Trastuzumab Deruxtecan versus Trastuzumab Emtansine for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab emtansine is the current standard treatment for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer whose disease progresses after treatment with a combination of anti-HER2 antibodies and a taxane. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial to compare the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan (a HER2 antibody-drug conjugate) with those of trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane. The primary end point was progression-free survival (as determined by blinded independent central review); secondary end points included overall survival, objective response, and safety. RESULTS: Among 524 randomly assigned patients, the percentage of those who were alive without disease progression at 12 months was 75.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69.8 to 80.7) with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 34.1% (95% CI, 27.7 to 40.5) with trastuzumab emtansine (hazard ratio for progression or death from any cause, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.37; P<0.001). The percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 94.1% (95% CI, 90.3 to 96.4) with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 85.9% (95% CI, 80.9 to 89.7) with trastuzumab emtansine (hazard ratio for death, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.86; prespecified significance boundary not reached). An overall response (a complete or partial response) occurred in 79.7% (95% CI, 74.3 to 84.4) of the patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan and in 34.2% (95% CI, 28.5 to 40.3) of those who received trastuzumab emtansine. The incidence of drug-related adverse events of any grade was 98.1% with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 86.6% with trastuzumab emtansine, and the incidence of drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 was 45.1% and 39.8%, respectively. Adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 10.5% of the patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and in 1.9% of those in the trastuzumab emtansine group; none of these events were of grade 4 or 5. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane, the risk of disease progression or death was lower among those who received trastuzumab deruxtecan than among those who received trastuzumab emtansine. Treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan was associated with interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca; DESTINY-Breast03 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03529110.).

Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: updated results from DESTINY-Breast03, a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: An improvement in progression-free survival was shown with trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the progression-free survival interim analysis of the DESTINY-Breast03 trial. The aim of DESTINY-Breast03 was to compare the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 169 study centres in North America, Asia, Europe, Australia, and South America. Eligible patients were aged 18 or older, had HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and at least one measurable lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan 5·4 mg/kg or trastuzumab emtansine 3·6 mg/kg, both administered by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by hormone receptor status, previous treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, and was managed through an interactive web-based system. Within each stratum, balanced block randomisation was used with a block size of four. Patients and investigators were not masked to the treatment received. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. The key secondary endpoint was overall survival and this prespecified second overall survival interim analysis reports updated overall survival, efficacy, and safety results. Efficacy analyses were performed using the full analysis set. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03529110. FINDINGS: Between July 20, 2018, and June 23, 2020, 699 patients were screened for eligibility, 524 of whom were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan (n=261) or trastuzumab emtansine (n=263). Median duration of study follow-up was 28·4 months (IQR 22·1-32·9) with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 26·5 months (14·5-31·3) with trastuzumab emtansine. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was 28·8 months (95% CI 22·4-37·9) with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 6·8 months (5·6-8·2) with trastuzumab emtansine (hazard ratio [HR] 0·33 [95% CI 0·26-0·43]; nominal p<0·0001). Median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 40·5 months-not estimable), with 72 (28%) overall survival events, in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and was not reached (34·0 months-not estimable), with 97 (37%) overall survival events, in the trastuzumab emtansine group (HR 0·64; 95% CI 0·47-0·87]; p=0·0037). The number of grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine (145 [56%] patients versus 135 [52%] patients). Adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 39 (15%) patients treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan and eight (3%) patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine, with no grade 4 or 5 events in either group. INTERPRETATION: Trastuzumab deruxtecan showed a significant improvement in overall survival versus trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, as well as the longest reported median progression-free survival, reaffirming trastuzumab deruxtecan as the standard of care in the second-line setting. A manageable safety profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan was confirmed with longer treatment duration. FUNDING: Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca.

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.

Neoadjuvant atezolizumab in combination with sequential nab-paclitaxel and anthracycline-based chemotherapy versus placebo and chemotherapy in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (IMpassion031): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Preferred neoadjuvant regimens for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) include anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and taxane-based chemotherapy. IMpassion031 compared efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus placebo combined with nab-paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant treatment for early-stage TNBC. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study enrolled patients in 75 academic and community sites in 13 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated stage II-III histologically documented TNBC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy plus intravenous atezolizumab at 840 mg or placebo every 2 weeks. Chemotherapy comprised of nab-paclitaxel at 125 mg/m2 every week for 12 weeks followed by doxorubicin at 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide at 600 mg/m2 every 2 weeks for 8 weeks, which was then followed by surgery. Stratification was by clinical breast cancer stage and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Co-primary endpoints were pathological complete response in all-randomised (ie, all randomly assigned patients in the intention-to-treat population) and PD-L1-positive (ie, patients with PD-L1-expressing tumour infiltrating immune cells covering ≥1% of tumour area) populations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03197935), Eudra (CT2016-004734-22), and the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center (JapicCTI-173630), and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between July 7, 2017, and Sept 24, 2019, 455 patients were recruited and assessed for eligibility. Of the 333 eligible patients, 165 were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 168 to placebo plus chemotherapy. At data cutoff (April 3, 2020), median follow-up was 20·6 months (IQR 8·7-24·9) in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19·8 months (8·1-24·5) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group. Pathological complete response was documented in 95 (58%, 95% CI 50-65) patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 69 (41%, 34-49) patients in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (rate difference 17%, 95% CI 6-27; one-sided p=0·0044 [significance boundary 0·0184]). In the PD-L1-positive population, pathological complete response was documented in 53 (69%, 95% CI 57-79) of 77 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 37 (49%, 38-61) of 75 patients in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (rate difference 20%, 95% CI 4-35; one-sided p=0·021 [significance boundary 0·0184]). In the neoadjuvant phase, grade 3-4 adverse events were balanced and treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 37 (23%) and 26 (16%) patients, with one patient per group experiencing an unrelated grade 5 adverse event (traffic accident in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and pneumonia in the placebo plus chemotherapy group). INTERPRETATION: In patients with early-stage TNBC, neoadjuvant treatment with atezolizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel and anthracycline-based chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response rates with an acceptable safety profile. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

A Long-Term Extension Study of Bevacizumab in Patients With Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab has been studied in numerous clinical trials in multiple types of cancer; however, patients may receive bevacizumab over an extended period of time. This study assessed the long-term safety and tolerability of bevacizumab among patients with solid tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled in a Roche/Genentech-sponsored trial who had derived benefit from bevacizumab therapy as monotherapy or in combination with anticancer drugs were eligible for continuation of bevacizumab in this long-term extension (LTE) study. The primary endpoints were the incidence of adverse events (AEs) of Common Terminology Criteria for AEs (CTCAE) grade ≥3 related to bevacizumab treatment, serious AEs (SAEs), and deaths. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients with the following cancer types were enrolled in the LTE: ovarian cancer or peritoneal carcinoma (n = 41), non-small cell lung cancer (n = 16), glioblastoma multiforme (n = 14), breast cancer (n = 11), colorectal cancer (n = 7), or renal cell carcinoma (n = 6). The median (range) duration of bevacizumab treatment was 15.6 (0.0-81.0) months during the LTE and 57.5 (16.4-134.9) months overall (parent trial + LTE), with three patients receiving bevacizumab for >10 years. Overall, 17 patients (17.9%) experienced SAEs, and 21 (22.1%) had a bevacizumab-related AE of CTCAE grade ≥3 (proteinuria and hypertension were the most common). Four patients died: three from disease progression and one from an AE considered unrelated to bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: The safety outcomes observed support the tolerability of long-term bevacizumab in patients with various solid tumors, with a median extended treatment duration of almost 5 years overall and >10 years in some individual patients. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01588184. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In this long-term extension study of patients with solid tumors, the median duration of bevacizumab treatment (including parent trials) was just under 5 years, with a long-term exposure in some patients of 7 to >10 years. Grade ≥3 adverse events related to bevacizumab were consistent with the established safety profile, with proteinuria and hypertension being the most common. Patients received bevacizumab over an extended period of time (beyond the length of most clinical trials), and the overall safety outcomes observed support the tolerability of long-term bevacizumab treatment in patients with solid tumors, with clinical benefit achieved over an extended period.

Atezolizumab and Nab-Paclitaxel in Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative (hormone-receptor-negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-negative) breast cancer is an aggressive disease with poor outcomes. Nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel may enhance the anticancer activity of atezolizumab. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) patients with untreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer to receive atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel or placebo plus nab-paclitaxel; patients continued the intervention until disease progression or an unacceptable level of toxic effects occurred. Stratification factors were the receipt or nonreceipt of neoadjuvant or adjuvant taxane therapy, the presence or absence of liver metastases at baseline, and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression at baseline (positive vs. negative). The two primary end points were progression-free survival (in the intention-to-treat population and PD-L1-positive subgroup) and overall survival (tested in the intention-to-treat population; if the finding was significant, then it would be tested in the PD-L1-positive subgroup). RESULTS: Each group included 451 patients (median follow-up, 12.9 months). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months with atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel, as compared with 5.5 months with placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.92; P=0.002); among patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the median progression-free survival was 7.5 months and 5.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.78; P<0.001). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the median overall survival was 21.3 months with atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and 17.6 months with placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for death, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.02; P=0.08); among patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the median overall survival was 25.0 months and 15.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.86). No new adverse effects were identified. Adverse events that led to the discontinuation of any agent occurred in 15.9% of the patients who received atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and in 8.2% of those who received placebo plus nab-paclitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel prolonged progression-free survival among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in both the intention-to-treat population and the PD-L1-positive subgroup. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of each agent. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; IMpassion130 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02425891 .).

FLABRA, frontline approach for BRCA testing in an ovarian cancer population: a Latin America epidemiologic study.

Aim: FLABRA evaluated the prevalence of BRCA mutations, genetic counseling and management approaches in patients with ovarian cancer in Latin America. Patients & methods: Patients with ovarian cancer from six Latin-American countries were enrolled. Tumor samples were tested for BRCA mutations (BRCAmut). In cases with BRCAmut, blood samples were analyzed to determine germline versus somatic mutations. Medical records were reviewed for counseling approach and treatment plan. Results: From 472 patients enrolled, 406 samples yielded conclusive results: 282 were BRCA wild-type (BRCAwt), 115 were BRCAmut and nine were variants of uncertain significance. In total, 110/115 were tested for germline mutations (77 germline and 33 somatic). Conclusion: Tumor testing to identify mutations in BRCA1/2 in ovarian cancer can help optimize treatment choices, meaning fewer patients require germline testing and genetic counseling, a scant resource in Latin America. Clinical trial registration: NCT02984423 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Adjuvant denosumab in early breast cancer (D-CARE): an international, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to, and inhibits, the receptor activator of RANKL (TNFSF11) and might affect breast cancer biology, as shown by preclinical evidence. We aimed to assess whether denosumab combined with standard-of-care adjuvant or neoadjuvant systemic therapy and locoregional treatments would increase bone metastasis-free survival in women with breast cancer. METHOD: In this international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (D-CARE), patients were recruited from 389 centres in 39 countries. We enrolled women (aged ≥ 18 years) with histologically confirmed stage II or III breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. On eligibility confirmation, investigators at each site telephoned an interactive voice response system to centrally randomly assign patients (1:1) based on a fixed stratified permuted block randomisation list (block size 4) to receive either denosumab (120 mg) or matching placebo subcutaneously every 3-4 weeks, starting with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, for about 6 months and then every 12 weeks for a total duration of 5 years. Stratification factors were breast cancer therapy, lymph node status, hormone receptor and HER2 status, age, and geographical region. The primary endpoint was the composite endpoint of bone metastasis-free survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01077154. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2010, and Aug 24, 2012, 4509 women were randomly assigned to receive denosumab (n=2256) or placebo (n=2253) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The primary analysis of the study was done when all patients had the opportunity to complete 5 years of follow-up with an analysis data cutoff date of Aug 31, 2017. The primary endpoint of bone metastasis-free survival was not significantly different between the groups (median not reached in either group; hazard ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·82-1·14; p=0·70). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events, reported in patients who had at least one dose of the investigational product (2241 patients with denosumab vs 2218 patients with placebo), were neutropenia (340 [15%] vs 328 [15%]), febrile neutropenia (112 [5%] vs 142 [6%]), and leucopenia (62 [3%] vs 61 [3%]). Positively adjudicated osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in 122 (5%) of 2241 patients treated with denosumab versus four (<1%) of 2218 patients treated with placebo; treatment-emergent hypocalcaemia occurred in 152 (7%) versus 82 (4%). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the placebo group due to acute myeloid leukaemia and depressed level of consciousness. INTERPRETATION: Despite preclinical evidence suggesting RANKL inhibition might delay bone metastasis or disease recurrence in patients with early-stage breast cancer, in this study, denosumab did not improve disease-related outcomes for women with high-risk early breast cancer. FUNDING: Amgen.

Ribociclib with letrozole vs letrozole alone in elderly patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in the randomized MONALEESA-2 trial.

PURPOSE: Determine the efficacy and safety of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole in elderly patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer. METHODS: 668 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); 295 patients were aged ≥ 65 years. Patients were randomized to ribociclib (600 mg/day; 3-weeks-on/1-week-off) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day) or placebo plus letrozole until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was PFS, which was evaluated in elderly (≥ 65 years) and younger (< 65 years) patients. Secondary endpoints included response rates and safety. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus letrozole significantly improved PFS vs placebo plus letrozole in elderly (hazard ratio: 0.608; 95% CI 0.394-0.937) and younger patients (hazard ratio: 0.523; 95% CI 0.378-0.723). Overall response rates were numerically higher in the ribociclib vs placebo arm, regardless of age. Ribociclib plus letrozole was well tolerated in elderly patients, with the safety profile similar to the overall study population. Nausea, vomiting, alopecia, and diarrhea were > 10% more frequent in the ribociclib plus letrozole vs placebo plus letrozole arm in both subgroups; most events were grade 1/2. In elderly patients, grade 1/2 anemia and fatigue were > 10% more frequent in the ribociclib plus letrozole vs placebo plus letrozole arm and discontinuation rates were similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of ribociclib to letrozole is a valid therapeutic option for elderly patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer in the first-line setting.

Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab-Containing Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Ovarian Cancer: ROSiA Single-Arm Phase 3B Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of extending bevacizumab therapy beyond 15 months in nonprogressive ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multinational prospective single-arm study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01239732), eligible patients had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIB to IV or grade 3 stage I to IIA ovarian cancer without clinical signs or symptoms of gastrointestinal obstruction or history of abdominal fistula, gastrointestinal perforation, or intra-abdominal abscess within the preceding 6 months. Prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy was permitted. After debulking surgery, patients received bevacizumab 15 (or 7.5) mg/kg every 3 weeks (q3w) with 4 to 8 cycles of paclitaxel (investigator's choice of 175 mg/m q3w or 80 mg/m weekly) plus carboplatin AUC 5 to 6 q3w. Single-agent bevacizumab was continued until progression or for up to 24 months. The primary end point was safety. RESULTS: Between December 2010 and May 2012, 1021 patients from 35 countries began study treatment. Bevacizumab was administered at 15 mg/kg in 89% of patients and for more than 15 months in 53%. Median follow-up duration was 32 months (range, 1-50 months). The most common all-grade adverse events were hypertension (55% of patients), neutropenia (49%), and alopecia (43%). The most common grade 3 or higher-grade adverse events were neutropenia (27%) and hypertension (25%). Bevacizumab was discontinued because of proteinuria in 5% of patients and hypertension in 3%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 25.5 months (95% confidence interval, 23.7-27.6 months). CONCLUSION: Extended bevacizumab demonstrated increased incidences of proteinuria and hypertension compared with 12 or 15 months of bevacizumab in previous trials, but these rarely led to bevacizumab discontinuation. Median PFS is the longest reported for frontline bevacizumab-containing therapy. The longer bevacizumab duration beyond 15 months in this study may improve PFS without substantially compromising safety.

Inhibition of EGFR, HER2, and HER3 signaling with AZD8931 in combination with anastrozole as an anticancer approach: Phase II randomized study in women with endocrine-therapy-naïve advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: AZD8931 is an orally bioavailable, reversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor of EGFR, HER2, and HER3 signaling. The Phase II MINT study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01151215) investigated whether adding AZD8931 to endocrine therapy would delay development of endocrine resistance in patients with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive daily anastrozole (1 mg) in combination with AZD8931 20 mg twice daily (bid), AZD8931 40 mg bid, or placebo. The primary objective was evaluation of progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with combination AZD8931 and anastrozole versus anastrozole alone. Secondary objectives included assessment of safety and tolerability, objective response rate, and overall survival. RESULTS: At the interim analysis, 359 patients were randomized and received anastrozole in combination with AZD8931 20 mg (n = 118), 40 mg (n = 120), or placebo (n = 121); 39 % of patients (n = 141) had a progression event. Median PFS (HR; 95 % CI vs placebo) in the AZD8931 20, 40 mg, and placebo arms was 10.9 (1.37; 0.91-2.06, P = 0.135), 13.8 (1.16; 0.77-1.75, P = 0.485), and 14.0 months, respectively. No indication of clinical benefit was observed following treatment with AZD8931 for the secondary endpoints. Safety findings showed a greater incidence of diarrhea (40, 51, and 12 % for AZD8931 20, 40 mg, and placebo, respectively), rash (32, 48, and 12 %), dry skin (19, 25, and 2 %), and acneiform dermatitis (16, 28, and 2 %) in patients treated with AZD8931 versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: AZD8931, in combination with endocrine therapy, does not appear to enhance endocrine responsiveness and is associated with greater skin and gastrointestinal toxicity.

Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) humanized monoclonal antibody trastuzumab improves the outcome in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. However, most cases of advanced disease eventually progress. Pertuzumab, an anti-HER2 humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits receptor dimerization, has a mechanism of action that is complementary to that of trastuzumab, and combination therapy with the two antibodies has shown promising activity and an acceptable safety profile in phase 2 studies involving patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 808 patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer to receive placebo plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel (control group) or pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel (pertuzumab group) as first-line treatment until the time of disease progression or the development of toxic effects that could not be effectively managed. The primary end point was independently assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, progression-free survival as assessed by the investigator, the objective response rate, and safety. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 12.4 months in the control group, as compared with 18.5 months in the pertuzumab group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.75; P<0.001). The interim analysis of overall survival showed a strong trend in favor of pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel. The safety profile was generally similar in the two groups, with no increase in left ventricular systolic dysfunction; the rates of febrile neutropenia and diarrhea of grade 3 or above were higher in the pertuzumab group than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel, as compared with placebo plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel, when used as first-line treatment for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, significantly prolonged progression-free survival, with no increase in cardiac toxic effects. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00567190.).

Evaluating the predictive value of biomarkers for efficacy outcomes in response to pertuzumab- and trastuzumab-based therapy: an exploratory analysis of the TRYPHAENA study.

INTRODUCTION: Molecular markers that predict responses to particular therapies are invaluable for optimization of patient treatment. The TRYPHAENA study showed that pertuzumab and trastuzumab with chemotherapy was an efficacious and tolerable combination for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting. We analyzed whether particular biomarkers correlated with the responses observed and therefore may predict outcomes in patients given pertuzumab plus trastuzumab. METHODS: We describe the analysis of a panel of biomarkers including HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), and phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) by qRT-PCR, immunohistochemistry (IHC), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and PCR-based mutational analyses as appropriate. For each marker analyzed, patients were categorized into 'low' (generally below median) or 'high' (generally above median) subgroups at baseline and post-treatment. RESULTS: Correlation of marker subgroups with the achievement of a pathological complete response (pCR) (ypT0/is) was analyzed. HER2 protein and mRNA expression levels were associated with pCR rate in two of the three study arms and the pooled analyses. Correlations of biomarker status with pCR occurred in one individual arm only and the pooled analyses with EGFR and PTEN; however, interpretation of these results is limited by a strong imbalance in patient numbers between the high and low subgroups and inconsistency between arms. We also found no association between expression levels of TOP2A and pCR rate in either the anthracycline-containing or free arms of TRYPHAENA. CONCLUSIONS: According to these analyses, and in line with other analyses of pertuzumab and trastuzumab in the neoadjuvant setting, we conclude that HER2 expression remains the only marker suitable for patient selection for this regimen at present. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The TRYPHAENA study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00976989, on September 14 2009.

Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive, clinical stage I-III breast cancer (HannaH study): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: A subcutaneous formulation of trastuzumab has been developed, offering potential improvements in patient convenience and resource use compared with the standard intravenous infusion of the drug. We compared the pharmacokinetic profile, efficacy, and safety of the subcutaneous and intravenous formulations in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. METHODS: The HannaH study was a phase 3, randomised, international, open-label, trial in the (neo)adjuvant setting. Patients with HER2-positive, operable, locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer were randomly assigned to eight cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy administered concurrently with trastuzumab every 3 weeks either intravenously (8 mg/kg loading dose, 6 mg/kg maintenance dose) or subcutaneously (fixed dose of 600 mg); 1:1 ratio. Chemotherapy consisted of four cycles of docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) followed by four cycles of fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2)), epirubicin (75 mg/m(2)), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m(2)), every 3 weeks. After surgery, patients continued trastuzumab to complete 1 year of treatment. Coprimary endpoints were serum trough concentration (C(trough)) at pre-dose cycle 8 before surgery (non-inferiority margin for the ratio between groups of 0·80) and pathological complete response (pCR; non-inferiority margin for the difference between groups of -12·5%), analysed in the per-protocol population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00950300. FINDINGS: 299 patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous trastuzumab and 297 to receive subcutaneous trastuzumab. The geometric mean presurgery C(trough) was 51·8 µg/mL (coefficient of variation 52·5%) in the intravenous group and 69·0 µg/mL (55·8%) in the subcutaneous group. The geometric mean ratio of C(trough) subcutaneous to C(trough) intravenous was 1·33 (90% CI 1·24-1·44). 107 (40·7%) of 263 patients in the intravenous group and 118 (45·4%) of 260 in the subcutaneous group achieved a pCR. The difference between groups in pCR was 4·7% (95% CI -4·0 to 13·4). Thus subcutaneous trastuzumab was non-inferior to intravenous trastuzumab for both coprimary endpoints. The incidence of grade 3-5 adverse events was similar between groups. The most common of these adverse events were neutropenia (99 [33·2%] of 298 patients in the intravenous group vs 86 [29·0%] of 297 in the subcutaneous group), leucopenia (17 [5·7%] vs 12 [4·0%]), and febrile neutropenia (10 [3·4%] vs 17 [5·7%]). However, more patients had serious adverse events in the subcutaneous group (62 [21%] of 297 patients) than in the intravenous group (37 [12%] of 298); the difference was mainly attributable to infections and infestations (24 [8·1%] in the subcutaneous group vs 13 [4·4%] in the intravenous group). Four adverse events led to death (one in the intravenous group and three in the subcutaneous group), all of which occurred during the neoadjuvant phase. Of these, two--both in the subcutaneous group--were deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Subcutaneous trastuzumab, administered over about 5 min, has a pharmacokinetic profile and efficacy non-inferior to standard intravenous administration, with a similar safety profile to intravenous trastuzumab, and therefore offers a valid treatment alternative. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Prognostic Factors and Survival Outcomes of Patients With Early HER2+ Breast Cancer Treated With Trastuzumab in a Brazilian Public Reference Center: A Real-World Study.

PURPOSE: Trastuzumab was introduced into the Brazilian public health care service for early breast cancer (BC) in 2012. This study describes the survival outcomes and prognostic factors related to early HER2+ BC treatment in a Brazilian reference cancer center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This were a retrospective, single-center, observational study of early HER2+ BC patients treated with trastuzumab in the (neo)adjuvant setting between 2012 and 2018 at Hospital Pérola Byington. Demographic, clinical, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) data were evaluated. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess independent prognostic factors. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-six and 353 patients treated in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting were included, respectively. The 3- and 5-year OS rates were 79% and 56% for the neoadjuvant group and 97% and 92% for the adjuvant group, respectively. Node positivity at diagnosis predicted poor OS for both groups. In the neoadjuvant group, stage III disease at diagnosis, delayed surgery, and lack of pathological complete response (pCR) predicted poor prognosis. The 3- and 5-year DFS rates were 67% and 46% in the neoadjuvant group and 91% and 86% in the adjuvant group, respectively. Histological grade 2, stage III disease at diagnosis, and lack of pCR predicted poor DFS for the neoadjuvant group. For the adjuvant group, node positivity at diagnosis predicted poor DFS. CONCLUSION: Our results reveal multiple clinical parameters affecting survival outcomes according to the treatment setting. Patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy have a poor prognosis since they present with more advanced disease, indicating the importance of early diagnosis and optimized treatment.

Dose-dependent change in biomarkers during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with fulvestrant: results from NEWEST, a randomized Phase II study.

NEWEST (Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Women with Estrogen-Sensitive Tumors) is the first study to compare biological and clinical activity of fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg in the neoadjuvant breast cancer setting. We hypothesized that fulvestrant 500 mg may be superior to 250 mg in blocking estrogen receptor (ER) signaling and growth. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase II study was performed to compare fulvestrant 500 mg (500 mg/month plus 500 mg on day 14 of month 1) versus fulvestrant 250 mg/month for 16 weeks prior to surgery in postmenopausal women with ER+ locally advanced breast cancer. Core biopsies at baseline, week 4, and surgery were assessed for biomarker changes. Primary endpoint: change in Ki67 labeling index (LI) from baseline to week 4 determined by automated computer imaging system (ACIS). Secondary endpoints: ER protein expression and function; progesterone receptor (PgR) expression; tumor response; tolerability. ER and PgR were examined retrospectively using the H score method. A total of 211 patients were randomized (fulvestrant 500 mg: n = 109; 250 mg: n = 102). At week 4, fulvestrant 500 mg resulted in greater reduction of Ki67 LI and ER expression versus 250 mg (-78.8 vs. -47.4% [p < 0.0001] and -25.0 vs. -13.5% [p = 0.0002], respectively [ACIS]); PgR suppression was not significantly different (-22.7 vs. -17.6; p = 0.5677). However, H score detected even greater suppression of ER (-50.3 vs. -13.7%; p < 0.0001) and greater PgR suppression (-80.5 vs. -46.3%; p = 0.0018) for fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg. At week 16, tumor response rates were 22.9 and 20.6% for fulvestrant 500 and 250 mg, respectively, with considerable decline in all markers by both ACIS and H score. No detrimental effects on endometrial thickness or bone markers and no new safety concerns were identified. This provides the first evidence of greater biological activity for fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg in depleting ER expression, function, and growth.

Dual PD-1 and CTLA-4 Checkpoint Blockade Using Balstilimab and Zalifrelimab Combination as Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Cervical Cancer: An Open-Label Phase II Study.

PURPOSE: Balstilimab (antiprogrammed death-1) and zalifrelimab (anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4) are two new checkpoint inhibitors emerging as promising investigational agents for the treatment of advanced cervical cancer. This phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03495882) evaluated the combination of balstilimab plus zalifrelimab in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic cervical cancer who relapsed after prior platinum-based therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were intravenously dosed with balstilimab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks and zalifrelimab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks, for up to 24 months. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR, RECIST version 1.1, assessed by independent central review). Secondary end points included duration of response, safety and tolerability, and survival. RESULTS: In total, 155 women (median age, 50 years [range, 24-76 years]) were enrolled and treated with balstilimab plus zalifrelimab; 125 patients had measurable disease at baseline and one prior line of platinum-based therapy in the advanced setting, and these patients constituted the efficacy-evaluable population. The median follow-up was 21 months. The confirmed ORR was 25.6% (95% CI, 18.8 to 33.9), including 10 complete responders and 22 partial responders, with median duration of response not reached (86.5%, 75.5%, and 64.2% at 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively). The ORRs were 32.8% and 9.1% in patients with programmed death ligand-1-positive and programmed death ligand-1-negative tumors, respectively. For patients with squamous cell carcinoma, the ORR was 32.6%. The overall disease control rate was 52% (95% CI, 43.3 to 60.6). Hypothyroidism (14.2%) and hyperthyroidism (7.1%) were the most common immune-mediated adverse events. CONCLUSION: Promising and durable clinical activity, with favorable tolerability, was seen in this largest trial to date evaluating dual programmed death-1/cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 blockade in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic cervical cancer. Further investigation of the balstilimab and zalifrelimab combination in this setting is continuing.

Treatment With Adjuvant Abemaciclib Plus Endocrine Therapy in Patients With High-risk Early Breast Cancer Who Received Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Prespecified Analysis of the monarchE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients selected to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) are usually those at higher risk of relapse, and there is a need to find better therapeutic options for these patients. Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety outcomes for patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-, high-risk early breast cancer enrolled in the randomized clinical trial monarchE who received NAC. Design, Setting, and Participants: The monarchE randomized clinical trial was a multicenter, phase 3, open-label study that evaluated adjuvant treatment with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) compared with ET alone in patients with HR+, ERBB2-, and node-positive early breast cancer who were at high risk of recurrence. Patients were recruited between July 2017 and August 2019 from 603 sites in 38 countries. This subgroup analysis was performed with primary outcome data, with a cutoff date of July 8, 2020. Intervention: Enrolled patients were randomized (1:1) to receive standard of care ET for at least 5 years with or without treatment with abemaciclib (150 mg, twice daily) for 2 years (treatment period) or until criteria were met for discontinuation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prior chemotherapy (NAC vs adjuvant vs none) was a stratification factor in monarchE, and and a prespecified exploratory analysis included outcomes in patients who received NAC. The data presented in this article are from the primary outcome analysis (395 invasive disease-free survival [IDFS] events; cutoff date, July 8, 2020; median follow-up 19 months [IQR, 15.6-23.9 months]). Invasive disease-free survival (the primary end point of monarchE) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Of the 5637 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.9 [10.6] years; 2046 women [99.5%]; 462 Asian [22.8%], 54 Black [2.7%], and 1473 White participants [70.8%]) enrolled in monarchE, 2056 (37%) received treatment with NAC. In this subgroup, treatment with abemaciclib and ET demonstrated clinically meaningful benefit in IDFS (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.80) and DRFS (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.81), which corresponded with an absolute improvement of 6.6% in 2-year IDFS rates and 6.7% in 2-year DRFS rates. A consistent treatment benefit was observed across subgroups of pathological breast tumor size or number of positive lymph nodes at surgery. Conclusions and Relevance: In the randomized clinical trial monarchE, treatment with adjuvant abemaciclib combined with ET demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in IDFS and DRFS for patients with HR+, ERBB2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer who received NAC before trial enrollment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03155997.

Phase III, Randomized Study of Dual Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) Blockade With Lapatinib Plus Trastuzumab in Combination With an Aromatase Inhibitor in Postmenopausal Women With HER2-Positive, Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Updated Results of ALTERNATIVE.

PURPOSE: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeting plus endocrine therapy (ET) improved clinical benefit in HER2-positive, hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) versus ET alone. Dual HER2 blockade enhances clinical benefit versus single HER2 blockade. The ALTERNATIVE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual HER2 blockade plus aromatase inhibitor (AI) in postmenopausal women with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC who received prior ET and prior neo(adjuvant)/first-line trastuzumab (TRAS) plus chemotherapy. This updated article reflects minor numerical corrections in some secondary efficacy analyses that resulted from programming errors and that do not change the major conclusions of the study. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lapatinib (LAP) plus TRAS plus AI, TRAS plus AI, or LAP plus AI. Patients for whom chemotherapy was intended were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; investigator assessed) with LAP plus TRAS plus AI versus TRAS plus AI. Secondary end points were PFS (comparison of other arms), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and safety. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five patients were included in this analysis: LAP plus TRAS plus AI (n = 120), TRAS plus AI (n = 117), and LAP plus AI (n = 118). Baseline characteristics were balanced. The study met its primary end point; superior PFS was observed with LAP plus TRAS plus AI versus TRAS plus AI (median PFS, 11 v 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88]; P = .0063). A consistent PFS benefit was observed in predefined subgroups. ORR, CBR, and OS also favored LAP plus TRAS plus AI. The median PFS with LAP plus AI versus TRAS plus AI was 8.3 versus 5.6 months (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.17]; P = .3159). Common adverse events (AEs; ≥ 15%) with LAP plus TRAS plus AI, TRAS plus AI, and LAP plus AI were diarrhea (69%, 9%, and 51%, respectively), rash (36%, 2%, and 28%, respectively), nausea (22%, 9%, and 22%, respectively), and paronychia (30%, 0%, and 15%, respectively), mostly grade 1 or 2. Serious AEs were reported similarly across the 3 groups, and AEs leading to discontinuation were lower with LAP plus TRAS plus AI. CONCLUSION: Dual HER2 blockade with LAP plus TRAS plus AI showed superior PFS benefit versus TRAS plus AI in patients with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC. This combination offers an effective and safe chemotherapy-sparing alternative treatment regimen for this patient population.

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.