Capivasertib in Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: AKT pathway activation is implicated in endocrine-therapy resistance. Data on the efficacy and safety of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib, as an addition to fulvestrant therapy, in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer are limited. METHODS: In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial, we enrolled eligible pre-, peri-, and postmenopausal women and men with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer who had had a relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive capivasertib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. The dual primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with AKT pathway-altered (PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN) tumors. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 708 patients underwent randomization; 289 patients (40.8%) had AKT pathway alterations, and 489 (69.1%) had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously for advanced breast cancer. In the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.6 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.71; P<0.001). In the AKT pathway-altered population, the median progression-free survival was 7.3 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.1 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in patients receiving capivasertib-fulvestrant were rash (in 12.1% of patients, vs. in 0.3% of those receiving placebo-fulvestrant) and diarrhea (in 9.3% vs. 0.3%). Adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 13.0% of the patients receiving capivasertib and in 2.3% of those receiving placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Capivasertib-fulvestrant therapy resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with fulvestrant alone among patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer whose disease had progressed during or after previous aromatase inhibitor therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the National Cancer Institute; CAPItello-291 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04305496.).

Selection of neoadjuvant treatment based on the 21-GENE test results in luminal breast cancer.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is an optimal option in early breast cancer, but in ER-positive/HER2-negative (luminal) is still controversial, although a survival benefit has recently been observed when a histological response by Symmans' method type 0 or I is achieved. The 21-gene Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® assay (Oncotype DX®) is a validated test to assess the survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients but its role in the neoadjuvant setting is less established. We analyzed the results of the Oncotype DX® test in a cohort of 122 consecutive patients selected to receive NAC based on classical clinicopathological parameters and the correlation between the Oncotype DX® results and the pathological response assessed by Symmans' method. Median age was 56.5 (range 31-84) years. Initial tumor size was T1 (<20 mm) in 46 patients (37.7%), 57 (46.7%) had a T2 tumor (20-50 mm), and 19 (15.6%) had a tumor size more than 50 mm. 59 (48.4%) had axillary node involvement. The median expression estrogen and progesteron receptors by immunohistochemistry was 280 and 120 respectively and median Ki67 index was 28%. The Recurrence Score (RS) results were <11 in 21 patients (17.2%) patients, RS 11 to 25 in 58 (47.5%), and RS > 25 in 43 (35.2%). Considering the Oncotype DX test results, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 60 patients (49%), 11 (9%) received adjuvant chemotherapy and 51 (42%) no chemotherapy. Testing with the assay has therefore led to 42% fewer chemotherapy treatments. Among 60 patients receiving NAC, pathologic response was achieved for 5 patients (8.3%) with RCB-0 and 15 RCB-1 (25%). We did not find any pathological response RCB-0 and RCB-I in the 20 patients who received NAC and had a Recurrence Score result <21 for the premenopausal group, or a RS result <25 for the postmenopausal group. For patients with highest Recurrence Score results (RS > 21 or 25 according to menopausal status) it was 12% (5/40) RCB-0 and 40% (16/40) RCB-I. CONCLUSIONS: The Oncotype DX test could be a useful tool to select patients candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in luminal breast cancer. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be avoided in 42% of patients. We found a correlation between Recurrence Score results and pathological response with 14% of RCB-0 and a total of 47% of significant pathological response type RCB-0 and RCB-I in patients with highest Recurrence Score results. Interestingly, patients with a Recurrence Score result inferior to 32 did not get any histological response type 0 and only 5% RCB-I.