Abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor as initial therapy for HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer: final overall survival results of MONARCH 3.

BACKGROUND: In MONARCH 2, the addition of abemaciclib to fulvestrant significantly improved both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) with disease progression on prior endocrine therapy. In MONARCH 3, the addition of abemaciclib to a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) as initial therapy for HR+, HER2- ABC significantly improved PFS. Here, we present the prespecified final OS results for MONARCH 3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MONARCH 3 is a randomized, double-blind, phase III study of abemaciclib plus NSAI (anastrozole or letrozole) versus placebo plus NSAI in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC without prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting. The primary objective was investigator-assessed PFS; OS was a gated secondary endpoint, and chemotherapy-free survival was an exploratory endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 493 women were randomized 2 : 1 to receive abemaciclib plus NSAI (n = 328) or placebo plus NSAI (n = 165). After a median follow-up of 8.1 years, there were 198 OS events (60.4%) in the abemaciclib arm and 116 (70.3%) in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.804; 95% confidence interval 0.637-1.015; P = 0.0664, non-significant). Median OS was 66.8 versus 53.7 months for abemaciclib versus placebo. In the subgroup with visceral disease, there were 113 OS events (65.3%) in the abemaciclib arm and 65 (72.2%) in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.758; 95% confidence interval 0.558-1.030; P = 0.0757, non-significant). Median OS was 63.7 months versus 48.8 months for abemaciclib versus placebo. The previously demonstrated PFS benefit was sustained, and chemotherapy-free survival numerically improved with the addition of abemaciclib. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Abemaciclib combined with an NSAI resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in median OS (intent-to-treat population: 13.1 months; subgroup with visceral disease: 14.9 months) in patients with HR+ HER2- ABC; however, statistical significance was not reached.

Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for high-risk early breast cancer: safety and patient-reported outcomes from the monarchE study.

BACKGROUND: In monarchE, abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) as adjuvant treatment of hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative, high-risk, early breast cancer (EBC) demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival versus ET alone. Detailed safety analyses conducted at a median follow-up of 27 months and key patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are presented. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment (n = 5591). Safety analyses included incidence, management, and outcomes of common and clinically relevant adverse events (AEs). Patient-reported health-related quality of life, ET symptoms, fatigue, and side-effect burden were assessed. RESULTS: The addition of abemaciclib to ET resulted in higher incidence of grade ≥3 AEs (49.7% versus 16.3% with ET alone), predominantly laboratory cytopenias [e.g. neutropenia (19.6%)] without clinical complications. Abemaciclib-treated patients experienced more serious AEs (15.2% versus 8.8%). Discontinuation of abemaciclib and/or ET due to AEs occurred in 18.5% of patients, mainly due to grade 1/2 AEs (66.8%). AEs were managed with comedications (e.g. antidiarrheals), abemaciclib dose holds (61.7%), and/or dose reductions (43.4%). Diarrhea was generally low grade (grade 1/2: 76%); grade 2/3 events were highest in the first month (20.5%), most were short-lived (≤7 days) and did not recur. Venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) were higher with abemaciclib + ET (2.5%) versus ET (0.6%); in the abemaciclib arm, increased VTE risk was observed with tamoxifen versus aromatase inhibitors (4.3% versus 1.8%). PROs were similar between arms, including being 'bothered by side-effects of treatment', except for diarrhea. At ≥3 months, most patients reporting diarrhea reported 'a little bit' or 'somewhat'. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high-risk EBC, adjuvant abemaciclib + ET has an acceptable safety profile and tolerability is supported by PRO findings. Most AEs were reversible and manageable with comedications and/or dose modifications, consistent with the known abemaciclib toxicity profile.

Final results from the PERUSE study of first-line pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus a taxane for HER2-positive locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, with a multivariable approach to guide prognostication.

BACKGROUND: The phase III CLinical Evaluation Of Pertuzumab And TRAstuzumab (CLEOPATRA) trial established the combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab and docetaxel as standard first-line therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). The multicentre single-arm PERtUzumab global SafEty (PERUSE) study assessed the safety and efficacy of pertuzumab and trastuzumab combined with investigator-selected taxane in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with inoperable HER2-positive LR/mBC and no prior systemic therapy for LR/mBC (except endocrine therapy) received docetaxel, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel with trastuzumab and pertuzumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Prespecified subgroup analyses included subgroups according to taxane, hormone receptor (HR) status and prior trastuzumab. Exploratory univariable analyses identified potential prognostic factors; those that remained significant in multivariable analysis were used to analyse PFS and OS in subgroups with all, some or none of these factors. RESULTS: Of 1436 treated patients, 588 (41%) initially received paclitaxel and 918 (64%) had HR-positive disease. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia (10%, mainly with docetaxel) and diarrhoea (8%). At the final analysis (median follow-up: 5.7 years), median PFS was 20.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) 18.9-23.1] months overall and was similar irrespective of HR status or taxane. Median OS was 65.3 (95% CI 60.9-70.9) months overall. OS was similar regardless of taxane backbone but was more favourable in patients with HR-positive than HR-negative LR/mBC. In exploratory analyses, trastuzumab-pretreated patients with visceral disease had the shortest median PFS (13.1 months) and OS (46.3 months). CONCLUSIONS: Mature results from PERUSE show a safety and efficacy profile consistent with results from CLEOPATRA and median OS exceeding 5 years. Results suggest that paclitaxel is a valid alternative to docetaxel as backbone chemotherapy. Exploratory analyses suggest risk factors that could guide future trial design.

Alpelisib plus fulvestrant for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative advanced breast cancer: final overall survival results from SOLAR-1.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) pathway via PIK3CA mutations occurs in 28%-46% of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancers (ABCs) and is associated with poor prognosis. The SOLAR-1 trial showed that the addition of alpelisib to fulvestrant treatment provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in PIK3CA-mutated, HR+, HER2- ABC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men and postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC whose disease progressed on or after aromatase inhibitor (AI) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive alpelisib (300 mg/day) plus fulvestrant (500 mg every 28 days and once on day 15) or placebo plus fulvestrant. Overall survival (OS) in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier methodology and a one-sided stratified log-rank test was carried out with an O'Brien-Fleming efficacy boundary of P ≤ 0.0161. RESULTS: In the PIK3CA-mutated cohort (n = 341), median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 39.3 months (34.1-44.9) for alpelisib-fulvestrant and 31.4 months (26.8-41.3) for placebo-fulvestrant [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (95% CI, 0.64-1.15; P = 0.15)]. OS results did not cross the prespecified efficacy boundary. Median OS (95% CI) in patients with lung and/or liver metastases was 37.2 months (28.7-43.6) and 22.8 months (19.0-26.8) in the alpelisib-fulvestrant and placebo-fulvestrant arms, respectively [HR = 0.68 (0.46-1.00)]. Median times to chemotherapy (95% CI) for the alpelisib-fulvestrant and placebo-fulvestrant arms were 23.3 months (15.2-28.4) and 14.8 months (10.5-22.6), respectively [HR = 0.72 (0.54-0.95)]. No new safety signals were observed with longer follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the analysis did not cross the prespecified boundary for statistical significance, there was a 7.9-month numeric improvement in median OS when alpelisib was added to fulvestrant treatment of patients with PIK3CA-mutated, HR+, HER2- ABC. Overall, these results further support the statistically significant prolongation of PFS observed with alpelisib plus fulvestrant in this population, which has a poor prognosis due to a PIK3CA mutation. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV ID: NCT02437318.

Outcome and molecular landscape of patients with PIK3CA-mutated metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: α-Selective phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors improve outcome in patients with PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/Her2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Nevertheless, it is still unclear how to integrate this new drug family in the treatment landscape. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 649 patients with mBC from the SAFIR02 trial (NCT02299999), with available mutational profiles were selected for outcome analysis. PIK3CA mutations were prospectively determined by next-generation sequencing on metastatic samples. The mutational landscape of PIK3CA-mutated mBC was assessed by whole-exome sequencing (n = 617). Finally, the prognostic value of PIK3CA mutations during chemotherapy was assessed in plasma samples (n = 44) by next-generation sequencing and digital PCR. RESULTS: Some 28% (104/364) of HR+/Her2- tumors and 10% (27/255) of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) presented a PIK3CA mutation (P < 0.001). PIK3CA-mutated HR+/Her2- mBC was less sensitive to chemotherapy [adjusted odds ratio: 0.40; 95% confidence interval (0.22-0.71); P = 0.002], and presented a worse overall survival (OS) compared with PIK3CA wild-type [adjusted hazard ratio: 1.44; 95% confidence interval (1.02-2.03); P = 0.04]. PIK3CA-mutated HR+/Her2- mBC was enriched in MAP3K1 mutations (15% versus 5%, P = 0.0005). In metastatic TNBC (mTNBC), the median OS in patients with PIK3CA mutation was 24 versus 14 months for PIK3CA wild-type (P = 0.03). We further looked at the distribution of PIK3CA mutation in mTNBC according to HR expression on the primary tumor. Some 6% (9/138) of patients without HR expression on the primary and 36% (14/39) of patients with HR+ on the primary presented PIK3CA mutation (P < 0.001). The level of residual PIK3CA mutations in plasma after one to three cycles of chemotherapy was associated with a poor OS [continuous variable, hazard ratio: 1.03, 95% confidence interval (1.01-1.05), P = 0.007]. CONCLUSION: PIK3CA-mutated HR+/Her2- mBC patients present a poor outcome and resistance to chemotherapy. Patients with PIK3CA-mutated TNBC present a better OS. This could be explained by an enrichment of PIK3CA mutations in luminal BC which lost HR expression in the metastatic setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SAFIR02 trial: NCT02299999.

Time course and management of key adverse events during the randomized phase III SOLAR-1 study of PI3K inhibitor alpelisib plus fulvestrant in patients with HR-positive advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Alpelisib (α-selective phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor) plus fulvestrant is approved in multiple countries for men and postmenopausal women with PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer following progression on or after endocrine therapy. A detailed understanding of alpelisib's safety profile should inform adverse event (AE) management and enhance patient care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: AEs in the phase III SOLAR-1 trial were assessed in patients with and without PIK3CA mutations. The impact of protocol-specified AE-management recommendations was evaluated, including an amendment to optimize hyperglycemia and rash management. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus alpelisib (n = 284) or placebo (n = 287). The most common grade 3/4 AEs with alpelisib were hyperglycemia (grade 3, 32.7%; grade 4, 3.9%), rash (grade 3, 9.9%), and diarrhea (grade 3, 6.7%). Median time to onset of grade ≥3 toxicity was 15 days (hyperglycemia, based on fasting plasma glucose), 13 days (rash), and 139 days (diarrhea). Metformin alone or in combination with other antidiabetic agents was used by most patients (87.1%) with hyperglycemia. Preventive anti-rash medication resulted in lower incidence (any grade, 26.7% versus 64.1%) and severity of rash (grade 3, 11.6% versus 22.7%) versus no preventative medication. Discontinuations due to grade ≥3 AEs were lower following more-detailed AE management guidelines (7.9% versus 18.1% previously). Patients with PIK3CA mutations had a median alpelisib dose intensity of 248 mg/day. Median progression-free survival with alpelisib was 12.5 and 9.6 months for alpelisib dose intensities of ≥248 mg/day and <248 mg/day, respectively, compared with 5.8 months with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperglycemia and rash occurred early during alpelisib treatment, while diarrhea occurred at a later time point. Early identification, prevention, and intervention, including concomitant medications and alpelisib dose modifications, resulted in less severe toxicities. Reductions in treatment discontinuations and improved progression-free survival at higher alpelisib dose intensities support the need for optimal AE management. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV ID: NCT02437318.

Pembrolizumab monotherapy for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: cohort A of the phase II KEYNOTE-086 study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) are limited. In cohort A of the phase II KEYNOTE-086 study, we evaluated pembrolizumab as second or later line of treatment for patients with mTNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had centrally confirmed mTNBC, ≥1 systemic therapy for metastatic disease, prior treatment with anthracycline and taxane in any disease setting, and progression on or after the most recent therapy. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 2 years. Primary end points were objective response rate in the total and PD-L1-positive populations, and safety. Secondary end points included duration of response, disease control rate (percentage of patients with complete or partial response or stable disease for ≥24 weeks), progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: All enrolled patients (N = 170) were women, 61.8% had PD-L1-positive tumors, and 43.5% had received ≥3 previous lines of therapy for metastatic disease. ORR (95% CI) was 5.3% (2.7-9.9) in the total and 5.7% (2.4-12.2) in the PD-L1-positive populations. Disease control rate (95% CI) was 7.6% (4.4-12.7) and 9.5% (5.1-16.8), respectively. Median duration of response was not reached in the total (range, 1.2+-21.5+) and in the PD-L1-positive (range, 6.3-21.5+) populations. Median PFS was 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.9-2.0), and the 6-month rate was 14.9%. Median OS was 9.0 months (95% CI, 7.6-11.2), and the 6-month rate was 69.1%. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 103 (60.6%) patients, including 22 (12.9%) with grade 3 or 4 AEs. There were no deaths due to AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated durable antitumor activity in a subset of patients with previously treated mTNBC and had a manageable safety profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02447003.

Phase I study of emactuzumab single agent or in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors reveals depletion of immunosuppressive M2-like macrophages.

BACKGROUND: Emactuzumab is a monoclonal antibody against the colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor and targets tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). This study assessed the safety, clinical activity, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of emactuzumab, as monotherapy and in combination with paclitaxel, in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, phase Ia/b study comprised two parts (dose escalation and dose expansion), each containing two arms (emactuzumab, every 2 or 3 weeks, as monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly). The dose-escalation part explored the maximum tolerated dose and optimal biological dose (OBD). The dose-expansion part extended the safety assessment and investigated the objective response rate. A PK/PD analysis of serial blood, skin and tumor biopsies was used to explore proof of mechanism and confirm the OBD. RESULTS: No maximum tolerated dose was reached in either study arm, and the safety profile of emactuzumab alone and in combination does not appear to preclude its use. No patients receiving emactuzumab monotherapy showed an objective response; the objective response rate for emactuzumab in combination with paclitaxel was 7% across all doses. Skin macrophages rather than peripheral blood monocytes or circulating colony-stimulating factor-1 were identified as an optimal surrogate PD marker to select the OBD. Emactuzumab treatment alone and in combination with paclitaxel resulted in a plateau of immunosuppressive TAM reduction at the OBD of 1000 mg administered every 2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Emactuzumab showed specific reduction of immunosuppressive TAMs at the OBD in both treatment arms but did not result in clinically relevant antitumor activity alone or in combination with paclitaxel. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01494688).

Randomised phase III trial of vinflunine plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in patients with advanced breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and resistant to taxane.

Background: Capecitabine is an approved standard therapy for anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (BC). Vinflunine has demonstrated single-agent activity in phase II studies in this setting and activity and tolerability when combined with capecitabine. We compared the combination of vinflunine plus capecitabine (VC) with single-agent capecitabine. Patients and methods: Patients with locally recurrent/metastatic BC previously treated or resistant to an anthracycline and resistant to taxane therapy were randomly assigned to either vinflunine (280 mg/m2, day 1) plus oral capecitabine [825 mg/m2 twice daily (b.i.d.), days 1-14] every 3 weeks (q3w) or single-agent oral capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 b.i.d., days 1-14) q3w. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee. The study had 90% power to detect a 30% improvement in PFS. Results: Overall, 770 patients were randomised. PFS was significantly longer with VC than with capecitabine alone [hazard ratio, 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71-0.99; log-rank P = 0.043; median 5.6 versus 4.3 months, respectively]. Median overall survival was 13.9 versus 11.7 months with VC versus capecitabine alone, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.15; log-rank P = 0.77). No difference in quality of life was observed between the two treatment arms. The most common adverse events (NCI CTCAE version 3.0) in the combination arm were haematological and gastrointestinal. Grade 4 neutropenia was more frequent with VC (12% versus 1% with capecitabine alone); febrile neutropenia occurred in 2% versus 0.5%, respectively. Hand-foot syndrome was less frequent with VC (grade 3: 4% versus 19% for capecitabine alone). Peripheral neuropathy was uncommon in both arms (grade 3: 1% versus 0.3%). Conclusions: Vinflunine combined with capecitabine demonstrated a modest improvement in PFS and an acceptable safety profile compared with capecitabine alone in patients with anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated locally recurrent/metastatic BC. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01095003.

Open-label randomised phase III trial of vinflunine versus an alkylating agent in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer.

Background: There is no standard treatment after progression on second-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We compared vinflunine with physician's choice of alkylating agent (AA) for patients with heavily pretreated MBC. Patients and methods: In this open-label phase III trial, patients with MBC were included if they had received at least two prior chemotherapy regimens for MBC and had received anthracycline, taxane, antimetabolite and vinca alkaloid therapy. Patients were no longer candidates for these chemotherapies because of resistance and/or intolerance. Patients were randomised to either vinflunine 280 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks (q3w) or AA monotherapy q3w. Stratification factors were performance status, number of prior chemotherapy lines for MBC, disease measurability and study site. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 594 patients were randomised (298 to vinflunine, 296 to AA). There was no difference between treatment arms in OS (hazard ratio 1.04, P = 0.67; median 9.1 months for vinflunine versus 9.3 months for AA), progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.94, P = 0.49; median 2.5 versus 1.9 months, respectively) or overall response rate (6% versus 4%, respectively). However, the disease control rate was significantly higher with vinflunine than AA (44% versus 35%, respectively; P = 0.04). The most common adverse events (any grade) were haematological and gastrointestinal disorders and asthenia in both arms. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (19% versus 11% with vinflunine versus AA, respectively) and asthenia (10% versus 4%). Conclusions: Vinflunine 280 mg/m2 q3w did not improve OS compared with the physician's choice of AA as third- or later-line therapy for MBC. Vinflunine demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, suggesting that vinflunine 320 mg/m2 merits evaluation. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01091168.

Updated results from MONALEESA-2, a phase III trial of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Background: The phase III MONALEESA-2 study demonstrated significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and a manageable toxicity profile for first-line ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer. Here, we report updated efficacy and safety data, together with exploratory biomarker analyses, from the MONALEESA-2 study. Patients and methods: A total of 668 postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- recurrent/metastatic breast cancer were randomized (1 : 1; stratified by presence/absence of liver and/or lung metastases) to ribociclib (600 mg/day; 3-weeks-on/1-week-off; 28-day treatment cycles) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day; continuous) or placebo plus letrozole. The primary end point was locally assessed PFS. The key secondary end point was overall survival (OS). Other secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Biomarker analysis was an exploratory end point. Results: At the time of the second interim analysis, the median duration of follow-up was 26.4 months. Median PFS was 25.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 23.0-30.3] for ribociclib plus letrozole and 16.0 months (95% CI 13.4-18.2) for placebo plus letrozole (hazard ratio 0.568; 95% CI 0.457-0.704; log-rank P = 9.63 × 10-8). Ribociclib treatment benefit was maintained irrespective of PIK3CA or TP53 mutation status, total Rb, Ki67, or p16 protein expression, and CDKN2A, CCND1, or ESR1 mRNA levels. Ribociclib benefit was more pronounced in patients with wild-type versus altered receptor tyrosine kinase genes. OS data remain immature, with 116 deaths observed; 50 in the ribociclib arm and 66 in the placebo arm (hazard ratio 0.746; 95% CI 0.517-1.078). The ORR was 42.5% versus 28.7% for all patients treated with ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole, respectively, and 54.5% versus 38.8%, respectively, for patients with measurable disease. Safety results, after a further 11.1 months of follow-up, were comparable with those reported at the first analysis, with no new or unexpected toxicities observed, and no evidence of cumulative toxicity. Conclusions: The improved efficacy outcomes and manageable tolerability observed with first-line ribociclib plus letrozole are maintained with longer follow-up, relative to letrozole monotherapy. Clinical trials number: NCT01958021.

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

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

Randomized phase II trial comparing molecularly targeted therapy based on tumor molecular profiling versus conventional therapy in patients with refractory cancer: cross-over analysis from the SHIVA trial.

Background: Several studies used the ratio of progression-free survival (PFS) on genotype-matched treatment to PFS on genotype-unmatched treatment to assess the efficacy of therapy guided by patients' tumor molecular profiling. We evaluated the PFS ratio from patients who cross-over in the SHIVA trial. Patients and methods: The primary end point of the SHIVA trial was to compare PFS on molecularly targeted agents (MTAs) based on tumor molecular profiling and treatment at physician's choice (TPC) in patients with any kind of cancer who had failed standard-of-care therapy. The experimental treatment included only marketed MTAs given outside their indications according to a pre-specified treatment algorithm. Patients were allowed to cross-over at disease progression in both arms. Response was evaluated according to RECIST 1.1 at randomization and at cross-over. We evaluated the ratio of PFS on MTA (PFSMTA) to PFS on TPC (PFSTPC) in patients who crossed-over. Results: Among 741 patients enrolled in the SHIVA trial, 197 were randomized, and 95 crossed-over, including 70 patients from the TPC to the MTA arm and 25 patients from the MTA to the TPC arm. Two patients crossed-over in the TPC arm without disease progression. The PFSMTA/PFSTPC ratio exceeded 1.3 in 37% of patients who crossed-over from the TPC to the MTA arm. The PFSMTA/PFSTPC ratio exceeded 1.3 in 61% of patients who crossed-over from the MTA arm to the TPC arm. Conclusions: The cross-over analysis of the SHIVA trial identified 37% of patients who crossed-over from TPC to MTA with a PFSMTA/PFSTPC ratio exceeding 1.3.

A randomized adaptive phase II/III study of buparlisib, a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, combined with paclitaxel for the treatment of HER2- advanced breast cancer (BELLE-4).

Background: Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation in preclinical models of breast cancer is associated with tumor growth and resistance to anticancer therapies, including paclitaxel. Effects of the pan-Class I PI3K inhibitor buparlisib (BKM120) appear synergistic with paclitaxel in preclinical and clinical models. Patients and methods: BELLE-4 was a 1:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adaptive phase II/III study investigating the combination of buparlisib or placebo with paclitaxel in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were stratified by PI3K pathway activation and hormone receptor status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the full and PI3K pathway-activated populations. An adaptive interim analysis was planned following the phase II part of the study, after ≥125 PFS events had occurred in the full population, to decide whether the study would enter phase III (in the full or PI3K pathway-activated population) or be stopped for futility. Results: As of August 2014, 416 patients were randomized to receive buparlisib (207) or placebo (209) with paclitaxel. At adaptive interim analysis, there was no improvement in PFS with buparlisib versus placebo in the full (median PFS 8.0 versus 9.2 months, hazard ratio [HR] 1.18), or PI3K pathway-activated population (median PFS 9.1 versus 9.2 months, HR 1.17). The study met protocol-specified criteria for futility in both populations, and phase III was not initiated. Median duration of study treatment exposure was 3.5 months in the buparlisib arm versus 4.6 months in the placebo arm. The most frequent adverse events with buparlisib plus paclitaxel (≥40% of patients) were diarrhea, alopecia, rash, nausea, and hyperglycemia. Conclusions: Addition of buparlisib to paclitaxel did not improve PFS in the full or PI3K pathway-activated study population. Consequently, the trial was stopped for futility at the end of phase II.

Circulating tumour cells and pathological complete response: independent prognostic factors in inflammatory breast cancer in a pooled analysis of two multicentre phase II trials (BEVERLY-1 and -2) of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab.

Background: We present a pooled analysis of predictive and prognostic values of circulating tumour cells (CTC) and circulating endothelial cells (CEC) in two prospective trials of patients with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with neoadjuvant and adjuvant bevacizumab. Patients and methods: Nonmetastatic T4d patients were enrolled in two phase II multicentre trials, evaluating bevacizumab in combination with sequential neoadjuvant chemotherapy of four cycles of FEC followed by four cycles of docetaxel in HER2-negative tumour (BEVERLY-1) or docetaxel and trastuzumab in HER2-positive tumour (BEVERLY-2). CTC and CEC were detected in 7.5 and 4 ml of blood, respectively, with the CellSearch System. Results: From October 2008 to September 2010, 152 patients were included and 137 were evaluable for CTC and CEC. At baseline, 55 patients had detectable CTC (39%). After four cycles of chemotherapy, a dramatic drop in CTC to a rate of 9% was observed (P < 0.01). Pathological complete response (pCR) rate was 40%. No correlation was found between CTC or CEC levels and pCR rate. Median follow-up was 43 months. CTC detection (≥1 CTC/7.5 ml) at baseline was associated with shorter 3-year disease-free survival (39% versus 70% for patients without CTC, P < 0.01, HR 2.80) and shorter 3-year overall survival (OS) (P < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, independent prognostic parameters for shorter survival were absence of hormonal receptors, no pCR and CTC detection at baseline. CEC level at baseline or variations during treatment had no prognostic value. Conclusion: In this pooled analysis of two prospective trials in nonmetastatic IBC, detection rate of CTC was 39% with a strong and independent prognostic value for survival. Combination of pCR after neoadjuvant treatment with no CTC detection at baseline isolated a subgroup of IBC with excellent OS (94% 3-year OS), suggesting that CTC count could be part of IBC stratification in prospective trials.

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

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

Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) plus docetaxel with or without pertuzumab in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: results from a phase Ib/IIa study.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) exhibited enhanced antitumor activity when combined with docetaxel or pertuzumab in preclinical studies. This phase Ib/IIa study assessed the feasibility of T-DM1 + docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and T-DM1 + docetaxel ± pertuzumab in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Phase Ib (part 1) explored dose escalation, with T-DM1 + docetaxel administered for greater than or equal to six cycles in patients with MBC. Phase Ib (part 2) began with the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) identified in part 1. Patients with LABC were administered less than or equal to six cycles of T-DM1 + docetaxel or T-DM1 + docetaxel + pertuzumab. Phase IIa explored the MTDs identified in phase Ib. RESULTS: Administered with T-DM1 (3.6 mg/kg), the docetaxel MTD was 60 mg/m(2) in MBC. In LABC, the MTD was 100 mg/m(2) docetaxel in combination with T-DM1 (3.6 mg/kg), given with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Administered with T-DM1 (3.6 mg/kg) + pertuzumab (840 mg, cycle 1; 420 mg, subsequent cycles), the docetaxel MTD in LABC was 75 mg/m(2) with G-CSF support. Neutropenia was the most common grade 3-4 adverse event (AE; MBC, 72% and LABC, 29%). In total, 48% (12/25) of MBC patients and 47% (34/73) of LABC patients experienced AEs requiring dose modification. In MBC (median prior systemic agents = 5), the objective response rate was 80.0% (20/25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 59.3-93.2) and the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months (range, 1.6-33.5). The pathologic complete response (ypT0/is, ypN0) rate in LABC was 60.3% (44/73; 95% CI 48.1-71.5). Pharmacokinetic analyses indicated a low risk of drug-drug interaction between T-DM1 and docetaxel. CONCLUSIONS: T-DM1 combined with docetaxel ± pertuzumab appeared efficacious in MBC or LABC; however, nearly half of patients experienced AEs requiring dose reductions with these T-DM1 combinations. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00934856.

Abiraterone acetate, exemestane or the combination in postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Androgen receptor (AR) signaling and incomplete inhibition of estrogen signaling may contribute to metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistance to a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI; letrozole or anastrozole). We assessed whether combined inhibition of androgen biosynthesis with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and estradiol synthesis with exemestane (E) may be of clinical benefit to postmenopausal patients with NSAI-pretreated estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 297) were stratified by the number of prior therapies for metastatic disease (0-1 versus 2) and by prior NSAI use (adjuvant versus metastatic), and randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to receive oral once daily 1000 mg abiraterone acetate plus 5 mg prednisone (AA) versus AA with 25 mg E (AAE) versus 25 mg E alone (E). Each treatment arm was well balanced with regard to the proportion of patients with AR-positive breast cancer. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, clinical benefit rate, duration of response, and overall response rate. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in PFS with AA versus E (3.7 versus 3.7 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.60; P = 0.437) or AAE versus E (4.5 versus 3.7 months; HR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.70-1.32; P = 0.794). Increased serum progesterone concentrations were observed in both arms receiving AA, but not with E. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events associated with AA, including hypokalemia and hypertension, were less common in patients in the E (2.0% and 2.9%, respectively) and AA arms (3.4% and 1.1%, respectively) than in the AAE arm (5.8% for both). CONCLUSIONS: Adding AA to E in NSAI-pretreated ER+ MBC patients did not improve PFS compared with treatment with E. An AA-induced progesterone increase may have contributed to this lack of clinical activity. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01381874.

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

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

Changes in quality of life after a diagnosis of cancer: a 2-year study comparing breast cancer and melanoma patients.

PURPOSE: Longitudinal studies addressing change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following a diagnosis of cancer have mainly focused on a single cancer type, and little is known about the differences in HRQoL over time according to the type of tumor. The current study aims to compare the change in HRQoL over 2 years following breast cancer or melanoma diagnosis and socio-demographic variables associated with HRQoL over time. METHODS: Patients recently diagnosed with breast cancer (n = 215) or melanoma (n = 78) completed surveys within 1 month of diagnosis and 6, 12, and 24 months later. Multilevel modeling analyses were used to compare the evolution over time of HRQoL dimensions, as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, in both cancers. Longitudinal effect of socio-demographic variables on HRQoL was also assessed. RESULTS: Consistent with the literature, both cancer patients experienced decreased HRQoL scores following the diagnosis before improving over time. However, our analyses revealed that this rebound effect may occur at diverse times over the course of the illness according to the type of cancer. In addition, HRQoL over time was positively associated with age and negatively related to living with a partner regardless of the type of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that support in hospital units should be specific and depend on the cancer type.