Overall Survival with Ribociclib plus Letrozole in Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a previous analysis of this phase 3 trial, first-line ribociclib plus letrozole resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than letrozole alone among postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. Whether overall survival would also be longer with ribociclib was not known. METHODS: Here we report the results of the protocol-specified final analysis of overall survival, a key secondary end point. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either ribociclib or placebo in combination with letrozole. Overall survival was assessed with the use of a stratified log-rank test and summarized with the use of Kaplan-Meier methods after 400 deaths had occurred. A hierarchical testing strategy was used for the analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival to ensure the validity of the findings. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 6.6 years, 181 deaths had occurred among 334 patients (54.2%) in the ribociclib group and 219 among 334 (65.6%) in the placebo group. Ribociclib plus letrozole showed a significant overall survival benefit as compared with placebo plus letrozole. Median overall survival was 63.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 52.4 to 71.0) with ribociclib plus letrozole and 51.4 months (95% CI, 47.2 to 59.7) with placebo plus letrozole (hazard ratio for death, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.93; two-sided P = 0.008). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: First-line therapy with ribociclib plus letrozole showed a significant overall survival benefit as compared with placebo plus letrozole in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Median overall survival was more than 12 months longer with ribociclib than with placebo. (Funded by Novartis; MONALEESA-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01958021.).

Overall Survival with Ribociclib plus Fulvestrant in Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In an earlier analysis of this phase 3 trial, ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than fulvestrant alone in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. Here we report the results of a protocol-specified second interim analysis of overall survival. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either ribociclib or placebo in addition to fulvestrant as first-line or second-line treatment. Survival was evaluated by means of a stratified log-rank test and summarized with the use of Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: This analysis was based on 275 deaths: 167 among 484 patients (34.5%) receiving ribociclib and 108 among 242 (44.6%) receiving placebo. Ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a significant overall survival benefit over placebo plus fulvestrant. The estimated overall survival at 42 months was 57.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52.0 to 63.2) in the ribociclib group and 45.9% (95% CI, 36.9 to 54.5) in the placebo group, for a 28% difference in the relative risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92; P = 0.00455). The benefit was consistent across most subgroups. In a descriptive update, median progression-free survival among patients receiving first-line treatment was 33.6 months (95% CI, 27.1 to 41.3) in the ribociclib group and 19.2 months (95% CI, 14.9 to 23.6) in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a significant overall survival benefit over placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. (Funded by Novartis; MONALEESA-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02422615.).

nextMONARCH Phase 2 randomized clinical trial: overall survival analysis of abemaciclib monotherapy or in combination with tamoxifen in patients with endocrine-refractory HR + , HER2- metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Resistance to endocrine therapy poses a major clinical challenge for patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR +), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We present the preplanned 24-month final overall survival (OS) results, alongside updated progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) results. METHODS: nextMONARCH is an open-label, controlled, randomized, Phase 2 study of abemaciclib alone or in combination with tamoxifen in women with endocrine-refractory HR + , HER2- MBC previously treated with chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to: abemaciclib 150 mg and tamoxifen 20 mg (A + T), abemaciclib 150 mg (A-150), or abemaciclib 200 mg and prophylactic loperamide (A-200). OS was the main prespecified secondary endpoint. PFS, ORR, and safety at 24 months were compared to previously reported primary analysis results. RESULTS: Of the 234 patients enrolled, 12 were receiving study treatment at data cutoff (28Jun2019). Median follow-up was 27.2 months. Median OS was 24.2 months in the A + T arm, 20.8 months in A-150, and 17.0 months in A-200 (A + T versus A-200: HR 0.62; 95%CI [0.40, 0.97], P = 0.03 and A-150 versus A-200: HR 0.96; 95%CI [0.64, 1.44], P = 0.83). PFS and ORR results at 24 months were consistent with the primary analysis. The safety profile corresponded with previous reports. CONCLUSION: The addition of tamoxifen to abemaciclib demonstrated greater OS benefit than monotherapy. This study confirmed the single-agent activity of abemaciclib in heavily pretreated women with endocrine-refractory HR + , HER2- MBC, as well as the previously reported primary PFS and ORR results, with no new safety signals observed. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02747004.

Ribociclib as First-Line Therapy for HR-Positive, Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) could potentially overcome or delay resistance to endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer that is positive for hormone receptor (HR) and negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the selective CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib combined with letrozole for first-line treatment in 668 postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced disease. We randomly assigned the patients to receive either ribociclib (600 mg per day on a 3-weeks-on, 1-week-off schedule) plus letrozole (2.5 mg per day) or placebo plus letrozole. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed on January 29, 2016, after 243 patients had disease progression or died. Prespecified criteria for superiority required a hazard ratio of 0.56 or less with P<1.29×10-5. RESULTS: The duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ribociclib group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.72; P=3.29×10-6 for superiority). The median duration of follow-up was 15.3 months. After 18 months, the progression-free survival rate was 63.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.6 to 70.3) in the ribociclib group and 42.2% (95% CI, 34.8 to 49.5) in the placebo group. In patients with measurable disease at baseline, the overall response rate was 52.7% and 37.1%, respectively (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in more than 10% of the patients in either group were neutropenia (59.3% in the ribociclib group vs. 0.9% in the placebo group) and leukopenia (21.0% vs. 0.6%); the rates of discontinuation because of adverse events were 7.5% and 2.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving initial systemic treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, the duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving ribociclib plus letrozole than among those receiving placebo plus letrozole, with a higher rate of myelosuppression in the ribociclib group. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01958021 .).

Ribociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole alone in patients with de novo HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer in the randomized MONALEESA-2 trial.

PURPOSE: Determine the efficacy and safety of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole in patients with de novo advanced breast cancer. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with HR+ , HER2- advanced breast cancer and no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease were enrolled in the Phase III MONALEESA-2 trial (NCT01958021). Patients were randomized to ribociclib (600 mg/day; 3 weeks-on/1 week-off) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day; continuous) or placebo plus letrozole until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival; predefined subgroup analysis evaluated progression-free survival in patients with de novo advanced breast cancer. Secondary endpoints included safety and overall response rate. RESULTS: Six hundred and sixty-eight patients were enrolled, of whom 227 patients (34%; ribociclib plus letrozole vs placebo plus letrozole arm: n = 114 vs. n = 113) presented with de novo advanced breast cancer. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the ribociclib plus letrozole arm versus 16.4 months in the placebo plus letrozole arm in patients with de novo advanced breast cancer (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.75). The most common Grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia and leukopenia; incidence rates were similar to those observed in the full MONALEESA-2 population. Ribociclib dose interruptions and reductions in patients with de novo disease occurred at similar frequencies to the overall study population. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus letrozole improved progression-free survival vs placebo plus letrozole and was well tolerated in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- de novo advanced breast cancer.

Second cancers in Hodgkin's lymphoma long-term survivals: A 60-year single institutional experience with real-life cohort of 871 patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Appropriate surveillance guidelines for patients after successful treatment of Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) are needed to reduce mortality of iatrogenic secondary cancers (SC). This large single institutional retrospective study analyses the risk of SC in HL patients treated outside of clinical trials over past decades. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive series of HL patients were analysed with median follow-up 12 years. Standardised incidence ratio (SIR) and absolute excess risk (AER) were calculated for site-specific risk of SC. RESULTS: In total of 871 patients (491 men; median age 34 years), chemotherapy alone, radiotherapy alone, and combined treatment underwent 36%, 40%, and 24% patients. 154 SC were found with significantly increased SIR = 2.9 and AER = 80.8 for all cancers except of nonmelanoma-skin cancer. SC-related death occurred in 71 patients (15% of those who died, 8% of whole cohort). The most common SC were lung (17.5% of all malignancies, SIR = 3.2), breast carcinoma (15.6%, SIR = 4.4), and haematological malignancy (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma SIR = 13.1; leukaemia SIR = 5.8). For SC within radiation field, the highest AER was in breast (AER = 46.9), colorectal (AER = 22.8), and lung cancer (AER = 17). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HL are generally at great risk of developing SC, which is significantly increased especially by the use of radiotherapy. We suggested special follow-up schema for patients after initial HL treatment suitable for daily real-world clinical practice. The system depends on gender, form of HL treatment and especially the form of radiation therapy in terms of location of radiation fields.

[Cardiovascular complications of cancers and anti-cancer therapy]. / Kardiovaskulární komplikace nádoru a jejich lécby.

In our aging population the incidence of cancer is increasing in the elderly. We are thus facing a new challenge especially considering incidence of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in this patients population. Overall survival of cancer patients has significantly improved therefore cancer has become in many cases a chronic disease. We are about to be treating patients who either may develop a new CVD or their current CVD may deteriorate. Cancer can cause various cardiovascular conditions locally (pressure in mediastinum, effusions) or systemically (increased risk of pulmonary embolism, arrhythmias, carcinoid heart disease). Medical cancer therapy can lead to congestive heart failure (CHF) per se, by anthracycline or antiHER2 therapy direct cardiac toxicity or by number of other cardiac conditions medical treatment can cause, such as accelerated arterial hypertension due to anti-angiogenic therapy (tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, bevacizumab) or even standard chemotherapy (alkylating agents, cisplatin) or overusing steroids in cancer patients. Atrial fibrillation (AFib) also contributes to CHF development. AFib in cancer patients may develop secondary to ischaemia in anaemic patients, metabolic disorders caused by cancer or treatment, pulmonary embolism, sepsis or even as a result of direct impact of cytotoxic treatment (cisplatin, ifosfamide, gemcitabine, 5-fluorouracil, etoposide). One of major risk factors for CHF is coronary artery disease (CAD), which is a very serious late sequel of cancer therapy mainly in long time cancer survivors (testicular cancer, childhood cancer, hematologic malignancies, breast cancer). CAD may develop secondary to thoracic irradiation, dyslipidemia caused by hormonal treatment or simply as results of endothelial dysfunction caused by alkylating agents. In summary, long time cancer survivors represent a subgroup of patients at great risk of developing CVD in any form. It is crucial to mention that these patients can develop typical CVD much earlier compared to standard population and therefore require special follow-up with active surveillance.Key words: anthracycline - atrial fibrillation - cardiac toxicity - heart failure - pulmonary embolism.

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.

Neratinib after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer (ExteNET): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Neratinib, an irreversible tyrosine-kinase inhibitor of HER1, HER2, and HER4, has clinical activity in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of 12 months of neratinib after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. METHODS: We did this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 495 centres in Europe, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and North and South America. Eligible women (aged ≥18 years, or ≥20 years in Japan) had stage 1-3 HER2-positive breast cancer and had completed neoadjuvant and adjuvant trastuzumab therapy up to 2 years before randomisation. Inclusion criteria were amended on Feb 25, 2010, to include patients with stage 2-3 HER2-positive breast cancer who had completed trastuzumab therapy up to 1 year previously. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral neratinib 240 mg per day or matching placebo. The randomisation sequence was generated with permuted blocks stratified by hormone receptor status (hormone receptor-positive [oestrogen or progesterone receptor-positive or both] vs hormone receptor-negative [oestrogen and progesterone receptor-negative]), nodal status (0, 1-3, or ≥4), and trastuzumab adjuvant regimen (sequentially vs concurrently with chemotherapy), then implemented centrally via an interactive voice and web-response system. Patients, investigators, and trial sponsors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival, as defined in the original protocol, at 2 years after randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00878709. FINDINGS: Between July 9, 2009, and Oct 24, 2011, we randomly assigned 2840 women to receive neratinib (n=1420) or placebo (n=1420). Median follow-up time was 24 months (IQR 20-25) in the neratinib group and 24 months (22-25) in the placebo group. At 2 year follow-up, 70 invasive disease-free survival events had occurred in patients in the neratinib group versus 109 events in those in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio 0·67, 95% CI 0·50-0·91; p=0·0091). The 2-year invasive disease-free survival rate was 93·9% (95% CI 92·4-95·2) in the neratinib group and 91·6% (90·0-93·0) in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in patients in the neratinib group were diarrhoea (grade 3, n=561 [40%] and grade 4, n=1 [<1%] vs grade 3, n=23 [2%] in the placebo group), vomiting (grade 3, n=47 [3%] vs n=5 [<1%]), and nausea (grade 3, n=26 [2%] vs n=2 [<1%]). QT prolongation occurred in 49 (3%) patients given neratinib and 93 (7%) patients given placebo, and decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction (≥grade 2) in 19 (1%) and 15 (1%) patients, respectively. We recorded serious adverse events in 103 (7%) patients in the neratinib group and 85 (6%) patients in the placebo group. Seven (<1%) deaths (four patients in the neratinib group and three patients in the placebo group) unrelated to disease progression occurred after study drug discontinuation. The causes of death in the neratinib group were unknown (n=2), a second primary brain tumour (n=1), and acute myeloid leukaemia (n=1), and in the placebo group were a brain haemorrhage (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), and gastric cancer (n=1). None of the deaths were attributed to study treatment in either group. INTERPRETATION: Neratinib for 12 months significantly improved 2-year invasive disease-free survival when given after chemotherapy and trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy to women with HER2-positive breast cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to ensure that the improvement in breast cancer outcome is maintained. FUNDING: Wyeth, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology.

Health-related quality of life of patients with advanced breast cancer treated with everolimus plus exemestane versus placebo plus exemestane in the phase 3, randomized, controlled, BOLERO-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, controlled BOLERO-2 (Breast Cancer Trials of Oral Everolimus) trial demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival with the use of everolimus plus exemestane (EVE + EXE) versus placebo plus exemestane (PBO + EXE) in patients with advanced breast cancer who developed disease progression after treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. This analysis investigated the treatment effects on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: Using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaire, HRQOL was assessed at baseline and every 6 weeks thereafter until disease progression and/or treatment discontinuation. The 30 items in 15 subscales of the QLQ-C30 include global health status wherein higher scores (range, 0-100) indicate better HRQOL. This analysis included a protocol-specified time to definitive deterioration (TDD) analysis at a 5% decrease in HRQOL versus baseline, with no subsequent increase above this threshold. The authors report additional sensitivity analyses using 10-point minimal important difference decreases in the global health status score versus baseline. Treatment arms were compared using the stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for trial stratum (visceral metastases, previous hormone sensitivity), age, sex, race, baseline global health status score and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, prognostic risk factors, and treatment history. RESULTS: Baseline global health status scores were found to be similar between treatment groups (64.7 vs 65.3). The median TDD in HRQOL was 8.3 months with EVE + EXE versus 5.8 months with PBO + EXE (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .0084). At the 10-point minimal important difference, the median TDD with EVE + EXE was 11.7 months versus 8.4 months with PBO + EXE (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .1017). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced breast cancer who develop disease progression after treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors, EVE + EXE was associated with a longer TDD in global HRQOL versus PBO + EXE.

AMEERA-3: Randomized Phase II Study of Amcenestrant (Oral Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader) Versus Standard Endocrine Monotherapy in Estrogen Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Amcenestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor degrader) demonstrated promising safety and efficacy in earlier clinical studies for endocrine-resistant, estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (aBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In AMEERA-3 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04059484), an open-label, worldwide phase II trial, patients with ER+/HER2- aBC who progressed in the (neo)adjuvant or advanced settings after not more than two previous lines of endocrine therapy (ET) were randomly assigned 1:1 to amcenestrant or single-agent endocrine treatment of physician's choice (TPC), stratified by the presence/absence of visceral metastases, previous/no treatment with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0/1). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent central review, compared using a stratified log-rank test (one-sided type I error rate of 2.5%). RESULTS: Between October 22, 2019, and February 15, 2021, 290 patients were randomly assigned to amcenestrant (n = 143) or TPC (n = 147). PFS was numerically similar between amcenestrant and TPC (median PFS [mPFS], 3.6 v 3.7 months; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.051 [95% CI, 0.789 to 1.4]; one-sided P = .643). Among patients with baseline mutated ESR1; (n = 120 of 280), amcenestrant numerically prolonged PFS versus TPC (mPFS, 3.7 v 2.0 months; stratified HR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.565 to 1.435]). Overall survival data were immature but numerically similar between groups (HR, 0.913; 95% CI, 0.595 to 1.403). In amcenestrant versus TPC groups, treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade) occurred in 82.5% versus 76.2% of patients and grade ≥3 events occurred in 21.7% versus 15.6%. CONCLUSION: AMEERA-3 did not meet its primary objective of improved PFS with amcenestrant versus TPC although a numerical improvement in PFS was observed in patients with baseline ESR1 mutation. Efficacy and safety with amcenestrant were consistent with the standard of care for second-/third-line ET for ER+/HER2- aBC.

Overall survival with neratinib after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer (ExteNET): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: ExteNET showed that neratinib, an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor, given for 1 year after trastuzumab-based therapy significantly improved invasive disease-free survival in women with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. We report the final analysis of overall survival in ExteNET. METHODS: In this international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, women aged 18 years or older with stage 1-3c (amended to stage 2-3c) HER2-positive breast cancer who had completed neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to oral neratinib 240 mg/day or placebo for 1 year. Randomisation was stratified according to hormone receptor (HR) status (HR-positive vs. HR-negative), nodal status (0, 1-3 or 4+), and trastuzumab regimen (sequentially vs. concurrently with chemotherapy). Overall survival was analysed by intention to treat. ExteNET is registered (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00878709) and is complete. RESULTS: Between July 9, 2009, and October 24, 2011, 2840 women received neratinib (n = 1420) or placebo (n = 1420). After a median follow-up of 8.1 (IQR, 7.0-8.8) years, 127 patients (8.9%) in the neratinib group and 137 patients (9.6%) in the placebo group in the intention-to-treat population had died. Eight-year overall survival rates were 90.1% (95% CI 88.3-91.6) with neratinib and 90.2% (95% CI 88.4-91.7) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.75-1.21; p = 0.6914). CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival in the extended adjuvant setting was comparable for neratinib and placebo after a median follow-up of 8.1 years in women with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer.

Margetuximab Versus Trastuzumab in Patients With Previously Treated HER2-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer (SOPHIA): Final Overall Survival Results From a Randomized Phase 3 Trial.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Final overall survival (OS) in SOPHIA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02492711), a study of margetuximab versus trastuzumab, both with chemotherapy, in patients with previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced breast cancer, is reported with updated safety. Overall, 536 patients in the intention-to-treat population were randomly assigned to margetuximab (15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks; n = 266) plus chemotherapy or trastuzumab (6 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks after a loading dose of 8 mg/kg; n = 270) plus chemotherapy. Primary end points were progression-free survival, previously reported, and OS. Final OS analysis was triggered by 385 prespecified events. The median OS was 21.6 months (95% CI, 18.89 to 25.07) with margetuximab versus 21.9 months (95% CI, 18.69 to 24.18) with trastuzumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.17; P = .620). Preplanned, exploratory analysis of CD16A genotyping suggested a possible improvement in OS for margetuximab in CD16A-158FF patients versus trastuzumab (median OS, 23.6 v 19.2 months; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.00) and a possible improvement in OS for trastuzumab in CD16A-158VV patients versus margetuximab (median OS, 31.1 v 22.0 months; HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.01 to 3.12). Margetuximab safety was comparable with trastuzumab. Final overall OS analysis did not demonstrate margetuximab advantage over trastuzumab. Margetuximab studies in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer with different CD16A allelic variants are warranted.

Eribulin monotherapy versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer (EMBRACE): a phase 3 open-label randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Treatments with survival benefit are greatly needed for women with heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer. Eribulin mesilate is a non-taxane microtubule dynamics inhibitor with a novel mode of action. We aimed to compare overall survival of heavily pretreated patients receiving eribulin versus currently available treatments. METHODS: In this phase 3 open-label study, women with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer were randomly allocated (2:1) to eribulin mesilate (1·4 mg/m(2) administered intravenously during 2-5 min on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) or treatment of physician's choice (TPC). Patients had received between two and five previous chemotherapy regimens (two or more for advanced disease), including an anthracycline and a taxane, unless contraindicated. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, previous capecitabine treatment, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00388726. FINDINGS: 762 women were randomly allocated to treatment groups (508 eribulin, 254 TPC). Overall survival was significantly improved in women assigned to eribulin (median 13·1 months, 95% CI 11·8-14·3) compared with TPC (10·6 months, 9·3-12·5; hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·66-0·99; p=0·041). The most common adverse events in both groups were asthenia or fatigue (270 [54%] of 503 patients on eribulin and 98 [40%] of 247 patients on TPC at all grades) and neutropenia (260 [52%] patients receiving eribulin and 73 [30%] of those on TPC at all grades). Peripheral neuropathy was the most common adverse event leading to discontinuation from eribulin, occurring in 24 (5%) of 503 patients. INTERPRETATION: Eribulin showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival compared with TPC in women with heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer. This finding challenges the notion that improved overall survival is an unrealistic expectation during evaluation of new anticancer therapies in the refractory setting. FUNDING: Eisai.

First-line bevacizumab-containing therapy for triple-negative breast cancer: analysis of 585 patients treated in the ATHENA study.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is poor and treatment options are limited. Bevacizumab improves the efficacy of standard first-line therapy in locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). The benefit of bevacizumab seen in patients with TNBC appears similar to that observed in the overall population. We conducted an exploratory analysis of patients with TNBC treated in the single-arm routine oncology practice ATHENA study. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated LR/mBC received standard first-line chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks, until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient/physician decision). RESULTS: Of 2,264 patients treated in ATHENA, 585 (26%) had TNBC. Most patients received single-agent taxane with bevacizumab. In the TNBC subgroup, the overall response rate was 49%, including complete responses in 10%; only 16% had primary resistant disease. Median time to progression was 7.2 months (95% CI 6.6-7.8) and median overall survival was 18.3 months (95% CI 16.4-19.7). The 1-year overall survival rate was 60%. The safety profile in TNBC was consistent with results in the overall population. CONCLUSION: This exploratory subgroup analysis suggests that first-line chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab is an active regimen in patients with metastatic TNBC.

Biomarker Dynamics and Long-Term Treatment Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients with Residual Cancer Burden after Neoadjuvant Therapy.

A residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for breast cancer (BC) is associated with worse treatment outcomes compared to patients who achieved pathologic complete remission. This single-institutional retrospective study of 767 consecutive patients, including 468 patients with assessable residual cancer burden (aRCB) after NAT, with a median follow-up of 36 months, evaluated the biomarkers assessed before NAT from a biopsy and after NAT from a surgical specimen, their dynamics, and effect on long-term outcomes in specific breast cancer subtypes. The leading focus was on proliferation index Ki-67, which was significantly altered by NAT in all BC subtypes (p < 0.001 for HER2 positive and luminal A/B HER2 negative and p = 0.001 for TNBC). Multivariable analysis showed pre-NAT and post-NAT Ki-67 as independent predictors of survival outcomes for luminal A/B HER2 negative subtype. For TNBC, post-NAT Ki-67 was significant alone, and, for HER2 positive, the only borderline association of pre-NAT Ki-67 was observed in relation to the overall survival. Steroid and HER2 receptors were re-assessed just in a portion of the patients with aRCB. The concordance of both assessments was 92.9% for ER status, 80.1% for PR, and 92.2% for HER2. In conclusion, these real-world data of a consecutive cohort confirmed the importance of biomarkers assessment in patients with aRCB, and the need to consider specific BC subtypes when interpreting their influence on prognosis.

Management Strategies for Hyperglycemia Associated with the α-Selective PI3K Inhibitor Alpelisib for the Treatment of Breast Cancer.

Alpelisib is an α-selective phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor used for treating hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative (HER2-), PIK3CA-mutated locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer following disease progression on or after endocrine therapy. Hyperglycemia is an on-target effect of alpelisib affecting approximately 60% of treated patients, and sometimes necessitating dose reductions, treatment interruptions, or discontinuation of alpelisib. Early detection of hyperglycemia and timely intervention have a key role in achieving optimal glycemic control and maintaining alpelisib dose intensity to optimize the benefit of this drug. A glycemic support program implemented by an endocrinology-oncology collaborative team may be very useful in this regard. Lifestyle modifications, mainly comprising a reduced-carbohydrate diet, and a designated stepwise, personalized antihyperglycemic regimen, based on metformin, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, and pioglitazone, are the main tools required to address the insulin-resistant hyperglycemia induced by alpelisib. In this report, based on the consensus of 14 oncologists and seven endocrinologists, we provide guidance for hyperglycemia management strategies before, during, and after alpelisib therapy for HR+, HER2-, PIK3CA-mutated breast cancer, with a focus on a proactive, multidisciplinary approach.

Combination therapy of lapatinib and Capecitabine for ErbB2-positive metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer: results from the Lapatinib Expanded Access Program (LEAP) in Central and Eastern Europe.

BACKGROUND: The Lapatinib Expanded Access Program (LEAP) was initiated in 45 countries to provide lapatinib in combination with capecitabine to patients with ErbB2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer already treated with anthracyclines, taxanes and trastuzumab. We report the results from 12 Central and Eastern European countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: By 30 September 2008, 293 patients were enrolled. Patients were monitored for serious adverse events (SAEs) and for any decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Overall survival and progression-free survival were also assessed. RESULTS: Mean treatment duration was 30 weeks; 107 patients (36.5%) discontinued therapy during the study, mainly due to disease progression (n = 86; 29.4%). A total of 78 SAEs were reported from 47 patients; the most frequently reported was diarrhoea (13 reports). Treatment had a relatively small effect on LVEF. Decreases were minor (0 to < 20%) in 61% of patients at the end of the study. During the study, 3 patients had decreased LVEF meeting the definition of an SAE; these events all resolved. Median overall and median progression-free survival were 37.6 and 21.1 weeks, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Heavily pretreated patients with ErbB2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer may benefit from treatment with lapatinib and capecitabine, with a low risk of cardiac toxicity.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Evaluation of Early Clinical Response, Pathological Complete Response Rates, and Addition of Platinum Salts Benefit Based on Real-World Evidence.

Pathological complete response (pCR) achievement is undoubtedly the essential goal of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer, directly affecting survival endpoints. This retrospective study of 237 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients with a median follow-up of 36 months evaluated the role of adding platinum salts into standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). After the initial four standard NACT cycles, early clinical response (ECR) was assessed and used to identify tumors and patients generally sensitive to NACT. BRCA1/2 mutation, smaller unifocal tumors, and Ki-67 ≥ 65% were independent predictors of ECR. The total pCR rate was 41%, the achievement of pCR was strongly associated with ECR (OR = 15.1, p < 0.001). According to multivariable analysis, the significant benefit of platinum NACT was observed in early responders ≥45 years, Ki-67 ≥ 65% and persisted lymph node involvement regardless of BRCA1/2 status. Early responders with pCR had a longer time to death (HR = 0.28, p < 0.001) and relapse (HR = 0.26, p < 0.001). The pCR was achieved in only 7% of non-responders. However, platinum salts favored non-responders' survival outcomes without statistical significance. Toxicity was significantly often observed in patients with platinum NACT (p = 0.003) but not for grade 3/4 (p = 0.155). These results based on real-world evidence point to the usability of ECR in NACT management, especially focusing on the benefit of platinum salts.

nextMONARCH: Abemaciclib Monotherapy or Combined With Tamoxifen for Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abemaciclib is a selective cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor administered continuously for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer. Abemaciclib is associated with dose-dependent early-onset diarrhea. nextMONARCH evaluated abemaciclib monotherapy (with or without prophylactic loperamide) and combined with tamoxifen for endocrine refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: nextMONARCH is an open-label, controlled, randomized, phase II study of women with endocrine-refractory HR+, HER2- MBC previously treated with chemotherapy. Patients received abemaciclib 150 mg plus tamoxifen 20 mg (A+T), abemaciclib 150 mg every 12 hours (A-150), or abemaciclib 200 mg plus prophylactic loperamide (A-200). The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS). PFS analyses tested superiority of A+T to A-200 and informal noninferiority of A-150 to A-200. The secondary objectives included the objective response rate (ORR), safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: The median PFS was 9.1 months for A+T versus 7.4 months for A-200 (hazard ratio, 0.815; 95% confidence interval, 0.556-1.193; P = .293). The A-200 PFS was comparable to that with A-150 at 6.5 months (hazard ratio, 1.045; 95% confidence interval, 0.711-1.535; P = .811). The ORR was 34.6%, 24.1%, and 32.5% for A+T, A-150, and A-200, respectively. No new safety signals were identified. The incidence and severity of diarrhea (62.3%; grade 3, 7.8%) with A-200 was similar to that with A-150 (67.1%; grade 3, 3.8%). The pharmacokinetics were comparable to previous observations. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of tamoxifen to abemaciclib did not significantly improve PFS or ORR compared with abemaciclib monotherapy but confirmed the single-agent activity of abemaciclib in heavily pretreated HR+, HER2- MBC. Dose reductions and antidiarrheal medication generally managed diarrhea while maintaining efficacy.