Sacituzumab Govitecan in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer have a poor prognosis. Sacituzumab govitecan is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an antibody targeting the human trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (Trop-2), which is expressed in the majority of breast cancers, coupled to SN-38 (topoisomerase I inhibitor) through a proprietary hydrolyzable linker. METHODS: In this randomized, phase 3 trial, we evaluated sacituzumab govitecan as compared with single-agent chemotherapy of the physician's choice (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine) in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. The primary end point was progression-free survival (as determined by blinded independent central review) among patients without brain metastases. RESULTS: A total of 468 patients without brain metastases were randomly assigned to receive sacituzumab govitecan (235 patients) or chemotherapy (233 patients). The median age was 54 years; all the patients had previous use of taxanes. The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3 to 6.3; 166 events) with sacituzumab govitecan and 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.5 to 2.6; 150 events) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.52; P<0.001). The median overall survival was 12.1 months (95% CI, 10.7 to 14.0) with sacituzumab govitecan and 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.8 to 7.7) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.59; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with an objective response was 35% with sacituzumab govitecan and 5% with chemotherapy. The incidences of key treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (51% with sacituzumab govitecan and 33% with chemotherapy), leukopenia (10% and 5%), diarrhea (10% and <1%), anemia (8% and 5%), and febrile neutropenia (6% and 2%). There were three deaths owing to adverse events in each group; no deaths were considered to be related to sacituzumab govitecan treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free and overall survival were significantly longer with sacituzumab govitecan than with single-agent chemotherapy among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Myelosuppression and diarrhea were more frequent with sacituzumab govitecan. (Funded by Immunomedics; ASCENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02574455; EudraCT number, 2017-003019-21.).

The effects of adding palbociclib to endocrine therapy to treat advanced breast cancer: a plain language summary of a study using the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 trial results.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of an article that reported results of a study using data from two phase 3 clinical trials called "PALOMA-2" and "PALOMA-3." Both PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 trials included women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. HR+/HER2- breast cancer means the breast cancer cells of these women have receptors for female sex hormones and little or no HER2 receptors. Both PALOMA trials tested the effect of adding a medication called palbociclib (brand name, Ibrance®) to a hormone therapy. Hormone therapy, also known as endocrine therapy, is a treatment that blocks or removes hormones that cause cancer cells to grow and divide. In both trials, women took endocrine therapy with either palbociclib or a placebo. WHAT WAS THE AIM OF THIS STUDY?: The researchers aimed to see if the results from the PALOMA trials were similar for subgroups of women in the 2 trials. The subgroups in the study included women who shared certain features about their cancer or treatment history, for example, women whose cancer had spread to the liver. For each subgroup, the study compared the results from the 2 treatment groups: (1) women who took palbociclib plus endocrine therapy, and (2) women who took placebo plus endocrine therapy. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS & WHAT DO THEY MEAN?: The same effect was found in all subgroups. Compared with those who took placebo, women who took palbociclib lived longer without their cancer getting worse (growing or spreading). Also, among women who had chemotherapy after stopping the trial treatment, those who took palbociclib started chemotherapy later than those who took placebo. Because palbociclib slows cancer growth and leads to tumor shrinkage, this may have played a part in starting chemotherapy later. These results show that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy is better at slowing the progression of advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer than endocrine therapy alone. This can be said for women with different advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer features and treatment history. Overall, the results support women taking palbociclib with an endocrine therapy if they have advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

Real-World Impact of Adjuvant Anti-HER2 Treatment on Characteristics and Outcomes of Women With HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer in the ESME Program.

BACKGROUND: Although adjuvant cancer treatments increase cure rates, they may induce clonal selection and tumor resistance. Information still lacks as whether (neo)adjuvant anti-HER2 treatments impact the patterns of recurrence and outcomes of HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We aimed to assess this in the large multicenter ESME real-world database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined the characteristics and outcomes (overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival under first-line treatment (PFS1)) of HER2+ patients with MBC from the French ESME program with recurrent disease, as a function of the previous receipt of adjuvant trastuzumab. Multivariable analyses used Cox models adjusted for baseline demographic, prognostic factors, adjuvant treatment received, and disease-free interval. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred and forty-three patients who entered the ESME cohort between 2008 and 2017 had a recurrent HER2+ MBC. Among them, 56% had received (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab and 2.5% another anti-HER2 in this setting. Patients pre-exposed to trastuzumab were younger, had a lower disease-free interval, more HR-negative disease and more metastatic sites. While the crude median OS appeared inferior in patients exposed to adjuvant trastuzumab, as compared to those who did not (37.2 (95%CI 34.4-40.3) versus 53.5 months (95% CI: 47.6-60.1)), this difference disappeared in the multivariable model (HR = 1.05, 95%CI 0.91-1.22). The same figures were observed for PFS1. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with relapsed HER2+ MBC, the receipt of adjuvant trastuzumab did not independently predict for worse outcomes when adjusted to other prognostic factors.

Impact of early palliative care on additional line of chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients: results from the randomized study OSS.

PURPOSE: The most appropriate criteria and timing for palliative care referral remain a critical issue, especially in patients with metastatic breast cancer for whom long-term chemosensibility and survival are observed. We aimed to compare the impact of early palliative care including formal concertation with oncologists on decision for an additional line of chemotherapy compared with usual oncology care. METHODS: This randomized prospective study enrolled adult women with metastatic breast cancer and visceral metastases with a 3rd- or 4th-line chemotherapy (CT). Patients received usual oncology care with a palliative care consultation only upon patient or oncologist request (standard group, S) or were referred to systematic palliative care consultation including a regular concertation between palliative care team and oncologists (early palliative care group, EPC). The primary endpoint was the rate of an additional CT (4th or 5th line) decision. Quality of life, symptoms, social support and satisfaction were self-evaluated at 6 and 12 months, at treatment discontinuation or 3 months after discontinuation. RESULTS: From January 2009 to November 2012, two authorized cancer centers included 98 women (EPC: 50; S: 48). Thirty-seven (77.1%, 95%CI 62.7-88%) patients in the EPC group had a subsequent chemotherapy prescribed and 36 (72.0%, 95%CI 57.5-83.8%) in the S group (p = 0.646). No differences in symptom control and global quality of life were observed, but less deterioration in physical functioning was reported in EPC (EPC: 0 [- 53-40]; S: - 6; 7 [- 60 to - 20]; p = 0.027). Information exchange and communication were significant improved in EPC (exchange, EPC: - 8.3 [- 30 to + 7]; S: 0.0 [- 17 to + 23]; p = 0.024; communication, EPC: 12.5 [- 8 to - 37]; S: 0.0 [- 21 to + 17]; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: EPC in metastatic breast cancer patients did not impact the prescription rate of additional chemotherapy in patients a 3rd- or 4th-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer; however, EPC may contribute to alleviate deterioration in physical functioning, while facilitating communication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT00905281, May 20, 2009.

Multicenter evaluation of breast cancer patients' satisfaction and experience with oncology telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, teleconsultation was implemented in clinical practice to limit patient exposure to COVID-19 while monitoring their treatment and follow-up. We sought to examine the satisfaction of patients with breast cancer (BC) who underwent teleconsultations during this period. METHODS: Eighteen centres in France and Italy invited patients with BC who had at least one teleconsultation during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic to participate in a web-based survey that evaluated their satisfaction (EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 and Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire [TSQ] scores) with teleconsultation. RESULTS: Among the 1299 participants eligible for this analysis, 53% of participants were undergoing standard post-treatment follow-up while 22 and 17% were currently receiving active anticancer therapy for metastatic and localised cancers, respectively. The mean satisfaction scores were 77.4 and 73.3 for the EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 and TSQ scores, respectively. In all, 52.6% of participants had low/no anxiety. Multivariable analysis showed that the EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 score correlated to age, anxiety score and teleconsultation modality. The TSQ score correlated to disease status and anxiety score. CONCLUSION: Patients with BC were satisfied with oncology teleconsultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Teleconsultation may be an acceptable alternative follow-up modality in specific circumstances.

Long-Term Pooled Safety Analysis of Palbociclib in Combination with Endocrine Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Updated Analysis with up to 5 Years of Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrated the tolerability of palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET). This analysis evaluated safety based on more recent cutoff dates and a longer palbociclib treatment exposure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from three randomized studies of patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC), including postmenopausal women who had not received prior systemic treatment for advanced disease (PALOMA-1/-2) and pre- and postmenopausal women who had progressed on prior ET (PALOMA-3). RESULTS: Updated cutoff dates were December 21, 2017 (PALOMA-1), May 31, 2017 (PALOMA-2), and April 13, 2018 (PALOMA-3). Total person-years of treatment exposure were 1,421.6 with palbociclib plus ET (n = 872) and 528.4 with ET (n = 471). Any-grade neutropenia and infections were more frequent with palbociclib plus ET (82.1% and 59.2%, respectively) than with ET (5.1% and 39.5%). The hazard ratios were 1.6 (p = .0995) for grade 3/4 infections, 1.8 (p = .4358) for grade 3/4 viral infections, 1.4 (p = .0001) for infections, and 30.8 (p < .0001) for neutropenia. Febrile neutropenia was reported in 1.4% of patients receiving palbociclib plus ET. Cumulative incidence of all-grade hematologic adverse events in both arms peaked during the first year of treatment and plateaued over the 5 subsequent years. Interstitial lung disease was reported in 13 patients receiving palbociclib plus ET and 3 receiving ET. CONCLUSION: This 5-year, long-term analysis demonstrated that palbociclib plus ET has a consistent and stable safety profile and is a safe treatment for patients with HR+/HER2- ABC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Several treatments for patients with breast cancer are associated with long-term or latent adverse events. This long-term, 5-year analysis demonstrated that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy has a consistent and stable safety profile without cumulative or delayed toxicities. These results further support palbociclib plus endocrine therapy as a safe and manageable treatment in clinical practice for patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer.

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 .).

Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (IMpassion130): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has shown promising efficacy across many different tumour types. We report the prespecified second interim overall survival analysis of the phase 3 IMpassion130 study assessing the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, done in 246 academic centres and community oncology practices in 41 countries, patients aged 18 years or older, with previously untreated, histologically documented, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a permuted block method (block size of four) and an interactive voice-web response system. Randomisation was stratified by previous taxane use, liver metastases, and PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells. Patients received atezolizumab 840 mg or matching placebo intravenously on day 1 and day 15 of every 28-day cycle and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 of body surface area intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Investigators, patients, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. Coprimary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population and in patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive tumours (tumours with ≥1% PD-L1 expression). The final progression-free survival results were previously reported at the first interim overall survival analysis. The prespecified statistical testing hierarchy meant that overall survival in the subgroup of PD-L1 immune cell-positive patients could only be formally tested if overall survival was significantly different between the treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02425891. FINDINGS: Between June 23, 2015, and May 24, 2017, 902 patients were enrolled, of whom 451 were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and 451 were assigned to receive placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (the intention-to-treat population). Six patients from each group did not receive treatment. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff Jan 2, 2019), median follow-up was 18·5 months (IQR 9·6-22·8) in the atezolizumab group and 17·5 months (8·4-22·4) in the placebo group. Median overall survival in the intention-to-treat patients was 21·0 months (95% CI 19·0-22·6) with atezolizumab and 18·7 months (16·9-20·3) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·72-1·02, p=0·078). In the exploratory overall survival analysis in patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive tumours, median overall survival was 25·0 months (95% CI 19·6-30·7) with atezolizumab versus 18·0 months (13·6-20·1) with placebo (stratified HR 0·71, 0·54-0·94]). As of Sept 3, 2018 (the date up to which updated safety data were available), the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (38 [8%] of 453 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 36 [8%] of 437 patients in the placebo group), peripheral neuropathy (25 [6%] vs 12 [3%]), decreased neutrophil count (22 [5%] vs 16 [4%]), and fatigue (17 [4%] vs 15 [3%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in two (<1%) patients in the atezolizumab group (autoimmune hepatitis related to atezolizumab [n=1] and septic shock related to nab-paclitaxel [n=1]) and one (<1%) patient in the placebo group (hepatic failure). No new treatment-related deaths have been reported since the primary clinical data cutoff date (April 17, 2018). INTERPRETATION: Consistent with the first interim analysis, this second interim overall survival analysis of IMpassion130 indicates no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population but suggests a clinically meaningful overall survival benefit with atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive disease. However, this positive result could not be formally tested due to the prespecified statistical testing hierarchy. For patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel is an important therapeutic option in a disease with high unmet need. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Veliparib with carboplatin and paclitaxel in BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer (BROCADE3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 or BRCA2-mutated breast cancers are sensitive to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and platinum agents owing to deficiency in homologous recombination repair of DNA damage. In this trial, we compared veliparib versus placebo in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, and continued as monotherapy if carboplatin and paclitaxel were discontinued before progression, in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. METHODS: BROCADE3 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 147 hospitals in 36 countries. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had deleterious germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation-associated, histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced HER2-negative breast cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had received up to two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) by interactive response technology by means of permuted blocks within strata (block size of 3 or 6) to carboplatin (area under the concentration curve 6 mg/mL per min intravenously) on day 1 and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 intravenously) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 21-day cycles combined with either veliparib (120 mg orally twice daily, on days -2 to 5) or matching placebo. If patients discontinued carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression, they could continue veliparib or placebo at an intensified dose (300 mg twice daily continuously, escalating to 400 mg twice daily if tolerated) until disease progression. Patients in the control group could receive open-label veliparib monotherapy after disease progression. Randomisation was stratified by previous platinum use, history of CNS metastases, and oestrogen and progesterone receptor status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat, which included all randomly assigned patients with a centrally confirmed BRCA mutation, and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of velilparib or placebo. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02163694. FINDINGS: Between July 30, 2014, and Jan 17, 2018, 2202 patients were screened, of whom 513 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population (n=509), 337 patients were assigned to receive veliparib plus carboplatin-paclitaxel (veliparib group) and 172 were assigned to receive placebo plus carboplatin-paclitaxel (control group). Median follow-up at data cutoff (April 5, 2019) was 35·7 months (IQR 24·9-43·6) in the veliparib group and 35·5 months (23·1-45·9) in the control group. Median progression-free survival was 14·5 months (95% CI 12·5-17·7) in the veliparib group versus 12·6 months (10·6-14·4) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·71 [95% CI 0·57-0·88], p=0·0016). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (272 [81%] of 336 patients in the veliparib group vs 143 [84%] of 171 patients in the control group), anaemia (142 [42%] vs 68 [40%]), and thrombocytopenia (134 [40%] vs 48 [28%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 115 (34%) patients in the veliparib group versus 49 (29%) patients in the control group. There were no study drug-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: The addition of veliparib to a highly active platinum doublet, with continuation as monotherapy if the doublet were discontinued, resulted in significant and durable improvement in progression-free survival in patients with germline BRCA mutation-associated advanced breast cancer. These data indicate the utility of combining platinum and PARP inhibitors in this patient population. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Evaluating the clinical effectiveness and safety of various HER2-targeted regimens after prior taxane/trastuzumab in patients with previously treated, unresectable, or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: In the absence of head-to-head trial data, network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to compare trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with other approved treatments for previously treated patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer (BC). METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted of published controlled trials of treatments for unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive BC with early relapse (≤ 6 months) following adjuvant therapy or progression after trastuzumab (Tras) + taxane published from January 1998 to January 2018. Random-effects NMA was conducted for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety endpoints. RESULTS: The NMA included regimens from seven randomized controlled trials: T-DM1 and combinations of Tras, capecitabine (Cap), lapatinib (Lap), neratinib, or pertuzumab (Per; unapproved). OS results favored T-DM1 over approved comparators: hazard ratio (HR) (95% credible interval [95% CrI]) vs Cap 0.68 (0.39, 1.10), LapCap 0.76 (0.51, 1.07), TrasCap 0.78 (0.44, 1.19). PFS trends favored T-DM1 over all other treatments: HR (95% CrI) vs Cap 0.38 (0.19, 0.74), LapCap 0.65 (0.40, 1.10), TrasCap 0.62 (0.34, 1.18); ORR with T-DM1 was more favorable than with all approved treatments. In surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis T-DM1 ranked highest for all efficacy outcomes. Discontinuation due to adverse events was less likely with T-DM1 than with all comparators except neratinib. In general, gastrointestinal side effects were less likely and elevated liver transaminases and thrombocytopenia more likely with T-DM1 than with comparators. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and tolerability profiles of T-DM1 are generally favorable compared with other treatments for unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive BC.

Real-world survival outcomes of heavily pretreated patients with refractory HR+, HER2-metastatic breast cancer receiving single-agent chemotherapy-a comparison with MONARCH 1.

PURPOSE: In MONARCH 1 (NCT02102490), single-agent abemaciclib demonstrated promising efficacy activity and tolerability in a population of heavily pretreated women with refractory HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC). To help interpret these results and put in clinical context, we compared overall survival (OS) and duration of therapy (DoT) between MONARCH 1 and a real-world single-agent chemotherapy cohort. METHODS: The real-world chemotherapy cohort was created from a Flatiron Health electronic health records-derived database based on key eligibility criteria from MONARCH 1. The chemotherapies included in the cohort were single-agent capecitabine, gemcitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine. Results were adjusted for baseline demographics and clinical differences using Mahalanobis distance matching (primary analysis) and entropy balancing (sensitivity analysis). OS and DoT were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A real-world single-agent chemotherapy cohort (n = 281) with eligibility criteria similar to the MONARCH 1 population (n = 132) was identified. The MONARCH 1 (n = 108) cohort was matched to the real-world chemotherapy cohort (n = 108). Median OS was 22.3 months in the abemaciclib arm versus 13.6 months in the matched real-world chemotherapy cohort with an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 0.54. The median DoT was 4.1 months in MONARCH 1 compared to 2.9 months in the real-world chemotherapy cohort with HR of 0.76. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an approach to create a real-world chemotherapy cohort suitable to serve as a comparator for trial data. These exploratory results suggest a survival advantage and place the benefit of abemaciclib monotherapy in clinical context.

Actionability of HER2-amplified circulating tumor cells in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: the CirCe T-DM1 trial.

BACKGROUND: In this prospective phase 2 trial, we assessed the efficacy of trastuzumab-emtansine (T-DM1) in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients with HER2-positive CTC. METHODS: Main inclusion criteria for screening were as follows: women with HER2-negative MBC treated with ≥ 2 prior lines of chemotherapy and measurable disease. CTC with a HER2/CEP17 ratio of ≥ 2.2 by fluorescent in situ hybridization (CellSearch) were considered to be HER2-amplified (HER2amp). Patients with ≥ 1 HER2amp CTC were eligible for the treatment phase (T-DM1 monotherapy). The primary endpoint was the overall response rate. RESULTS: In 154 screened patients, ≥ 1 and ≥ 5 CTC/7.5 ml of blood were detected in N = 118 (78.7%) and N = 86 (57.3%) patients, respectively. ≥1 HER2amp CTC was found in 14 patients (9.1% of patients with ≥ 1 CTC/7.5 ml). Among 11 patients treated with T-DM1, one achieved a confirmed partial response. Four patients had a stable disease as best response. Median PFS was 4.8 months while median OS was 9.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: CTC with HER2 amplification can be detected in a limited subset of HER2-negative MBC patients. Treatment with T-DM1 achieved a partial response in only one patient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01975142, Registered 03 November 2013.

A large collection of integrated genomically characterized patient-derived xenografts highlighting the heterogeneity of triple-negative breast cancer.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents 10% of all breast cancers and is a very heterogeneous disease. Globally, women with TNBC have a poor prognosis, and the development of effective targeted therapies remains a real challenge. Patient-derived xenografts (PDX) are clinically relevant models that have emerged as important tools for the analysis of drug activity and predictive biomarker discovery. The purpose of this work was to analyze the molecular heterogeneity of a large panel of TNBC PDX (n = 61) in order to test targeted therapies and identify biomarkers of response. At the gene expression level, TNBC PDX represent all of the various TNBC subtypes identified by the Lehmann classification except for immunomodulatory subtype, which is underrepresented in PDX. NGS and copy number data showed a similar diversity of significantly mutated gene and somatic copy number alteration in PDX and the Cancer Genome Atlas TNBC patients. The genes most commonly altered were TP53 and oncogenes and tumor suppressors of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MAPK pathways. PDX showed similar morphology and immunohistochemistry markers to those of the original tumors. Efficacy experiments with PI3K and MAPK inhibitor monotherapy or combination therapy showed an antitumor activity in PDX carrying genomic mutations of PIK3CA and NRAS genes. TNBC PDX reproduce the molecular heterogeneity of TNBC patients. This large collection of PDX is a clinically relevant platform for drug testing, biomarker discovery and translational research.

Impact of breast cancer molecular subtypes on the incidence, kinetics and prognosis of central nervous system metastases in a large multicentre real-life cohort.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) behaviour differs depending on hormone receptors (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) statuses. METHODS: The kinetics of central nervous system (CNS) metastases (CNS metastasis-free survival, CNSM-FS) and subsequent patient's prognosis (overall survival, OS) according to the molecular subtype were retrospectively assessed in 16703 MBC patients of the ESME nationwide multicentre MBC database (Kaplan-Meier method). RESULTS: CNS metastases occurred in 4118 patients (24.6%) (7.2% at MBC diagnosis and 17.5% later during follow-up). Tumours were HER2-/HR+ (45.3%), HER2+/HR+ (14.5%), HER2+/HR- (14.9%) and triple negative (25.4%). Median age at CNS metastasis diagnosis was 58.1 years (range: 22.8-92.0). The median CNSM-FS was 10.8 months (95% CI: 16.5-17.9) among patients who developed CNS metastases. Molecular subtype was independently associated with CNSM-FS (HR = 3.45, 95% CI: 3.18-3.75, triple-negative and HER2-/HR+ tumours). After a 30-month follow-up, median OS after CNS metastasis diagnosis was 7.9 months (95% CI: 7.2-8.4). OS was independently associated with subtypes: median OS was 18.9 months (HR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.50-0.64) for HER2+/HR+ , 13.1 months (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.65-0.81) for HER2+/HR-, 4.4 months (HR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.42-1.69) for triple-negative and 7.1 months for HER2-/HR+ patients (p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Tumour molecular subtypes strongly impact incidence, kinetics and prognosis of CNS metastases in MBC patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03275311.

Palbociclib with Letrozole in Postmenopausal Women with ER+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer: Hematologic Safety Analysis of the Randomized PALOMA-2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: PALOMA-2 confirmed that first-line palbociclib + letrozole improved progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.72) in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). This analysis evaluated palbociclib-associated hematologic adverse events (AEs) and provides insight on managing these AEs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2- ABC were randomly assigned 2:1 to letrozole (2.5 mg daily continuously) plus oral palbociclib (125 mg daily; 3 weeks on/1 week off) or placebo. Safety assessments were performed at baseline, days 1 and 15 (first two cycles) and day 1 of subsequent cycles, and included white blood cell, platelet, and absolute neutrophil count (ANC). RESULTS: PALOMA-2 randomized 666 women to palbociclib + letrozole (n = 444) or placebo + letrozole (n = 222). Neutropenia was the most common AE (95.3%) with palbociclib (grade 3, 55.6%; grade 4, 11.5%) and was managed by dose modifications; progression-free survival was similar between patients who experienced grade ≥ 3 neutropenia versus those who did not. Median (range) time to onset of neutropenia with palbociclib + letrozole was 15 (12-700) days (grade ≥ 3, 28.0 [12-854] days); median duration of each neutropenia episode grade ≥ 3 was 7.0 days. Asian ethnicity and low baseline ANC were associated with increased risk of grade 3/4 neutropenia with palbociclib (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Palbociclib + letrozole was generally well tolerated. Neutropenia, the most frequently reported AE in women with ER+/HER2- ABC, was mostly transient and manageable by dose modifications in patients who experienced grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, without appearing to compromise efficacy. (Pfizer; NCT01740427) IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Palbociclib demonstrated an acceptable safety profile in PALOMA-2 in women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) receiving first-line palbociclib + letrozole. Although hematologic adverse events (AEs) are typically expected with anticancer therapies and are often clinically significant, palbociclib-related hematologic AEs, particularly neutropenia (most frequent AE), were transient/manageable by dose reduction, interruption, or cycle delay, which is in contrast to the more profound neutropenia associated with chemotherapy. Palbociclib dose adjustments decreased hematologic AE severity without appearing to compromise efficacy, supporting palbociclib + letrozole as a first-line treatment for ER+/HER2- ABC.

Palbociclib and Letrozole in Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 study showed that progression-free survival was longer with palbociclib plus letrozole than with letrozole alone in the initial treatment of postmenopausal women with estrogen-receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. We performed a phase 3 study that was designed to confirm and expand the efficacy and safety data for palbociclib plus letrozole for this indication. METHODS: In this double-blind study, we randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, 666 postmenopausal women with ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, who had not had prior treatment for advanced disease, to receive palbociclib plus letrozole or placebo plus letrozole. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by the investigators; secondary end points were overall survival, objective response, clinical benefit response, patient-reported outcomes, pharmacokinetic effects, and safety. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 24.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.1 to not estimable) in the palbociclib-letrozole group, as compared with 14.5 months (95% CI, 12.9 to 17.1) in the placebo-letrozole group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.72; P<0.001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (occurring in 66.4% of the patients in the palbociclib-letrozole group vs. 1.4% in the placebo-letrozole group), leukopenia (24.8% vs. 0%), anemia (5.4% vs. 1.8%), and fatigue (1.8% vs. 0.5%). Febrile neutropenia was reported in 1.8% of patients in the palbociclib-letrozole group and in none of the patients in the placebo-letrozole group. Permanent discontinuation of any study treatment as a result of adverse events occurred in 43 patients (9.7%) in the palbociclib-letrozole group and in 13 patients (5.9%) in the placebo-letrozole group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, palbociclib combined with letrozole resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than that with letrozole alone, although the rates of myelotoxic effects were higher with palbociclib-letrozole. (Funded by Pfizer; PALOMA-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740427 .).

Iniparib administered weekly or twice-weekly in combination with gemcitabine/carboplatin in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a phase II randomized open-label study with pharmacokinetics.

PURPOSE: Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a phenotypic breast cancer subgroup with a very poor prognosis, despite standard treatments. Combined twice-weekly iniparib and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC+tw-iniparib) showed benefit over gemcitabine/carboplatin in a randomized phase II trial, and a phase III was initiated comparing these regimens. The present phase II study was initiated to compare GC+tw-iniparib with a more practical once-weekly schedule (GC+w-iniparib) in TNBC. METHODS: Metastatic TNBC patients were randomized to receive iniparib weekly (11.2 mg/kg on days 1 and 8) or twice-weekly (5.6 mg/kg on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the curve 2 on days 1 and 8), every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). Pharmacokinetics of iniparib and its two metabolites were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were randomized, 82 GC+w-iniparib and 81 GC+tw-iniparib. Demographic and baseline characteristics were well balanced. ORR was 34.1% (95% CI 23.9-44.4%) vs. 29.6% (95% CI 19.7-39.6%) and median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI 4.2-5.7) vs. 4.3 months (95% CI 3.0-5.8) for GC+w-iniparib and GC+tw-iniparib, respectively. Safety was similar across treatment arms in terms of event severity and type. Iniparib plasma concentrations and exposure were two-fold higher with w-iniparib compared to tw-iniparib. Iniparib and its metabolites were cleared rapidly with a terminal half-life of < 1 h, without accumulation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a doubled maximum concentration with weekly iniparib, no detectable differences in safety or efficacy were observed between the weekly and twice-weekly administration schedules in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT01045304.

ATTAIN: Phase III study of etirinotecan pegol versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer and brain metastases.

The increasing incidence of breast cancer brain metastases is a major clinical problem with its associated poor prognosis and limited treatment options. The long-acting topoisomerase-1 inhibitor, etirinotecan pegol, was designed to preferentially accumulate in tumor tissue including brain metastases, providing sustained cytotoxic SN38 levels. Motivated by improved survival findings from subgroup analyses from the Phase III BEACON trial, this ongoing randomized, Phase III trial compares etirinotecan pegol to drugs commonly used for advanced breast cancer in patients with stable, treated breast cancer brain metastases who have been previously treated with an anthracycline, taxane and capecitabine. The primary end point is overall survival. Secondary end points include objective response rate, progression-free survival and time to CNS disease progression or recurrence in patients with/without CNS lesions present at study entry. Trial registration number: NCT02915744.

Phase Ib study evaluating safety and clinical activity of the anti-HER3 antibody lumretuzumab combined with the anti-HER2 antibody pertuzumab and paclitaxel in HER3-positive, HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

Purpose To investigate the safety and clinical activity of comprehensive human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) family receptor inhibition using lumretuzumab (anti-HER3) and pertuzumab (anti-HER2) in combination with paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods This phase Ib study enrolled 35 MBC patients (first line or higher) with HER3-positive and HER2-low (immunohistochemistry 1+ to 2+ and in-situ hybridization negative) tumors. Patients received lumretuzumab (1000 mg in Cohort 1; 500 mg in Cohorts 2 and 3) plus pertuzumab (840 mg loading dose [LD] followed by 420 mg in Cohorts 1 and 2; 420 mg without LD in Cohort 3) every 3 weeks, plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 weekly in all cohorts). Patients in Cohort 3 received prophylactic loperamide treatment. Results Diarrhea grade 3 was a dose-limiting toxicity of Cohort 1 defining the maximum tolerated dose of lumretuzumab when given in combination with pertuzumab and paclitaxel at 500 mg every three weeks. Grade 3 diarrhea decreased from 50% (Cohort 2) to 30.8% (Cohort 3) with prophylactic loperamide administration and omission of the pertuzumab LD, nonetheless, all patients still experienced diarrhea. In first-line MBC patients, the objective response rate in Cohorts 2 and 3 was 55% and 38.5%, respectively. No relationship between HER2 and HER3 expression or somatic mutations and clinical response was observed. Conclusions Combination treatment with lumretuzumab, pertuzumab and paclitaxel was associated with a high incidence of diarrhea. Despite the efforts to alter dosing, the therapeutic window remained too narrow to warrant further clinical development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: on ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT01918254 first registered on 3rd July 2013.

Trastuzumab emtansine versus capecitabine plus lapatinib in patients with previously treated HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (EMILIA): a descriptive analysis of final overall survival results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine is indicated for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane. Approval of this drug was based on progression-free survival and interim overall survival data from the phase 3 EMILIA study. In this report, we present a descriptive analysis of the final overall survival data from that trial. METHODS: EMILIA was a randomised, international, open-label, phase 3 study of men and women aged 18 years or older with HER2-positive unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a hierarchical, dynamic randomisation scheme and an interactive voice response system to trastuzumab emtansine (3·6 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks) or control (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 self-administered orally twice daily on days 1-14 on each 21-day cycle, plus lapatinib 1250 mg orally once daily on days 1-21). Randomisation was stratified by world region (USA vs western Europe vs or other), number of previous chemotherapy regimens for unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic disease (0 or 1 vs >1), and disease involvement (visceral vs non-visceral). The coprimary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival (per independent review committee assessment) and overall survival. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat population; safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment, with patients analysed according to the treatment actually received. On May 30, 2012, the study protocol was amended to allow crossover from control to trastuzumab emtansine after the second interim overall survival analysis crossed the prespecified overall survival efficacy boundary. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00829166. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2009, and Oct 13, 2011, 991 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either trastuzumab emtansine (n=495) or capecitabine and lapatinib (control; n=496). In this final descriptive analysis, median overall survival was longer with trastuzumab emtansine than with control (29·9 months [95% CI 26·3-34·1] vs 25·9 months [95% CI 22·7-28·3]; hazard ratio 0·75 [95% CI 0·64-0·88]). 136 (27%) of 496 patients crossed over from control to trastuzumab emtansine after the second interim overall survival analysis (median follow-up duration 24·1 months [IQR 19·5-26·1]). Of those patients originally randomly assigned to trastuzumab emtansine, 254 (51%) of 495 received capecitabine and 241 [49%] of 495 received lapatinib (separately or in combination) after study drug discontinuation. In the safety population (488 patients treated with capecitabine plus lapatinib, 490 patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine), fewer grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred with trastuzumab emtansine (233 [48%] of 490) than with capecitabine plus lapatinib control treatment (291 [60%] of 488). In the control group, the most frequently reported grade 3 or worse adverse events were diarrhoea (103 [21%] of 488 patients) followed by palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (87 [18%]), and vomiting (24 [5%]). The safety profile of trastuzumab emtansine was similar to that reported previously; the most frequently reported grade 3 or worse adverse events in the trastuzumab emtansine group were thrombocytopenia (70 [14%] of 490), increased aspartate aminotransferase levels (22 [5%]), and anaemia (19 [4%]). Nine patients died from adverse events; five of these deaths were judged to be related to treatment (two in the control group [coronary artery disease and multiorgan failure] and three in the trastuzumab emtansine group [metabolic encephalopathy, neutropenic sepsis, and acute myeloid leukaemia]). INTERPRETATION: This descriptive analysis of final overall survival in the EMILIA trial shows that trastuzumab emtansine improved overall survival in patients with previously treated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer even in the presence of crossover treatment. The safety profile was similar to that reported in previous analyses, reaffirming trastuzumab emtansine as an efficacious and tolerable treatment in this patient population. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.