RESUMO
BACKGROUND: AKT pathway activation is implicated in endocrine-therapy resistance. Data on the efficacy and safety of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib, as an addition to fulvestrant therapy, in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer are limited. METHODS: In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial, we enrolled eligible pre-, peri-, and postmenopausal women and men with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer who had had a relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive capivasertib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. The dual primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with AKT pathway-altered (PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN) tumors. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 708 patients underwent randomization; 289 patients (40.8%) had AKT pathway alterations, and 489 (69.1%) had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously for advanced breast cancer. In the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.6 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.71; P<0.001). In the AKT pathway-altered population, the median progression-free survival was 7.3 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.1 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in patients receiving capivasertib-fulvestrant were rash (in 12.1% of patients, vs. in 0.3% of those receiving placebo-fulvestrant) and diarrhea (in 9.3% vs. 0.3%). Adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 13.0% of the patients receiving capivasertib and in 2.3% of those receiving placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Capivasertib-fulvestrant therapy resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with fulvestrant alone among patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer whose disease had progressed during or after previous aromatase inhibitor therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the National Cancer Institute; CAPItello-291 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04305496.).
Assuntos
Inibidores da Aromatase , Neoplasias da Mama , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Inibidores da Aromatase/efeitos adversos , Inibidores da Aromatase/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias da Mama/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias da Mama/patologia , Método Duplo-Cego , Fulvestranto/efeitos adversos , Fulvestranto/uso terapêutico , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/tratamento farmacológico , Proteínas Proto-Oncogênicas c-akt , Receptor ErbB-2RESUMO
BACKGROUND: CAPItello-291 is an ongoing phase 3 trial in which capivasertib-fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo-fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after aromatase inhibitor treatment, in both the overall population and in patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. This study further explored patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functioning, symptoms, and symptom tolerability in CAPItello-291. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which was conducted across 193 hospitals and cancer centres in 19 countries, enrolled women with any menopausal status or men, aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Japan), with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or 6 inhibitor therapy. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 and could have received up to two previous lines of endocrine therapy and up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (stratified according to the presence or absence of liver metastases, previous use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor [yes vs no], and geographical region) to receive oral capivasertib 400 mg (twice daily for 4 days, followed by 3 days off) plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (every 14 days for the first three injections, then every 28 days) or placebo with matching fulvestrant dosing. The dual primary endpoint of the trial was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module (QLQ-C30) and breast module (QLQ-BR23), Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Tolerability (PGI-TT) questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 were secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints, and these endpoints are the subject of analysis in this Article. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified timepoints. Patient-reported outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients with an evaluable baseline assessment and at least one evaluable post-baseline assessment. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed model with repeated measures for EORTC QLQ-C30 and summarised for QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle. Patient-reported outcomes were not prospectively powered for statistical comparison. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04305496. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2020, and Oct 13, 2021, 901 patients were enrolled, of whom 708 patients were randomly assigned to receive capivasertib-fulvestrant (n=355) or placebo-fulvestrant (n=353). The median age of the patients was 59 years (IQR 51-67) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 58 years (IQR 49-66) in the placebo-fulvestrant group. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2022), the median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival in censored patients was 13·0 months (IQR 9·1-16·7) for capivasertib-fulvestrant and 12·7 months (IQR 2·0-16·4) for placebo-fulvestrant in the overall population. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) scores were maintained from baseline and were similar between treatment groups throughout the study period (difference in mean change from baseline of -2·5 [95% CI -4·5 to -0·6] with capivasertib-fulvestrant vs -5·6 [-7·9 to -3·4] with placebo-fulvestrant; treatment difference 3·1 [95% CI 0·2 to 6·0]). Median time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL was 24·9 months (95% CI 13·8 to not reached) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 12·0 months (10·2 to 15·7) in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·53 to 0·92). Time to deterioration HRs for all EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 subscale scores showed little difference between the treatment groups, except for diarrhoea, which was worse in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group (HR 2·75, 95% CI 2·01-3·81). In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting loose and watery stools "frequently" or "almost constantly" was 29% higher at cycle 1, day 15 in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group, decreasing at subsequent cycles. Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, itchy skin, and numbness or tingling in hands or feet) were absent or mild in most patients in both groups throughout treatment. According to the PGI-TT, most patients in both groups reported "not at all" or "a little bit" of bother from treatment side-effects. INTERPRETATION: Patient-reported outcomes from CAPItello-291 demonstrated that capivasertib-fulvestrant delayed time to deterioration of GHS/QOL and maintained other dimensions of HRQOL (except symptoms of diarrhoea) similarly to fulvestrant. With the clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these exploratory results further support the positive benefit-risk profile of capivasertib-fulvestrant in this population. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.
Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Neoplasias da Mama , Fulvestranto , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Pirimidinas , Qualidade de Vida , Receptor ErbB-2 , Receptores de Estrogênio , Receptores de Progesterona , Humanos , Feminino , Fulvestranto/uso terapêutico , Fulvestranto/administração & dosagem , Neoplasias da Mama/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias da Mama/patologia , Método Duplo-Cego , Receptor ErbB-2/metabolismo , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Receptores de Estrogênio/metabolismo , Idoso , Receptores de Progesterona/metabolismo , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Pirimidinas/administração & dosagem , Pirimidinas/uso terapêutico , Intervalo Livre de Progressão , Adulto , Pirrolidinas/administração & dosagem , Pirrolidinas/uso terapêutico , PirróisRESUMO
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is an optimal option in early breast cancer, but in ER-positive/HER2-negative (luminal) is still controversial, although a survival benefit has recently been observed when a histological response by Symmans' method type 0 or I is achieved. The 21-gene Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® assay (Oncotype DX®) is a validated test to assess the survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients but its role in the neoadjuvant setting is less established. We analyzed the results of the Oncotype DX® test in a cohort of 122 consecutive patients selected to receive NAC based on classical clinicopathological parameters and the correlation between the Oncotype DX® results and the pathological response assessed by Symmans' method. Median age was 56.5 (range 31-84) years. Initial tumor size was T1 (<20 mm) in 46 patients (37.7%), 57 (46.7%) had a T2 tumor (20-50 mm), and 19 (15.6%) had a tumor size more than 50 mm. 59 (48.4%) had axillary node involvement. The median expression estrogen and progesteron receptors by immunohistochemistry was 280 and 120 respectively and median Ki67 index was 28%. The Recurrence Score (RS) results were <11 in 21 patients (17.2%) patients, RS 11 to 25 in 58 (47.5%), and RS > 25 in 43 (35.2%). Considering the Oncotype DX test results, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 60 patients (49%), 11 (9%) received adjuvant chemotherapy and 51 (42%) no chemotherapy. Testing with the assay has therefore led to 42% fewer chemotherapy treatments. Among 60 patients receiving NAC, pathologic response was achieved for 5 patients (8.3%) with RCB-0 and 15 RCB-1 (25%). We did not find any pathological response RCB-0 and RCB-I in the 20 patients who received NAC and had a Recurrence Score result <21 for the premenopausal group, or a RS result <25 for the postmenopausal group. For patients with highest Recurrence Score results (RS > 21 or 25 according to menopausal status) it was 12% (5/40) RCB-0 and 40% (16/40) RCB-I. CONCLUSIONS: The Oncotype DX test could be a useful tool to select patients candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in luminal breast cancer. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be avoided in 42% of patients. We found a correlation between Recurrence Score results and pathological response with 14% of RCB-0 and a total of 47% of significant pathological response type RCB-0 and RCB-I in patients with highest Recurrence Score results. Interestingly, patients with a Recurrence Score result inferior to 32 did not get any histological response type 0 and only 5% RCB-I.