XENERA-1: a randomised double-blind Phase II trial of xentuzumab in combination with everolimus and exemestane versus everolimus and exemestane in patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and non-visceral disease.

BACKGROUND: Xentuzumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody that binds to IGF-1 and IGF-2, neutralising their proliferative activity and restoring inhibition of AKT by everolimus. This study evaluated the addition of xentuzumab to everolimus and exemestane in patients with advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, Phase II study was undertaken in female patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease who had received prior endocrine therapy with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors. Patients received a weekly intravenous infusion of xentuzumab (1000 mg) or placebo in combination with everolimus (10 mg/day orally) and exemestane (25 mg/day orally). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were randomised and 101 were treated (n = 50 in the xentuzumab arm and n = 51 in the placebo arm). The trial was unblinded early due to high rates of discordance between independent and investigator assessment of PFS. Per independent assessment, median PFS was 12.7 (95% CI 6.8-29.3) months with xentuzumab and 11.0 (7.7-19.5) months with placebo (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.59; p = 0.6534). Per investigator assessment, median PFS was 7.4 (6.8-9.7) months with xentuzumab and 9.2 (5.6-14.4) months with placebo (hazard ratio 1.23; 95% CI 0.69-2.20; p = 0.4800). Tolerability was similar between the arms, with diarrhoea (33.3-56.0%), fatigue (33.3-44.0%) and headache (21.6-40.0%) being the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 hyperglycaemia was similar between the xentuzumab (2.0%) and placebo (5.9%) arms. CONCLUSIONS: While this study demonstrated that xentuzumab could be safely combined with everolimus and exemestane in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease, there was no PFS benefit with the addition of xentuzumab. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03659136. Prospectively registered, September 6, 2018.

A phase Ib/II study of xentuzumab, an IGF-neutralising antibody, combined with exemestane and everolimus in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Xentuzumab-a humanised IgG1 monoclonal antibody-binds IGF-1 and IGF-2, inhibiting their growth-promoting signalling and suppressing AKT activation by everolimus. This phase Ib/II exploratory trial evaluated xentuzumab plus everolimus and exemestane in hormone receptor-positive, locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC). METHODS: Patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative LA/MBC resistant to non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors were enrolled. Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane were determined in phase I (single-arm, dose-escalation). In phase II (open-label), patients were randomised 1:1 to the RP2D of xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane or everolimus/exemestane alone. Randomisation was stratified by the presence of visceral metastases. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: MTD was determined as xentuzumab 1000 mg weekly plus everolimus 10 mg/day and exemestane 25 mg/day. A total of 140 patients were enrolled in phase II (70 to each arm). Further recruitment was stopped following an unfavourable benefit-risk assessment by the internal Data Monitoring Committee appointed by the sponsor. Xentuzumab was discontinued; patients could receive everolimus/exemestane if clinically indicated. Median PFS was 7.3 months (95% CI 3.3-not calculable) in the xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane group and 5.6 months (3.7-9.1) in the everolimus/exemestane group (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.57-1.65; P = 0.9057). In a pre-specified subgroup of patients without visceral metastases at screening, xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane showed evidence of PFS benefit versus everolimus/exemestane (hazard ratio 0.21 [0.05-0.98]; P = 0.0293). Most common any-cause adverse events in phase II were diarrhoea (29 [41.4%] in the xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane group versus 20 [29.0%] in the everolimus/exemestane group), mucosal inflammation (27 [38.6%] versus 21 [30.4%]), stomatitis (24 [34.3%] versus 24 [34.8%]), and asthenia (21 [30.0%] versus 24 [34.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of xentuzumab to everolimus/exemestane did not improve PFS in the overall population, leading to early discontinuation of the trial. Evidence of PFS benefit was observed in patients without visceral metastases when treated with xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane, leading to initiation of the phase II XENERA™-1 trial (NCT03659136). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02123823 . Prospectively registered, 8 March 2013.

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.

Patient preference for oral chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast and lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Although new therapies against metastatic cancer have been developed in recent decades, chemotherapy is still an important treatment option. Prolonged treatment and side-effects are often discouraging for patients, and in many cases, therapy is only palliative, not curative. This study explores patient preference for oral or intravenous (IV) chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast or lung cancer. METHODS: It is a descriptive, open label, multicentre, nation-wide study, in which a 16-item questionnaire consisting of single-choice questions scored on a 5-point Likert scale was administered to patients in a single visit, and another 11-item questionnaire was self-administered by the patient's oncologist. RESULTS: A total of 131 breast and lung cancer specialists at 64 hospitals enrolled 412 patients (lung cancer = 161; breast cancer = 251). To be eligible, patients must have already received IV therapy and at least 2 cycles of oral chemotherapy. Most (77%) patients expressed preference for oral therapy. Most considered their daily life was less disrupted with tablets (70.4%), had no trouble swallowing them (86.9%), and were not concerned about forgetting to take them (56.8%). Half (56.3%) were worried about problems related to drug infusion with IV therapy, 61.7% were concerned about nurses failing to find a suitable vein, and 63.1% were dissatisfied with hospital waiting times. A uniform response was obtained from both samples of patients. CONCLUSION: Convenience, ease of administration, fewer side effects and better quality of life tilt the balance towards oral drug administration.

Efficacy and safety of ABP 980 compared with reference trastuzumab in women with HER2-positive early breast cancer (LILAC study): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: ABP 980 (Amgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) is a biosimilar of trastuzumab, with analytical, functional, and pharmacokinetic similarities. We compared the clinical safety and efficacy of ABP 980 with that of trastuzumab in women with HER2-positive early breast cancer. METHODS: We did a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, active-controlled equivalence trial at 97 study centres in 20 countries, mainly in Europe and South America. Eligible women were aged 18 years or older, had histologically confirmed HER2-positive invasive early breast cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and were planning to have surgical resection of the breast tumour with sentinel or axillary lymph node dissection and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After four cycles of run-in anthracycline-based chemotherapy, patients were assigned 1:1 to receive ABP 980 or trastuzumab with a permuted block design (blocks of four) computer-generated randomisation schedule. Patients received neoadjuvant therapy with a loading dose (8 mg/kg) of ABP 980 or trastuzumab plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 in a 90 min intravenous infusion, followed by three cycles of 6 mg/kg intravenous ABP 980 or trastuzumab plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks in 30 min intravenous infusions (or 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel once per week for 12 cycles if that was the local standard of care). Randomisation was stratified by T stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographical region. Surgery was completed 3-7 weeks after the last dose of neoadjuvant treatment, after which adjuvant treatment with ABP 980 or trastuzumab was given every 3 weeks for up to 1 year after the first dose in the study. Patients had been randomly assigned at baseline to continue APB 980, continue trastuzumab, or switch from trastuzumab to APB 980 as their adjuvant treatment. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were risk difference and risk ratio (RR) of pathological complete response in breast tissue and axillary lymph nodes assessed at a local laboratory in all patients who were randomly assigned and received any amount of neoadjuvant investigational product and underwent surgery. We assessed safety in all patients who were randomly assigned and received any amount of investigational product. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01901146 and Eudra, number CT 2012-004319-29. FINDINGS: Of 827 patients enrolled, 725 were randomly assigned to receive ABP 980 (n=364) or trastuzumab (n=361). The primary endpoint was assessable in 696 patients (358 who received ABP 980 and 338 who received trastuzumab). Pathological complete response was recorded in 172 (48%, 95% CI 43-53) of 358 patients in the ABP 980 group and 137 (41%, 35-46) of 338 in the trastuzumab group (risk difference 7·3%, 90% CI 1·2-13·4; RR 1·188, 90% CI 1·033-1·366), with the upper bounds of the CIs exceeding the predefined equivalence margins of 13% and 1·318, respectively. Pathological complete response in the central laboratory assessment was seen in 162 (48%) of 339 patients assigned to ABP 980 at baseline and 138 (42%) of 330 assigned to trastuzumab at baseline (risk difference 5·8%, 90% CI -0·5 to 12·0, and RR 1·142, 90% CI 0·993 to 1·312). Grade 3 or worse adverse events during the neoadjuvant phase occurred in 54 (15%) of 364 patients in the ABP 980 group and 51 (14%) of 361 patients in the trastuzumab group, of which the most frequent grade 3 or worse event of interest was neutropenia, occurring in 21 (6%) patients in both groups. In the adjuvant phase, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 30 (9%) of 349 patients continuing ABP 980, 11 (6%) of 171 continuing trastuzumab, and 13 (8%) of 171 who switched from trastuzumab to ABP 980, the most frequent grade 3 or worse events of interest were infections and infestations (four [1%], two [1%], and two [1%]), neutropenia (three [1%], two [1%], and one [1%]), and infusion reactions (two [1%], two [1%], and three [2%]). Two patients died from adverse events judged to be unrelated to the investigational products: one died from pneumonia while receiving neoadjuvant ABP 980 and one died from septic shock while receiving adjuvant ABP 980 after trastuzumab. INTERPRETATION: Although the lower bounds of the 90% CIs for RR and risk difference showed non-inferiority, the upper bounds exceeded the predefined equivalence margins when based on local laboratory review of tumour samples, meaning that non-superiority was non-conclusive. In our sensitivity analyses based on central laboratory evaluation of tumour samples, estimates for the two drugs were contained within the predefined equivalence margins, indicating similar efficacy. ABP 980 and trastuzumab had similar safety outcomes in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant phases of the study. FUNDING: Amgen.

HER2-enriched subtype as a predictor of pathological complete response following trastuzumab and lapatinib without chemotherapy in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer (PAMELA): an open-label, single-group, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: HER2-positive breast cancer consists of four intrinsic molecular subtypes-luminal A, luminal B, HER2-enriched, and basal-like-and a normal-like subtype, with the HER2-enriched subtype having the highest activation of the EGFR-HER2 pathway. We aimed to test the hypothesis that patients with the HER2-enriched subtype benefit the most from dual HER2 blockade. METHODS: PAMELA is an open-label, single-group, phase 2 trial done in 19 hospitals in Spain. We recruited female patients aged at least 18 years with previously untreated, centrally confirmed HER2-positive, stage I-IIIA invasive breast cancer regardless of hormone receptor status. Patients were given lapatinib (1000 mg per day orally) and trastuzumab (loading dose of 8 mg/kg, followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks intravenously) for 18 weeks; hormone receptor-positive patients were additionally given letrozole (2·5 mg per day orally; if menopausal) or tamoxifen (20 mg per day orally; if premenopausal). Surgery was done 1-3 weeks after the last dose of study treatment. Intrinsic molecular subtypes of tumour biopsy samples taken at baseline (day 0) and day 14 were determined with the PAM50 predictor. The primary outcome was the ability of the HER2-enriched subtype to predict pathological complete response at the time of surgery. The primary outcome was assessed in the evaluable population (ie, all patients who had initial tumour biopsy samples available and who underwent definitive surgery) and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one part of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01973660, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Oct 28, 2013, and Nov 26, 2015, we recruited 151 patients, of whom 14 (9%) discontinued treatment and 137 (91%) completed treatment as planned. At baseline, most patients had the HER2-enriched subtype (101 [67%]), followed by luminal A (22 [15%]), luminal B (16 [11%]), basal-like (nine [6%]), and normal-like (three [2%]) subtypes. At the time of surgery, 46 (30%, 95% CI 23-39) of 151 patients had pathological complete response in the breast. 41 (41%, 31-51) of 101 patients with the HER2-enriched subtype and five (10%, 4-23) of 50 patients with non-HER2-enriched subtypes achieved pathological complete response at the time of surgery (odds ratio 6·2, 95% CI 2·3-16·8; p=0·0004). INTERPRETATION: The HER2-enriched subtype can identify patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who are likely to benefit from dual HER2 blockade therapies. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline, Susan Komen Foundation, CERCA Programme-Generalitat de Catalunya, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Foundation, Pas a Pas, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

A randomized phase II trial of ridaforolimus, dalotuzumab, and exemestane compared with ridaforolimus and exemestane in patients with advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether adding humanized monoclonal insulin growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) antibody (dalotuzumab) to mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor (ridaforolimus) plus aromatase inhibitor (exemestane) improves outcomes in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive advanced/metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, phase II trial enrolled 80 postmenopausal women with high-proliferation (Ki67 index staining ≥15%), ER-positive breast cancer that progressed after a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (NCT01605396). Randomly assigned patients were given oral ridaforolimus 10 mg QD 5 ×/week, intravenous dalotuzumab 10 mg/kg/week, and oral exemestane 25 mg/day (R/D/E, n = 40), or ridaforolimus 30 mg QD 5 ×/week and exemestane 25 mg/day (R/E; n = 40). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Median PFS was 23.3 weeks for R/D/E versus 31.9 weeks for R/E (hazard ratio 1.18; 80% CI 0.81-1.72; P = 0.565). Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported in 67.5% of patients in the R/E arm and 59.0% in the R/D/E arm. Stomatitis (95.0 vs. 76.9%; P = 0.021) and pneumonitis (22.5 vs. 5.1%; P = 0.027) occurred more frequently in the R/E than the R/D/E arm; hyperglycemia (27.5 vs. 28.2%) occurred at a similar rate. CONCLUSIONS: R/D/E did not improve PFS compared with R/E. Because the PFS reported for R/E was similar to that reported for everolimus plus exemestane in patients with advanced breast cancer, it is possible that lower-dose ridaforolimus in the R/D/E arm (from overlapping toxicities with IGF1R inhibitor) contributed to lack of improved PFS.

A phase II study of combined ridaforolimus and dalotuzumab compared with exemestane in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Combining the mTOR inhibitor ridaforolimus and the anti-IGFR antibody dalotuzumab demonstrated antitumor activity, including partial responses, in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive advanced breast cancer, especially in high proliferation tumors (Ki67 > 15%). METHODS: This randomized, multicenter, international, phase II study enrolled postmenopausal women with advanced ER-positive breast cancer previously treated with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NCT01234857). Patients were randomized to either oral ridaforolimus 30 mg daily for 5 of 7 days (once daily [qd] × 5 days/week) plus intravenous dalotuzumab 10 mg/kg/week or oral exemestane 25 mg/day, and stratified by Ki67 status. Due to a high incidence of stomatitis in the ridaforolimus-dalotuzumab group, two sequential, nonrandomized, reduced-dose cohorts were explored with ridaforolimus 20 and 10 mg qd × 5 days/week. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Median PFS was 21.4 weeks for ridaforolimus 30 mg qd × 5 days/week plus dalotuzumab 10 mg/kg (n = 29) and 24.3 weeks for exemestane (n = 33; hazard ratio = 1.00; P = 0.5). Overall survival and objective response rates were similar between treatment arms. The incidence of drug-related, nonserious, and serious adverse events was higher with ridaforolimus/dalotuzumab (any ridaforolimus dose) than with exemestane. Lowering the ridaforolimus dose reduced the incidence of grade 3 stomatitis, but overall toxicity remained higher than acceptable at all doses without improved efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ridaforolimus plus dalotuzumab was no more effective than exemestane in patients with advanced ER-positive breast cancer, and the incidence of adverse events was higher. Therefore, the combination is not being further pursued.

Pictilisib for oestrogen receptor-positive, aromatase inhibitor-resistant, advanced or metastatic breast cancer (FERGI): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) is a promising approach to overcome resistance to endocrine therapy in breast cancer. Pictilisib is an oral inhibitor of multiple PI3K isoforms. The aim of this study is to establish if addition of pictilisib to fulvestrant can improve progression-free survival in oestrogen receptor-positive, endocrine-resistant breast cancer. METHODS: In this two-part, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, we recruited postmenopausal women aged 18 years or older with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer resistant to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor in the adjuvant or metastatic setting, from 123 medical centres across 21 countries. Part 1 included patients with or without PIK3CA mutations, whereas part 2 included only patients with PIK3CA mutations. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 in part 1 and 2:1 in part 2) via a computer-generated hierarchical randomisation algorithm to daily oral pictilisib (340 mg in part 1 and 260 mg in part 2) or placebo starting on day 15 of cycle 1, plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg on day 1 and day 15 of cycle 1 and day 1 of subsequent cycles in both groups. In part 1, we stratified patients by presence or absence of PIK3CA mutation, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, and measurable or non-measurable disease. In part 2, we stratified patients by previous aromatase inhibitor treatment for advanced or metastatic disease or relapse during or within 6 months of an aromatase inhibitor treatment in the adjuvant setting and measurable or non-measurable disease. All patients and those administering treatment and assessing outcomes were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population for both parts 1 and 2 and also separately in patients with PIK3CA-mutated tumours in part 1. Tumour assessment (physical examination and imaging scans) was investigator-assessed and done at screening and after 8 weeks, 16 weeks, 24 weeks, and 32 weeks of treatment from day 1 of cycle 1 and every 12 weeks thereafter. We assessed safety in as-treated patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01437566. FINDINGS: In part 1, between Sept 27, 2011, and Jan 11, 2013, we randomly allocated 168 patients to the pictilisib (89 [53%]) or placebo (79 [47%]) group. In part 2, between March 18, 2013, and Jan 2, 2014, we randomly allocated 61 patients to the pictilisib (41 [67%]) or placebo (20 [33%]) group. In part 1, we found no difference in median progression-free survival between the pictilisib (6·6 months [95% CI 3·9-9·8]) and placebo (5·1 months [3·6-7·3]) group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·52-1·06]; p=0·096). We also found no difference when patients were analysed according to presence (pictilisib 6·5 months [95% CI 3·7-9·8] vs placebo 5·1 months [2·6-10·4]; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·42-1·28]; p=0·268) or absence (5·8 months [3·6-11·1] vs 3·6 months [2·8-7·3]; HR 0·72 [0·42-1·23]; p=0·23) of PIK3CA mutation. In part 2, we also found no difference in progression-free survival between groups (5·4 months [95% CI 3·8-8·3] vs 10·0 months [3·6-13·0]; HR 1·07 [95% CI 0·53-2·18]; p=0·84). In part 1, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 54 (61%) of 89 patients in the pictilisib group and 22 (28%) of 79 in the placebo group. 19 serious adverse events related to pictilisib treatment were reported in 14 (16%) of 89 patients. Only one (1%) of 79 patients reported treatment-related serious adverse events in the placebo group. In part 2, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 15 (36%) of 42 patients in the pictilisib group and seven (37%) of 19 patients in the placebo group. Four serious adverse events related to pictilisib treatment were reported in two (5%) of 42 patients. One treatment-related serious adverse event occurred in one (5%) of 19 patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Although addition of pictilisib to fulvestrant did not significantly improve progression-free survival, dosing of pictilisib was limited by toxicity, potentially limiting its efficacy. For future assessment of PI3K inhibition as an approach to overcome resistance to hormonal therapy, inhibitors with greater selectivity than that of pictilisib might be needed to improve tolerability and potentially increase efficacy. No further investigation of pictilisib in this setting is ongoing. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

SOLTI NeoPARP: a phase II randomized study of two schedules of iniparib plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer.

Iniparib is an investigational agent with antitumor activity of controversial mechanism of action. Two previous trials in advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in combination with gemcitabine and carboplatin showed some evidence of efficacy that was not confirmed. This phase II randomized neoadjuvant study was designed to explore its activity and tolerability with weekly paclitaxel (PTX) as neoadjuvant treatment in TNBC patients. 141 patients with Stage II-IIIA TNBC were randomly assigned to receive PTX (80 mg/m(2), d1; n = 47) alone or in combination with iniparib, either once-weekly (PWI) (11.2 mg/kg, d1; n = 46) or twice-weekly (PTI) (5.6 mg/kg, d1, 4; n = 48) for 12 weeks. Primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR) in the breast. pCR rate was similar among the three arms (21, 22, and 19 % for PTX, PWI, and PTI, respectively). Secondary efficacy endpoints were comparable: pCR in breast and axilla (21, 17, and 19 %); best overall response in the breast (60, 61, and 63 %); and breast conservation rate (53, 54, and 50 %). Slightly more patients in the PTI arm presented grade 3/4 neutropenia (4, 0, and 10 %). Grade 1/2 (28, 22, and 29 %), but no grade 3/4 neuropathy, was observed. There were no differences in serious adverse events and treatment-emergent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation among the three arms. Addition of iniparib to weekly PTX did not add relevant antitumor activity or toxicity. These results do not support further evaluation of the combination of iniparib at these doses plus paclitaxel in early TNBC.

Single-agent metronomic versus weekly oral vinorelbine as first-line chemotherapy in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: The randomized Tempo Breast study.

INTRODUCTION: Single-agent oral vinorelbine is a standard of care for hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) that has progressed on endocrine therapy. Metronomic administration may offer a better balance of efficacy and safety than standard regimens, but data from previous trials are scarce. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase II trial, patients were randomized to oral vinorelbine administered on a metronomic (50 mg three times weekly) or weekly (60 mg/m2 in cycle 1, increasing to 80 mg/m2 if well tolerated) schedule. Treatment was continued until disease progression or intolerance. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR, the proportion of patients with a best overall confirmed response of CR, PR, or stable disease lasting 6 months or more). RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-three patients were randomized and treated. The DCR was 63.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52.0-73.8) with metronomic vinorelbine and 72.8% (95% CI: 61.8-82.1) with weekly vinorelbine. Weekly vinorelbine was also associated with longer progression-free survival (5.6 vs 4.0 months) and overall survival (26.7 vs 22.3 months) than metronomic vinorelbine, but was associated with more adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized phase II trial, single-agent metronomic oral vinorelbine was effective and well tolerated as first-line chemotherapy for patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative ABC. Formal comparisons are not done in this phase II study and one can simply observe that confidence intervals of all endpoints overlap. When deciding for a chemotherapy after failure of endocrine therapy and CDK 4/6 inhibitors, oral vinorelbine might be an option to be given with either schedule. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2014-003860-19.

Applications of CRISPR Technology to Breast Cancer and Triple Negative Breast Cancer Research.

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) technology has transformed oncology research in many ways. Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy globally and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is one of the most aggressive subtypes with numerous challenges still to be faced. In this work, we have explained what CRISPR consists of and listed its applications in breast cancer while focusing on TNBC research. These are disease modelling, the search for novel genes involved in tumour progression, sensitivity to drugs and immunotherapy response, tumour fitness, diagnosis, and treatment. Additionally, we have listed the current delivery methods employed for the delivery of CRISPR systems in vivo. Lastly, we have highlighted the limitations that CRISPR technology is subject to and the future directions that we envisage. Overall, we have provided a round summary of the aspects concerning CRISPR in breast cancer/TNBC research.

Are Transcription Factors Plausible Oncotargets for Triple Negative Breast Cancers?

Breast cancer (BC) is the most diagnosed cancer worldwide and one of the main causes of cancer deaths. BC is a heterogeneous disease composed of different BC intrinsic subtypes such as triple-negative BC (TNBC), which is one of the most aggressive subtypes and which lacks a targeted therapy. Recent comprehensive analyses across cell types and cancer types have outlined a vast network of protein-protein associations between transcription factors (TFs). Not surprisingly, protein-protein networks central to oncogenesis and disease progression are highly altered during TNBC pathogenesis and are responsible for the activation of oncogenic programs, such as uncontrollable proliferation, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and stemness. From the therapeutic viewpoint, inhibiting the interactions between TFs represents a very significant challenge, as the contact surfaces of TFs are relatively large and featureless. However, promising tools have emerged to offer a solution to the targeting problem. At the clinical level, some TF possess diagnostic and prognostic value in TNBC. In this review, we outline the recent advances in TFs relevant to TNBC growth and progression. Moreover, we highlight different targeting approaches to inhibit these TFs. Furthermore, the validity of such TFs as clinical biomarkers has been explored. Finally, we discuss how research is likely to evolve in the field.

Overall survival with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the PEARL study.

BACKGROUND: An earlier analysis of the PEARL phase III study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) does not improve progression-free survival (PFS) over capecitabine in aromatase inhibitor-resistant, hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Here, we report the final overall survival (OS) analysis. METHODS: Postmenopausal patients (N = 601) were randomized 1:1 to capecitabine or palbociclib plus ET (exemestane, Cohort 1; fulvestrant, Cohort 2). OS was analysed in Cohort 2, the wild-type ESR1 population and the overall population. Additionally, we analysed subsequent systemic therapies and explored PFS2 (time from randomization to the end of the first subsequent therapy/death). RESULTS: OS was 31.1 months for palbociclib plus fulvestrant and 32.8 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.50, P = 0.550). In the wild-type ESR1 population, OS was 37.2 months for palbociclib plus ET and 34.8 months for capecitabine (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.37, P = 0.683). In OS analyses, no subgroup showed superiority for palbociclib plus ET over capecitabine. OS in the overall population was 32.6 months for palbociclib plus ET and 30.9 months for capecitabine (P = 0.995). Subsequent systemic therapy was given to 79.8% and 82.9% of patients with palbociclib plus ET and capecitabine, respectively. Median PFS2 was similar between study arms (Cohort 2, P = 0.941; wild-type ESR1 population, P = 0.827). No new safety findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Palbociclib plus ET did not show a statistically superior OS compared to capecitabine in MBC patients progressing on aromatase inhibitors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov), 2013-003170-27 (EudraCT).

Her2-Positive Cancers and Antibody-Based Treatment: State of the Art and Future Developments.

HER2 positive breast cancer represent about 20% of all breast cancer subtypes and it was considered the subtype with the worst prognosis until the discovery of therapies directed against the HER2 protein. The determination of the status of the HER2 must be very precise and well managed to identify this subtype, and there are very specific and updated guides that allow its characterization to be adjusted. Treatment in local disease has been considerably improved with less aggressive and highly effective approaches and very high cure rates. In metastatic disease, average median survival rates of 5 years have been achieved. New highly active molecules have also been discovered that allow disease control in very complicated situations. This article reviews all these options that can be used for the management of this disease.

Phase I/II study to assess the clinical pharmacology and safety of single ascending and multiple subcutaneous doses of PF-06881894 in women with non-distantly metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the pharmacodynamics (PD), pharmacokinetics (PK), and safety of single and multiple doses of PF-06881894 (pegfilgrastim-apgf; Nyvepria™), a biosimilar to reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®), in women with non-distantly metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In Phase I (Cycle 0) of this Phase I/II study, the PD response (absolute neutrophil count [ANC]; CD34 + count), PK profile, and safety of a single 3- or 6-mg subcutaneous dose of PF-06881894 were assessed in chemotherapy-naïve patients before definitive breast surgery. In Phase II (Cycles 1-4), the PD response (duration of severe neutropenia [DSN, Cycle 1], ANC [Cycles 1 and 4]) and PK profile (Cycles 1 and 4) of single and multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894 concomitant with chemotherapy and after definitive breast surgery were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (mean age 59 years) were enrolled (Cycle 0, n = 12; Cycles 1-4, n = 13). In Cycle 0, PD responses and PK values were lower with 3-mg versus 6-mg PF-06881894. In Cycles 1 and 4, mean DSN was 0.667 days after single or multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894, respectively. In Cycle 4 versus Cycle 1, PD responses were more robust; PK values (mean area under the curve, maximum concentration) were lower; and clearance values were higher. The safety profile of PF-06881894 was similar to that for reference pegfilgrastim. CONCLUSION: PF-06881894 as a single 3- or 6-mg dose prior to definitive surgery, or multiple 6-mg/cycle doses postoperatively, with/without myelosuppressive chemotherapy, was consistent with the clinical pharmacology and safety profile of reference pegfilgrastim. TRIAL REGISTRATION: October 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02650193. EudraCT Number: 2015-002057-35.

Neoadjuvant eribulin in HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer (SOLTI-1007-NeoEribulin): a multicenter, two-cohort, non-randomized phase II trial.

Eribulin prolongs overall survival in patients with pre-treated advanced breast cancer. However, no biomarker exists to prospectively select patients who will benefit the most from this drug. SOLTI-1007-NeoEribulin is a phase II, open-label, two-cohort, exploratory pharmacogenomic study in patients with clinical stage I-II HER2-negative breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant eribulin monotherapy treatment. Primary objective was to explore the association of baseline tumor gene expression with pathological complete response in the breast (pCRB) at surgery. Key secondary objectives were pCRB rates in all patients and according to HR status, gene expression changes during treatment and safety. One-hundred one hormonal receptor-positive (HR + ) and seventy-three triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients were recruited. The pCRB rates were 6.4% in all patients, 4.9% in HR + disease and 8.2% in TNBC. The TNBC cohort was interrupted due to a progression disease rate of 30.1%. The pCRB rates differed according to intrinsic subtypes: 28.6% in HER2-enriched, 11.1% in Normal-like, 7.9% in Luminal B, 5.9% in Basal-like and 0% in Luminal A (HER2-enriched vs. others odds ratio = 7.05, 95% CI 1.80-42.14; p-value = 0.032). Intrinsic subtype changes at surgery occurred in 33.3% of cases, mostly (49.0%) Luminal B converting to Luminal A or Basal-like converting to Normal-like. Baseline tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were significantly associated with pCR. Eribulin showed a good safety profile with a low response and pCRB rates. Patients with HER2-negative disease with a HER2-enriched profile may benefit the most from eribulin. In addition, significant biological activity of eribulin is observed in Luminal B and Basal-like subtypes.

Long-Term Cardiac Safety and Survival Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin in Elderly Patients or Prone to Cardiotoxicity and Triple Negative Breast Cancer. Final Results of the Multicentre Phase II CAPRICE Study.

BACKGROUND: The CAPRICE trial was designed to specifically evaluate neoadjuvant pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in elderly patients or in those with other cardiovascular risk factors in whom conventional doxorubicin was contraindicated. The primary analysis of the study showed a pathological complete response (pCR) of 32% and no significant decreases in LVEF during chemotherapy. Here, we report important secondary study objectives: 5-year cardiac safety, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and breast cancer specific survival (BCSS). METHODS: In this multicentre, single-arm, phase II trial, elderly patients or those prone to cardiotoxicity and high risk stage II-IIIB breast cancer received PLD (35 mg/m2) plus cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) every 4 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by paclitaxel for 12 weeks as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) monitorization, electrocardiograms and cardiac questionnaires were performed at baseline, during treatment and at 9, 16, 28 and 40 weeks thereafter. The primary endpoint was pCR and 5-year cardiac safety, DFS, BCSS and OS were also analyzed. RESULTS: Between Oct 2007, and Jun 2010, 50 eligible patients were included. Median age was 73 (35-84) years, 84% were older than 65; 64% of patients suffered from hypertension, and 10% had prior cardiac disease. Most of tumors (88%) were triple negative. No significant decreases in LVEF were observed. The mean baseline LVEF was 66.6% (52-86) and after a median follow-up of 5 years, mean LVEF was 66 (54.5-73). For intention to treat population, 5-year DFS was 50% (95% CI 40.2-68.1) and 5-year OS was 56% (95%CI 41.2-68.4). There were 8 non-cancer related deaths, achieving a 5 years BCSS of 67.74% (CI 95%:54.31%- 81.18%). CONCLUSION: At 5-year follow-up, this PLD-based NAC regimen continued to be cardiac-safe and effective in a population of very high-risk breast cancer patients. This scheme should be considered as an option in elderly patients or in those with other risks of developing cardiotoxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov reference NCT00563953.

Derived Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Pathological Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) is a biomarker associated with clinical outcome in breast cancer (BC). We analyzed the association of dNLR with pathological complete response (pCR) in triple-negative BC (TNBC) patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT). METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of two randomized studies involving early stage/locally advanced TNBC patients receiving anthracycline/taxane-based CT+/-carboplatin (GEICAM/2006-03) or nab-paclitaxel/paclitaxel followed by anthracycline regimen (ETNA). dNLR was calculated as the ratio of neutrophils to the difference between total leukocytes and neutrophils in peripheral blood before CT (baseline) and at the end of treatment (EOT). Logistic regression analyses were used to explore dNLR association with pCR. RESULTS: In total, 308 TNBC patients were analyzed, 216 from ETNA and 92 from GEICAM/2006-03. Baseline median dNLR was 1.61 (interquartile range (IQR): 1.25-2.04) and at EOT 1.53 (IQR: 0.96-2.22). Baseline dNLR showed positive correlation with increased tumor size (p-value = 1e-04). High baseline dNLR, as continuous variable or using median cutoff, was associated with lower likelihood of pCR in univariate analysis. High EOT dNLR as continuous variable or using quartiles was also associated with lower pCR rate in uni- and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: High baseline and EOT dNLR correlates with lower benefit from neoadjuvant CT in TNBC.