Adjuvant Exemestane With Ovarian Suppression in Premenopausal Breast Cancer: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Combined TEXT and SOFT Trials.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.The combined analysis of SOFT-TEXT compared outcomes in 4,690 premenopausal women with estrogen/progesterone receptor-positive (ER/PgR+) early breast cancer randomly assigned to 5 years of exemestane + ovarian function suppression (OFS) versus tamoxifen + OFS. After a median follow-up of 9 years, exemestane + OFS significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), but not overall survival, compared with tamoxifen + OFS. We now report DFS, DRFI, and overall survival after a median follow-up of 13 years. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the 12-year DFS (4.6% absolute improvement, hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.90; P < .001) and DRFI (1.8% absolute improvement, HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98; P = .03), but not overall survival (90.1% v 89.1%, HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.11), continued to be significantly improved for patients assigned exemestane + OFS over tamoxifen + OFS. Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative tumors (86.0% of the ITT population), the absolute improvement in 12-year overall survival with exemestane + OFS was 2.0% (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.04) and 3.3% in those who received chemotherapy (45.9% of the ITT population). Overall survival benefit was clinically significant in high-risk patients, eg, women age < 35 years (4.0%) and those with > 2 cm (4.5%) or grade 3 tumors (5.5%). These sustained reductions of the risk of recurrence with adjuvant exemestane + OFS, compared with tamoxifen + OFS, provide guidance for selecting patients for whom exemestane should be preferred over tamoxifen in the setting of OFS.[Media: see text].

Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Premenopausal Breast Cancer: 12-Year Results From SOFT.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.The Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00066690) randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer to 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (OFS), or exemestane plus OFS. The primary analysis compared disease-free survival (DFS) between tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone; exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen was a secondary objective. After 8 years, SOFT reported a significant reduction in recurrence and improved overall survival (OS) with adjuvant tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone. Here, we report outcomes after median follow-up of 12 years. DFS remained significantly improved with tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98) with a 12-year DFS of 71.9% with tamoxifen, 76.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 79.0% with exemestane plus OFS. OS was improved with tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.01) and was 86.8% with tamoxifen, 89.0% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 89.4% with exemestane plus OFS at 12 years. Among those who received prior chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative tumors, OS was 78.8% with tamoxifen, 81.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 84.4% with exemestane plus OFS. In conclusion, after 12 years, there remains a benefit from including OFS in adjuvant endocrine therapy, with an absolute improvement in OS more apparent with higher baseline risk of recurrence.[Media: see text].

Tumor Cellularity and Infiltrating Lymphocytes as a Survival Surrogate in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.

In early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer, biomarkers that guide deescalation and/or escalation of systemic therapy are needed. CelTIL score is a novel, combined biomarker based on stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and tumor cellularity and is determined in tumor biopsies at week 2 of anti-HER2 therapy only. We evaluated the prognostic value of CelTIL in 196 patients with early-stage HER2-positive disease treated with standard trastuzumab-based chemotherapy in the NeoALTTO phase III trial. Using a prespecified CelTIL cutoff, a better 5-year event-free survival and overall survival was observed between CelTIL-high and CelTIL-low score with a 76.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 68.0% to 85.0%) vs 59.7% (95% CI = 50.0% to 72.0%) (hazard ratio = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.94) and 86.4% (95% CI = 80.0% to 94.0%) vs 73.5% (95% CI = 64.0% to 84.0%) (hazard ratio = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.20 to 0.92), respectively. Statistical significance was maintained after adjusting for baseline tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, hormone receptor status, pretreatment tumor size and nodal status, type of surgery, treatment arm, and pathological complete response. Further studies to support CelTIL as an early readout biomarker to help deescalate or escalate systemic therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer seem warranted.

Health-related quality of life with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: Patient-reported outcomes in the PEARL study.

BACKGROUND: The PEARL study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (palbociclib/ET) was not superior to capecitabine in improving progression-free survival in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitors, but was better tolerated. This analysis compared patient-reported outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The PEARL quality of life (QoL) population comprised 537 patients, 268 randomised to palbociclib/ET (exemestane or fulvestrant) and 269 to capecitabine. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires. Changes from the baseline and time to deterioration (TTD) were analysed using linear mixed-effect and stratified Cox regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Questionnaire completion rate was high and similar between treatment arms. Significant differences were observed in the mean change in global health status (GHS)/QoL scores from the baseline to cycle 3 (2.9 for palbociclib/ET vs. -2.1 for capecitabine (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-8.6; P = 0.007). The median TTD in GHS/QoL was 8.3 months for palbociclib/ET versus 5.3 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89; P = 0.003). Similar improvements for palbociclib/ET were also seen for other scales as physical, role, cognitive, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. No differences were observed between the treatment arms in change from the baseline in any item of the EQ-5D-L3 questionnaire as per the overall index score and visual analogue scale. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving palbociclib/ET experienced a significant delay in deterioration of GHS/QoL and several functional and symptom scales compared with capecitabine, providing additional evidence that palbociclib/ET is better tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov). EUDRACT STUDY NUMBER: 2013-003170-27.

A phase 1, open-label, drug-drug interaction study of rucaparib with rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This study aimed at evaluating the effect of rucaparib on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives in patients with advanced solid tumors and the safety of rucaparib with and without coadministration of rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives. METHODS: Patients received single doses of oral rosuvastatin 20 mg (Arm A) or oral contraceptives ethinylestradiol 30 µg + levonorgestrel 150 µg (Arm B) on days 1 and 19 and continuous doses of rucaparib 600 mg BID from day 5 to 23. Serial blood samples were collected with and without rucaparib for pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (n = 18 each arm) were enrolled and received at least 1 dose of study drug. In the drug-drug interaction analysis (n = 15 each arm), the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of maximum concentration (Cmax) with and without rucaparib was 1.29 for rosuvastatin, 1.09 for ethinylestradiol, and 1.19 for levonorgestrel. GMR of area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to last quantifiable measurement (AUC0-last) was 1.34 for rosuvastatin, 1.43 for ethinylestradiol, and 1.56 for levonorgestrel. There was no increase in frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) when rucaparib was given with either of the probe drugs. In both arms, most TEAEs were mild in severity and considered unrelated to study treatment. CONCLUSION: Rucaparib 600 mg BID weakly increased the plasma exposure to rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives. Rucaparib safety profile when coadministered with rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives was consistent with that of rucaparib monotherapy. Dose adjustments of rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives are not necessary when coadministered with rucaparib. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03954366; Date of registration May 17, 2019.

Niraparib for Advanced Breast Cancer with Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations: the EORTC 1307-BCG/BIG5-13/TESARO PR-30-50-10-C BRAVO Study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the activity of niraparib in patients with germline-mutated BRCA1/2 (gBRCAm) advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BRAVO was a randomized, open-label phase III trial. Eligible patients had gBRCAm and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer previously treated with ≤2 prior lines of chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer or had relapsed within 12 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, and were randomized 2:1 between niraparib and physician's choice chemotherapy (PC; monotherapy with eribulin, capecitabine, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine). Patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors had to have received ≥1 line of endocrine therapy and progressed during this treatment in the metastatic setting or relapsed within 1 year of (neo)adjuvant treatment. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), PFS by local assessment (local-PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: After the pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was halted on the basis of futility, noting a high degree of discordance between local and central PFS assessment in the PC arm that resulted in informative censoring. At the final analysis (median follow-up, 19.9 months), median centrally assessed PFS was 4.1 months in the niraparib arm (n = 141) versus 3.1 months in the PC arm [n = 74; hazard ratio (HR), 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65-1.44; P = 0.86]. HRs for OS and local-PFS were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.63-1.42) and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.93), respectively. ORR was 35% (95% CI, 26-45) with niraparib and 31% (95% CI, 19-46) in the PC arm. CONCLUSIONS: Informative censoring in the control arm prevented accurate assessment of the trial hypothesis, although there was clear evidence of niraparib's activity in this patient population.

Updated results from the international phase III ALTTO trial (BIG 2-06/Alliance N063D).

AIM: To present the pre-specified analyses of >5-years follow-up of the Phase III ALTTO trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 8381 patients with stage I-III HER2 positive breast cancer randomised to chemotherapy plus 1-year of trastuzumab (T), oral lapatinib (L; no longer evaluated), trastuzumab followed by lapatinib (T→L), and lapatinib + trastuzumab (L+T). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). A secondary analysis examined DFS treatment effects by hormone receptor status, nodal status and chemotherapy timing; time to recurrence; overall survival (OS) and safety (overall and cardiac). RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 6.9 years, 705 DFS events for L+T versus T were observed. Hazard Ratio (HR) for DFS was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.74-1.00) for L+T versus T and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.81-1.08) for T→L versus T. The 6-year DFS were 85%, 84%, and 82% for L+T, T→L, and T, respectively. HR for OS was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.70-1.06) for L+T versus T and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.71-1.08) for T→L versus T. The 6-year OS were 93%, 92%, and 91% for L+T, T→L, and T, respectively. Subset analyses showed a numerically better HR for DFS in favour of L+T versus T for the hormone-receptor-negative [HR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.64-1.00; 6-yr DFS% = 84% versus 80%)] and the sequential chemotherapy [HR 0.83 (95% CI, 0.69-1.00; 6-yr DFS% = 83% versus79%)] subgroups. CONCLUSION: T+L did not significantly improve DFS and OS over T alone, both with chemotherapy, and, therefore, cannot be recommended for adjuvant treatment of early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT00490139.

Clinical behavior of recurrent hormone receptor-positive breast cancer by adjuvant endocrine therapy within the Breast International Group 1-98 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Endocrine therapy resistance is a major cause of distant recurrence (DR) in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. This study evaluated differences in survival after DR in patients treated with different adjuvant endocrine therapy regimens in the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 trial. METHODS: BIG 1-98 compared 5 years of adjuvant treatment among 4 arms: tamoxifen (T), letrozole (L), tamoxifen followed by letrozole (TL), and letrozole followed by tamoxifen (LT). After a median follow-up of 8.1 years, 911 of 8010 patients (T, 302; L, 285; TL, 170; and LT, 154) had DR as the site of first recurrence. Univariate and multivariate Cox analyses were performed to determine features associated with post-DR survival. RESULTS: The median follow-up time after DR was 59 months (interquartile range, 29-88 months). Among all patients with DR, 38.1% were 65 years old or older at enrollment, 61.9% had tumors larger than 2 cm, and 69.7% were node positive. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 35.6% of the patients. There was no difference in post-DR survival by treatment arm (median survival, 20.8 months for T, 17.9 months for L, 17.3 months for TL, and 20.8 months for LT; P = .21). In multivariate analysis, older patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.59) and patients with tumors larger than 2 cm (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.00-1.41), 4 or more positive nodes (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05-1.64), progesterone receptor (PR)-negative tumors (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.52), or shorter disease-free survival (DFS) had significantly worse post-DR survival. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with adjuvant T, L, or their sequences was not associated with differences in survival after DR. Significant differences in survival were observed by age, primary tumor size, nodal and PR status, and DFS, and this suggests that traditional baseline high-risk features remain prognostic in the metastatic setting.

Cumulative incidence of cardiovascular events under tamoxifen and letrozole alone and in sequence: a report from the BIG 1-98 trial.

BACKGROUND: Compared to tamoxifen, adjuvant treatment with aromatase inhibitors improves disease outcomes of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. In the international, randomized, double-blind BIG 1-98 trial, 8010 women were randomized to receive tamoxifen, letrozole, or sequential use of the agents for 5 years. With a focus on switching between agents, we investigated cardiovascular events over the entire 5-year treatment period. METHODS: Of the 6182 patients enrolled, 6144 started trial treatment and were included in this analysis. Adverse events occurring during study treatment until 30 days after cessation were considered. Eight cardiovascular event types were defined. Cumulative incidence of events were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, without consideration for competing events. Multivariable Cox models estimated hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pairwise comparisons of treatment arms. RESULTS: While on study treatment, 6.5% of patients (n = 397) had any cardiac events reported; for 2.4%, the event was grades 3-5, of which 11 (0.2%) were grade 5. Letrozole monotherapy was associated with higher risk of grade 1-5 ischemic heart disease (HR = 1.81; 95% CI, 1.06-3.08) compared with tamoxifen monotherapy. Patients assigned sequential tamoxifen →letrozole (HR = 1.59; 95% CI, 0.92-2.74) or sequential letrozole → tamoxifen (HR = 1.20; 95% CI, 0.68-2.14) showed a lesser degree of risk elevation. Patients assigned to tamoxifen-containing regimens had significantly higher risk of grade 1-5 thromboembolic events (tamoxifen monotherapy HR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.42-3.12; tamoxifen → letrozole HR = 1.96; 95% CI, 1.32-2.92; letrozole → tamoxifen HR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.03-2.35) as compared with patients assigned letrozole alone. CONCLUSION: When initiating or switching between adjuvant endocrine treatments in postmenopausal patients, age and medical history, with special attention to prior cardiovascular events, should be balanced with expected benefit of the treatment.

Potential Drug-Drug Interactions with Combination Volasertib + Itraconazole: A Phase I, Fixed-sequence Study in Patients with Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: This drug-drug interaction study determined whether the metabolism and distribution of the Polo-like kinase 1 inhibitor, volasertib, is affected by co-administration of the P-glycoprotein and cytochrome P-450 3A4 inhibitor, itraconazole. METHODS: This was an uncontrolled, open-label, fixed-sequence trial of two 21-day treatment cycles in patients with various solid tumors. In cycle 1 (test), eligible patients were administered volasertib (day 1) plus itraconazole (days -3 to 15). In cycle 2 (reference), patients received volasertib monotherapy. The primary end point was the influence of co-administration of itraconazole on the pharmacokinetic profile (AUC0-tz; Cmax) of volasertib and its main metabolite, CD 10899, compared with that of volasertib monotherapy. Other end points included tolerability and preliminary therapeutic efficacy. FINDINGS: Concurrent administration of itraconazole resulted in a slight reduction in the AUC0-tz (geometric mean ratio, 93.6%; 90% CI, 82.1%-106.8%) and a 20% reduction in Cmax (geometric mean ratio, 79.4%; 90% CI, 64.9%-97.1%) of volasertib compared with monotherapy. Of note, concurrent administration of itraconazole + volasertib had no effect on the AUC0-∞ of volasertib. More patients reported at least one drug-related adverse event in cycle 1 than in cycle 2 (75% vs 71%). The most commonly reported drug-related adverse events (cycles 1 and 2) were thrombocytopenia (68% and 33%, respectively), leukopenia (50% and 46%), and anemia (36% and 33%). No objective responses were observed. Stable disease was observed in 25 of 28 patients (89%). IMPLICATIONS: While there was no clear evidence of a pharmacokinetic interaction between volasertib and itraconazole, co-administration reduced the tolerability of volasertib. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01772563.

A comparison of eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim in the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy (RECOVER): A Phase 3 study.

Eflapegrastim (Rolontis® ) is a novel, long-acting hematopoietic growth factor consisting of a recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) analog conjugated to a human IgG4 Fc fragment via a short polyethylene glycol linker. We report results from a second pivotal, randomized, open-label, Phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim for reducing the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Patients with Stage I to IIIA early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) were randomized 1:1 to fixed-dose eflapegrastim 13.2 mg (3.6 mg G-CSF) or pegfilgrastim (6 mg G-CSF) administered one day after standard docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) therapy for four cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority (NI) of eflapegrastim compared to pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN; Grade 4) in Cycle 1. A total of 237 eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either eflapegrastim (n = 118) or pegfilgrastim (n = 119). Cycle 1 severe neutropenia was observed in 20.3% (n = 24) of patients receiving eflapegrastim and 23.5% (n = 28) receiving pegfilgrastim. The DSN of eflapegrastim in Cycle 1 was noninferior to pegfilgrastim with a mean difference of -0.074 days (NI P-value < .0001). Noninferiority was maintained throughout the four treatment cycles (P < .0001 in all cycles). Other efficacy endpoints results were comparable between treatment arms, and adverse events, irrespective of causality and grade, were comparable between treatment arms. The results demonstrate noninferior efficacy and comparable safety for eflapegrastim, at a lower G-CSF dose, vs pegfilgrastim. The potential for the increased potency of eflapegrastim to deliver improved clinical benefit warrants further clinical study.

Long-term cardiac outcomes of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated in the adjuvant lapatinib and/or trastuzumab Treatment Optimization Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiotoxicity is the most significant adverse event associated with trastuzumab (T), the main component of HER2-positive breast cancer (BC) treatment. Less is known about the cardiotoxicity of dual HER2 blockade with T plus lapatinib (L), although this regimen is used in the metastatic setting. METHODS: This is a sub-analysis of the ALTTO trial comparing adjuvant treatment options for patients with early HER2-positive BC. Patients randomised to either T or concomitant T + L were eligible. Cardiac events (CEs) rates were compared according to treatment arm. RESULTS: With 6.9 years of median follow-up (FU) and 4190 patients, CE were observed in 363 (8.6%): 166 (7.9%) of patient in T + L arm vs. 197 (9.3%) in T arm (OR = 0.85 [95% CI, 0.68-1.05]). During anti-HER2 treatment 270 CE (6.4%) occurred while 93 (2.2%) were during FU (median time to onset = 6.6 months [IQR = 3.4-11.7]). While 265 CEs were asymptomatic (73%), 94 were symptomatic (26%) and four were cardiac deaths (1%). Recovery was observed in 301 cases (83.8%). Identified cardiac risk factors were: baseline LVEF < 55% (vs > 64%, OR 3.1 [95% CI 1.54-6.25]), diabetes mellitus (OR 1.85 [95% CI 1.25-2.75]), BMI > 30 kg/m2 (vs < 25 mg/kg2, OR 2.21 [95% CI 1.40-3.49]), cumulative dose of doxorubicin ≥240 mg/m2 (OR 1.36 [95% CI 1.01-1.82]) and of epirubicin≥ 480 mg/m2 (OR 2.33 [95% CI 1.55-3.51]). CONCLUSIONS: Dual HER2 blockade with T + L is a safe regimen from a cardiac perspective, but cardiac-focused history for proper patient selection is crucial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00490139 (registration date: 22/06/2007); EudraCT Number: 2006-000562-36 (registration date: 04/05/2007); Sponsor Protocol Number: BIG2-06 /EGF106708/N063D.

Evaluation of the effect of P-glycoprotein inhibition and induction on talazoparib disposition in patients with advanced solid tumours.

AIMS: In vitro data show that talazoparib is a substrate for P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and breast cancer resistance protein transporters. This open-label, 2-arm, drug-drug interaction Phase 1 study in patients with advanced solid tumours assessed the effect of a P-gp inhibitor (itraconazole) and a P-gp inducer (rifampicin) on the pharmacokinetics of a single dose of talazoparib. The safety and tolerability of a single dose of talazoparib with and without itraconazole or rifampicin were also assessed. METHODS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled (Arm A [itraconazole], n = 19; Arm B [rifampicin], n = 17). Patients in both arms received 2 single oral doses of talazoparib (0.5 mg, Arm A; 1 mg, Arm B) alone and with multiple daily oral doses of itraconazole (Arm A) or rifampicin (Arm B). RESULTS: Coadministration of itraconazole and talazoparib increased talazoparib area under the plasma concentration-time profile from time 0 extrapolated to infinity by ~56% and maximum observed plasma concentration by ~40% relative to talazoparib alone. Coadministration of rifampicin and talazoparib increased talazoparib maximum observed plasma concentration by approximately 37% (geometric mean ratio 136.6% [90% confidence interval 103.2-180.9]); area under the curve was not affected relative to talazoparib alone (geometric mean ratio 102.0% [90% confidence interval 94.0-110.7]). Talazoparib had an overall safety profile consistent with that observed in prior studies in which talazoparib was administered as a single dose. CONCLUSION: Coadministration of itraconazole increased talazoparib plasma exposure compared to talazoparib alone. A reduced talazoparib dose is recommended if coadministration of potent P-gp inhibitors cannot be avoided. Similar exposure was observed when talazoparib was administered alone and with rifampicin suggesting that the effect of rifampicin on talazoparib exposure is limited.

Absolute Improvements in Freedom From Distant Recurrence to Tailor Adjuvant Endocrine Therapies for Premenopausal Women: Results From TEXT and SOFT.

PURPOSE: The Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT)/Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) showed superior outcomes for premenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant exemestane plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) or tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone. We previously reported the magnitude of absolute improvements in freedom from any recurrence across a continuous, composite measure of recurrence risk to tailor decision making. With longer follow-up, we now focus on distant recurrence. METHODS: The TEXT/SOFT HR-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative analysis population included 4,891 women stratified by predetermined chemotherapy use. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 8-year freedom from distant recurrence were analyzed using subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) methodology across subpopulations defined by the continuous composite measure of recurrence risk. For each patient, the composite risk value was obtained from a Cox model that incorporated age; nodal status; tumor size; grade; and estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and Ki-67 labeling index expression levels. RESULTS: The overall rate of 8-year freedom from distant recurrence was 91.1% and ranged from approximately 100% to 63% across lowest to highest composite risks. TEXT patients who received chemotherapy had an average absolute improvement with exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen plus OFS of 5.1%, and STEPP analysis showed improvements from less than 1% to more than 15% from lowest to highest composite risks. SOFT patients who remained premenopausal after chemotherapy had an average 5.2% absolute improvement with exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen and reached 10% across composite risks; for tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen, the maximum improvement was approximately 3.5%. Women who did not receive chemotherapy had a more than 97% rate of 8-year freedom from distant recurrence, and improvements with exemestane plus OFS ranged from 1% to 4%. CONCLUSION: Premenopausal women with HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and high recurrence risk, as defined by clinicopathologic characteristics, may experience a 10% to 15% absolute improvement in 8-year freedom from distant recurrence with exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen plus OFS or tamoxifen alone. The potential benefit of escalating endocrine therapy versus tamoxifen alone is minimal for those at low recurrence risk.

Survival outcomes of the NeoALTTO study (BIG 1-06): updated results of a randomised multicenter phase III neoadjuvant clinical trial in patients with HER2-positive primary breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lapatinib (L) plus trastuzumab (T) with weekly paclitaxel significantly increased the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate compared with the anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) agent alone plus paclitaxel. The event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) by the treatment arms L + T vs. T and L vs. T and the relationship between pCR and EFS/OS both in the whole study population and according to hormone receptor-negative and hormone receptor-positive cohorts after a median follow-up of 6.7 years were assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred fifty-five patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer randomly received L 1500 mg/day (n = 154), T (common dose, n = 149) or L 1000 mg/day plus T (n = 152) for 6 weeks, followed by the assigned anti-HER2 treatment combined with paclitaxel weekly × 12. After surgery, patients received 3 cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. The primary end-point was pCR (ypT0/is; for current analysis, it is ypT0/is ypN0), and the secondary end-points were EFS and OS. RESULTS: Six-year EFS rates were 67%, 67% and 74% with L, T and L + T, respectively (L vs T: hazard ratio [HR], 0.98 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.64-1.51; P = .93]; L + T vs T: HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.52-1.26; P = .35]). Six-Year OS rates were 82%, 79% and 85% for L, T and L + T, respectively (L vs T: HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.49-1.46; P = .56]; L + T vs T: HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.41-1.27; P = .26]). In landmark analyses, patients with a pCR had a significantly higher 6-year EFS (77% and 65%) and OS (89% and 77%) compared with those without a pCR for both overall and the hormone receptor-negative cohort. CONCLUSION: Achieving a pCR is important in HER2-positive disease and translates into better long-term outcome with regard to EFS and OS.

Randomized phase 3 efficacy and safety trial of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MYL-1401H in the prophylactic treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Pegfilgrastim is indicated for reducing the duration of neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Here, safety and efficacy of MYL-1401H, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar, were investigated as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group equivalence trial of MYL-1401H vs European Union-sourced reference pegfilgrastim. Patients with newly diagnosed stage II/III breast cancer eligible to receive (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks for 6 cycles were enrolled and randomized 2:1 to 6 mg of MYL-1401H or reference pegfilgrastim 24 h (+ 2-h window after the first 24 h) after the end of chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 (i.e., days with absolute neutrophil count (ANC) < 0.5 × 109/L). Mean (standard deviation (SD)) duration of severe neutropenia in MYL-1401H and reference pegfilgrastim groups was 1.2 days (0.93) and 1.2 days (1.10), respectively. The 95% CI for least squares mean difference (- 0.285, 0.298) was within the predefined equivalence range of ± 1 day. Secondary endpoints, including grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (frequency, 91% and 82% for MYL-1401H and reference pegfilgrastim, respectively), time to ANC nadir (mean (SD), 6.2 (0.98) and 6.3 (1.57) days), and duration of post-nadir recovery (mean (SD), 1.9 (0.85) and 1.7 (0.91) days) were comparable. Overall safety profiles of the study drugs were comparable. MYL-1401H demonstrated equivalent efficacy and similar safety to reference pegfilgrastim and may be an equivalent option for reducing incidence of neutropenia. ( ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02467868; EudraCT, 2014-002324-27).

Adjuvant Anti-HER2 Therapy, Treatment-Related Amenorrhea, and Survival in Premenopausal HER2-Positive Early Breast Cancer Patients.

Background: In premenopausal patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer, the gonadotoxicity of trastuzumab and lapatinib remains largely uncertain, and the prognostic effect of treatment-related amenorrhea (TRA) is unknown. Methods: In the Adjuvant Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimization (BIG 2-06) phase III trial, HER2-positive early breast cancer patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive one year of trastuzumab, lapatinib, their sequence, or their combination. As per study protocol, menopausal status was collected in all patients at random assignment and at week 37 visit. We investigated TRA rates and whether TRA in patients with hormone receptor-positive and -negative tumors would impact disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Landmark and time-dependent modeling were used to account for guarantee-time bias. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: A total of 2862 premenopausal women were included, of whom 1679 (58.7%) had hormone receptor-positive disease. Median age was 43 (interquartile range = 38-47) years. Similar TRA rates were observed in the trastuzumab (72.6%), lapatinib (74.0%), trastuzumab→lapatinib (72.1%), and trastuzumab+lapatinib (74.8%) arms (P = .64). The association between TRA and survival outcomes differed according to hormone-receptor status (Pinteraction for DFS = .007; Pinteraction for OS = .003). For hormone receptor-positive patients, the TRA cohort had statistically significantly better DFS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.45 to 0.76) and OS (aHR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.40 to 0.99) than the no TRA cohort. No difference was observed in hormone receptor-negative patients. Conclusions: In this unplanned analysis, no association between TRA rate and type of anti-HER2 treatment was observed. TRA was associated with statistically significant survival benefits in premenopausal hormone receptor-positive/HER2-positive early breast cancer patients.

Adjuvant Letrozole and Tamoxifen Alone or Sequentially for Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Long-Term Follow-Up of the BIG 1-98 Trial.

PURPOSE: Luminal breast cancer has a long natural history, with recurrences continuing beyond 10 years after diagnosis. We analyzed long-term follow-up (LTFU) of efficacy outcomes and adverse events in the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 study reported after a median follow-up of 12.6 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BIG 1-98 is a four-arm, phase III, double-blind, randomized trial comparing adjuvant letrozole versus tamoxifen (either treatment received for 5 years) and their sequences (2 years of one treatment plus 3 years of the other) for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. When pharmaceutical company sponsorship ended at 8.4 years of median follow-up, academic partners initiated an observational, LTFU extension collecting annual data on survival, disease status, and adverse events. Information from Denmark was from the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group Registry. Intention-to-treat analyses are reported. RESULTS: Of 8,010 enrolled patients, 4,433 were alive and not withdrawn at an LTFU participating center, and 3,833 (86%) had at least one LTFU report. For the monotherapy comparison of letrozole versus tamoxifen, we found a 9% relative reduction in the hazard of a disease-free survival event with letrozole (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.01). HRs for other efficacy end points were similar to those for disease-free survival. Efficacy of letrozole versus tamoxifen for contralateral breast cancer varied significantly over time (0- to 5-, 5- to 10-, and > 10-year HRs, 0.62, 0.47, and 1.35, respectively; treatment-by-time interaction P = .005), perhaps reflecting a longer carryover effect of tamoxifen. Reporting of specific long-term adverse events seemed more effective with national registry than with case-record reporting of clinical follow-up. CONCLUSION: Efficacy end points continued to show trends favoring letrozole. Letrozole reduced contralateral breast cancer frequency in the first 10 years, but this reversed beyond 10 years. This study illustrates the value of extended follow-up in trials of luminal breast cancer.

Lapatinib with ECF/X in the first-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer according to HER2neu and EGFR status: a randomized placebo-controlled phase II study (EORTC 40071).

PURPOSE: HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and (CF/X) prolonged overall survival (OS) in metastatic HER2neu+ gastric carcinoma (GC). Lapatinib inhibits both EGFR and HER2neu. We investigated the efficacy and safety of lapatinib with epirubicin (E) + CF/X in GC according to HER2neu and EGFR status. METHODS: Tumors from chemotherapy-naïve patients were screened centrally by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Patients with EGFR and/or HER2neu expression or amplification were allocated to three strata based on EGFR/HER2neu status and were randomized to lapatinib (arm A) or placebo (arm B), with 6 cycles of ECF or ECX (investigator-selected). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in stratum 3. RESULTS: 29 of 72 screened patients were randomized to strata 1 (HER2neu+: by FISH and IHC, n = 6), 2 (HER2neu-: by FISH/+ by IHC, n = 5) and 3 (HER2neu-/EGFR+, n = 18), of which 28 patients were eligible (14 per arm). Enrollment was curtailed after announcement of the negative LOGiC trial results. Median PFS was 8.0 versus 5.9 months (HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.37-1.99) in the per protocol population, and 8.0 versus 6.3 months (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.30-2.46) for stratum 3, in the lapatinib versus placebo arm respectively. Median OS was 13.8 versus 10.1 months, respectively (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.35-2.27). There were no safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Central EGFR and HER2neu stratification by IHC and FISH can be used for further pan-HER strategies. Lapatinib with ECF/X was well tolerated, but did not show clear activity in patients with metastatic GC.

Tailoring Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) and the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT), the 5-year rates of recurrence of breast cancer were significantly lower among premenopausal women who received the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression than among those who received tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression. The addition of ovarian suppression to tamoxifen did not result in significantly lower recurrence rates than those with tamoxifen alone. Here, we report the updated results from the two trials. METHODS: Premenopausal women were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, or exemestane plus ovarian suppression in SOFT and to receive tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression or exemestane plus ovarian suppression in TEXT. Randomization was stratified according to the receipt of chemotherapy. RESULTS: In SOFT, the 8-year disease-free survival rate was 78.9% with tamoxifen alone, 83.2% with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, and 85.9% with exemestane plus ovarian suppression (P=0.009 for tamoxifen alone vs. tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression). The 8-year rate of overall survival was 91.5% with tamoxifen alone, 93.3% with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, and 92.1% with exemestane plus ovarian suppression (P=0.01 for tamoxifen alone vs. tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression); among the women who remained premenopausal after chemotherapy, the rates were 85.1%, 89.4%, and 87.2%, respectively. Among the women with cancers that were negative for HER2 who received chemotherapy, the 8-year rate of distant recurrence with exemestane plus ovarian suppression was lower than the rate with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression (by 7.0 percentage points in SOFT and by 5.0 percentage points in TEXT). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 24.6% of the tamoxifen-alone group, 31.0% of the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, and 32.3% of the exemestane-ovarian suppression group. CONCLUSIONS: Among premenopausal women with breast cancer, the addition of ovarian suppression to tamoxifen resulted in significantly higher 8-year rates of both disease-free and overall survival than tamoxifen alone. The use of exemestane plus ovarian suppression resulted in even higher rates of freedom from recurrence. The frequency of adverse events was higher in the two groups that received ovarian suppression than in the tamoxifen-alone group. (Funded by Pfizer and others; SOFT and TEXT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066690 and NCT00066703 , respectively.).