in an open manner. Safety was assessed throughout the study. WT1-specific antibodies were assessed pre- and post-vaccination. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomized; 60 received ≥ one dose of WT1-immunotherapeutic. Two severe toxicities were reported: diarrhea (cohort C; also reported as a grade 3 serious adverse event) and decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (cohort B; also reported as a grade 2 adverse event). Post-dose 4 of WT1-immunotherapeutic, 10/10 patients from cohort A, 0/8 patients from cohort B, 6/11 patients from cohort C, and 2/3 patients from cohort D were humoral responders. The sponsor elected to close the trial prematurely. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent administration of WT1-immunotherapeutic and standard neoadjuvant therapy was well tolerated and induced WT1-specific antibodies in patients receiving neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitors. In patients on neoadjuvant chemotherapy or trastuzumab-chemotherapy combination, the humoral response was impaired or blunted, likely due to either co-administration of corticosteroids and/or the chemotherapies themselves.

Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab or paclitaxel as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in a multicenter national observational study.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab combined with paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has led to mixed results in randomized trials, with an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) but no statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. Real-life data could help in assessing the value of this combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study aimed to describe the outcome following first-line paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab in the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) database of MBC patients, established in 2014 by Unicancer. The primary and secondary end points were OS and PFS, respectively. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2013, 14 014 MBC patient files were identified, including 10 605 patients with a HER2-negative status. Of these, 3426 received paclitaxel and bevacizumab (2127) or paclitaxel (1299) as first-line chemotherapy. OS adjusted for major prognostic factors was significantly longer in the paclitaxel and bevacizumab group compared with paclitaxel [hazard ratio (HR) 0.672, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.601-0.752; median survival time 27.7 versus 19.8 months]. Results were consistent in all supportive analyses (using a propensity score for adjustment and as a matching factor for nested case-control analyses) and sensitivity analyses. Similar results were observed for the adjusted PFS, favoring the combination (HR 0.739, 95% CI 0.672-0.813; 8.1 versus 6.4 months). CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale, real-life setting, patients with HER2-negative MBC who received paclitaxel plus bevacizumab as first-line chemotherapy had a significantly better OS and PFS than those receiving paclitaxel. Despite robust methodology, real-life data are exposed to important potential biases, and therefore, results need to be treated with caution. Our data cannot therefore support extension of current use of bevacizumab in MBC.

A phase III trial of exemestane plus bevacizumab maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer after first-line taxane and bevacizumab: a GINECO group study.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance strategies beyond response or tumor stabilization with first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have not been extensively studied. Endocrine therapy combined with continued bevacizumab may be a helpful option for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, phase III study, patients with histologically confirmed ER-positive, HER2-negative MBC and non-progressive disease after 16-24 weeks of taxane plus bevacizumab (T + BEV) were randomized to continuation of T + BEV or maintenance bevacizumab plus exemestane (E + BEV). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization. To have 80% power to detect an improvement in the 6-month PFS rate (PFS6m) from 50% to 65%, 186 assessable patients were needed for a total of 141 PFS events. An interim analysis was planned after 40% of the required events. RESULTS: The interim analysis with 98 patients showed that the probability of reaching a statistically significant improvement in PFS by the end of the study was only 7%. This led the Independent Data and Monitoring Committee to recommend termination of patient enrollment. After a median of 21-month follow-up of all randomized patients (117 in total), PFS6m from randomization was 67.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 53.6-77.7] with T + BEV and 55.2% (95% CI 41.5-66.9) with E + BEV [hazard ratio (HR): 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.5, P = 0.998]. Median PFS from BEV initiation was 12.5 and 12.3 months in the T + BEV and E + BEV arms, respectively. In the T + BEV arm, taxane was prematurely stopped for the majority of patients (94.9%), mainly due to toxicity (49.2%). Updated data after 35 months' median follow-up showed death rates of 44% and 55% in T + BEV and E + BEV arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this trial, maintenance therapy with E + BEV in ER-positive, HER2-negative MBC patients with no evidence of progression after first-line T + BEV did not achieve longer PFS compared with continuation of T + BEV. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01303679.

Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) versus lapatinib plus capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and central nervous system metastases: a retrospective, exploratory analysis in EMILIA.

BACKGROUND: We characterized the incidence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases after treatment with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) versus capecitabine-lapatinib (XL), and treatment efficacy among patients with pre-existing CNS metastases in the phase III EMILIA study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In EMILIA, patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane were randomized to T-DM1 or XL until disease progression. Patients with treated, asymptomatic CNS metastases at baseline and patients developing postbaseline CNS metastases were identified retrospectively by independent review; exploratory analyses were carried out. RESULTS: Among 991 randomized patients (T-DM1 = 495; XL = 496), 95 (T-DM1 = 45; XL = 50) had CNS metastases at baseline. CNS progression occurred in 9 of 450 (2.0%) and 3 of 446 (0.7%) patients without CNS metastases at baseline in the T-DM1 and XL arms, respectively, and in 10 of 45 (22.2%) and 8 of 50 (16.0%) patients with CNS metastases at baseline. Among patients with CNS metastases at baseline, a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) was observed in the T-DM1 arm compared with the XL arm [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.38; P = 0.008; median, 26.8 versus 12.9 months]. Progression-free survival by independent review was similar in the two treatment arms (HR = 1.00; P = 1.000; median, 5.9 versus 5.7 months). Multivariate analyses demonstrated similar results. Grade ≥3 adverse events were reported in 48.8% and 63.3% of patients with CNS metastases at baseline administered T-DM1 and XL, respectively; no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective, exploratory analysis, the rate of CNS progression in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer was similar for T-DM1 and for XL, and higher overall in patients with CNS metastases at baseline compared with those without CNS metastases at baseline. In patients with treated, asymptomatic CNS metastases at baseline, T-DM1 was associated with significantly improved OS compared with XL.

Randomized, phase II, placebo-controlled trial of onartuzumab and/or bevacizumab in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Increased hepatocyte growth factor/MET signaling is associated with an aggressive phenotype and poor prognosis in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). We evaluated the benefit of adding onartuzumab, a monoclonal anti-MET antibody, to paclitaxel with/without bevacizumab in patients with TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with metastatic TNBC were randomized to receive onartuzumab plus placebo plus weekly paclitaxel (OP; n = 60) or onartuzumab plus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel (OBP; n = 63) or placebo plus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel (BP; n = 62). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); additional end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. This trial was hypothesis generating and did not have power to detect minimum clinically meaningful differences between treatment arms. RESULTS: There was no improvement in PFS with the addition of onartuzumab to BP [hazard ratio (HR), 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.70]; the risk of a PFS event was higher with OP than with BP (HR, 1.74; 95% CI 1.13-2.68). Most patients had MET-negative tumors (88%); PAM50 subtype analysis showed basal-like tumors in 68% of samples. ORR was higher in the bevacizumab arms (OBP: 42.2%; 95% CI 28.6-57.1; BP: 54.7%; 95% CI 41.0-68.4) compared with OP (27.5%; 95% CI 15.9-40.6). Median OS was shorter with OBP (HR, 1.36; 95% CI 0.75-2.46) and OP (HR, 1.92; 95% CI 1.03-3.59), than with BP. Peripheral edema was more frequent in the onartuzumab arms (OBP, 51.8%; OP, 58.6%) versus BP (17.7%). CONCLUSION: This study did not show a clinical benefit of the addition of onartuzumab to paclitaxel with/without bevacizumab in patients with predominantly MET-negative TNBC. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01186991.

A phase I pharmacokinetic study of the vascular disrupting agent ombrabulin (AVE8062) and docetaxel in advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: The vascular disrupting agent ombrabulin shows synergy with docetaxel in vivo. Recommended phase II doses were determined in a dose escalation study in advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Ombrabulin (30-min infusion, day 1) followed by docetaxel (1-h infusion, day 2) every 3 weeks was explored. Ombrabulin was escalated from 11.5 to 42 mg m(-2) with 75 mg m(-2) docetaxel, then from 30 to 35 mg m(-2) with 100 mg m(-2) docetaxel. Recommended phase II dose cohorts were expanded. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were treated. Recommended phase II doses were 35 mg m(-2) ombrabulin with 75 mg m(-2) docetaxel (35/75 mg m(-2); 13 patients) and 30 mg m(-2) ombrabulin with 100 mg m(-2) docetaxel (30/100 mg m(-2); 16 patients). Dose-limiting toxicities were grade 3 fatigue (two patients; 42/75, 35/100), grade 3 neutropaenic infection (25/75), grade 3 headache (42/75), grade 4 febrile neutropaenia (30/100), and grade 3 thrombosis (35/100). Toxicities were consistent with each agent; mild nausea/vomiting, asthaenia/fatigue, alopecia, and anaemia were common, as were neutropaenia and leukopaenia. Diarrhoea, nail disorders and neurological symptoms were frequent at 100 mg m(-2) docetaxel. Pharmacokinetic analyses did not show any relevant drug interactions. Ten patients had partial responses (seven at 30 mg m(-2) ombrabulin), eight lasting >3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential administration of ombrabulin with 75 or 100 mg m(-2) docetaxel every 3 weeks is feasible.