Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up from the phase III randomised CheckMate 9ER trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO + CABO) was approved for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) based on superiority versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase III CheckMate 9ER trial (18.1 months median survival follow-up per database lock date); efficacy benefit was maintained with an extended 32.9 months of median survival follow-up. We report updated efficacy and safety after 44.0 months of median survival follow-up in intent-to-treat (ITT) patients and additional subgroup analyses, including outcomes by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naïve aRCC received NIVO 240 mg every 2 weeks plus CABO 40 mg once daily or SUN 50 mg for 4 weeks (6-week cycles), until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity (maximum NIVO treatment, 2 years). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) per BICR, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Overall, 323 patients were randomised to NIVO + CABO and 328 to SUN. Median PFS was improved with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [16.6 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.71]; median OS favoured NIVO + CABO versus SUN (49.5 versus 35.5 months; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.87). ORR (95% CI) was higher with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [56% (50% to 62%) versus 28% (23% to 33%)]; 13% versus 5% of patients achieved complete response, and median duration of response was 22.1 months versus 16.1 months, respectively. PFS and OS favoured NIVO + CABO over SUN across intermediate, poor and intermediate/poor IMDC risk subgroups; higher ORR and complete response rates were seen with NIVO + CABO versus SUN regardless of IMDC risk subgroup. Any-grade (grade ≥3) treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% (67%) versus 93% (55%) of patients treated with NIVO + CABO versus SUN. CONCLUSIONS: After extended follow-up, NIVO + CABO maintained survival and response benefits; safety remained consistent with previous follow-ups. These results continue to support NIVO + CABO as a first-line treatment for aRCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177.

First-line atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel for unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: IMpassion130 final overall survival analysis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (A + nP) for first-line treatment of unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer expressing programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) on tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC), based on IMpassion130. We report the final overall survival (OS) and safety of that study as per the prespecified analysis plan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to nP 100 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) with atezolizumab 840 mg (A + nP) or placebo (P + nP; days 1 and 15), until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival [intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1 IC-positive populations] and OS (tested hierarchically in the ITT population and, if significant, in the PD-L1 IC-positive population). RESULTS: Each arm comprised 451 patients; 666 (73.8%) had died by the final OS analysis cut-off (median follow-up, 18.8 months; interquartile range, 8.9-34.7 months). Median OS in the ITT population was 21.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 19.0-23.4 months] with A + nP, and 18.7 months (95% CI, 16.9-20.8 months) with P + nP [stratified hazard ratio (HR), 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.02; P = 0.077]. Exploratory analysis in the PD-L1 IC-positive population showed a median OS of 25.4 months (95% CI, 19.6-30.7 months) with A + nP (n = 185) and 17.9 months (95% CI, 13.6-20.3 months) with P + nP (n = 184; stratified HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86). Safety outcomes were consistent with previous analyses and the known toxicity profiles of each agent. Immune-mediated adverse events of special interest were reported in 58.7% and 41.6% of patients treated with A + nP and P + nP, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although the OS benefit in the ITT population was not statistically significant, precluding formal testing, clinically meaningful OS benefit was observed with A + nP in PD-L1 IC-positive patients, consistent with prior interim analyses. This combination remained safe and tolerable with longer follow-up.

Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and brain metastases: exploratory final analysis of cohort 1 from KAMILLA, a single-arm phase IIIb clinical trial☆.

BACKGROUND: Patients with brain metastases (BM) from human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer represent a difficult-to-treat population. Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) has shown potential activity in this subset of patients in small clinical series. PATIENTS AND METHODS: KAMILLA is an ongoing, phase IIIb study of T-DM1 in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer with prior HER2-targeted therapy and chemotherapy. Patients received T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks (intravenously) until unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or disease progression. Tumor response and clinical outcomes in patients with baseline BM were evaluated in this post hoc, exploratory analysis. The main outcome measures were best overall response rate (complete response + partial response) and clinical benefit rate (complete response + partial response + stable disease lasting ≥6 months) by RECIST v1.1 criteria, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Of 2002 treated patients, 398 had baseline BM. In 126 patients with measurable BM, the best overall response rate and clinical benefit rate were 21.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 14.6-29.6] and 42.9% (95% CI 34.1-52.0), respectively. A reduction in the sum of the major diameters of BM ≥30% occurred in 42.9% (95% CI 34.1-52.0), including 49.3% (95% CI 36.9-61.8) of 67 patients without prior radiotherapy to BM. In the 398 patients with baseline BM, median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.5 (95% CI 5.3-5.6) months and 18.9 (95% CI 17.1-21.3) months, respectively. The adverse event profile was broadly similar in patients with and without baseline BM, although nervous system adverse events were more common in patients with [208 (52.3%)] versus without [701 (43.7%)] baseline BM. CONCLUSION: This exploratory analysis of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and BM enrolled in a prospective clinical trial shows that T-DM1 is active and well-tolerated in this population. T-DM1 should be explored further in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01702571.

Patient-reported outcomes from the phase III IMpassion130 trial of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is incurable. A key treatment goal is providing palliation while maintaining patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). IMpassion130 demonstrated progression-free survival benefit with atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel (A + nP) versus placebo + nab-paclitaxel (Pl + nP) in first-line treatment of mTNBC patients with programmed death-ligand 1 positive (PD-L1+) tumors. We report data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which capture patient perspectives of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated advanced or mTNBC received atezolizumab (840 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks in combination with nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle until progression or intolerance. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its Breast Cancer Module (QLQ-BR23) on day 1 of each cycle, at end of treatment, and every 4 weeks during 1 year of follow-up. Time-to-deterioration (TTD) in HRQoL (first ≥10-point decrease from baseline lasting two cycles) was a secondary end point. Exploratory end points included TTD in functioning and mean and mean change from baseline scores in HRQoL, functioning, and disease- and treatment-related symptoms. RESULTS: Baseline completion of PROs was 92% (QLQ-C30) and 89% (QLQ-BR23) and remained >80% through cycle 20 in intent-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1+ patients. No differences between arms in median TTD in PD-L1+ patients were observed for HRQoL {hazard ratio (HR) 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.28]} or physical [HR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76-1.37)] or role [HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.57-1.04)] functioning. Mean baseline scores for A + nP versus Pl + nP for HRQoL (67.5 versus 65.0) and physical (82.8 versus 79.4) and role (73.7 versus 71.7) functioning were comparable between arms and throughout the course of treatment, with no clinically meaningful (≥10 point) changes from baseline until patients discontinued treatment. No differences in clinically meaningful worsening in treatment symptoms (fatigue, diarrhea, or nausea/vomiting) were observed between arms. Results in ITT patients were similar. CONCLUSIONS: A + nP as first-line treatment for mTNBC delayed progression without compromising patients' day-to-day functioning or HRQoL or worsening treatment symptoms. CLINICALTRIAL. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02425891.

Effects of neratinib on health-related quality of life in women with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer: longitudinal analyses from the randomized phase III ExteNET trial.

BACKGROUND: We report longitudinal health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data from the international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III ExteNET study, which demonstrated an invasive disease-free survival benefit of extended adjuvant therapy with neratinib over placebo in human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive early-stage breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women (N = 2840) with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer who had completed trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy were randomly assigned to neratinib 240 mg/day or placebo for 12 months. HRQoL was an exploratory end point. Patients completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires at baseline and months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Changes from baseline were compared using analysis of covariance with no imputation for missing values. Sensitivity analyses used alternative methods. Changes in HRQoL scores were regarded as clinically meaningful if they exceeded previously reported important differences (IDs). RESULTS: Of the 2840 patients (intention-to-treat population), 2407 patients were evaluable for FACT-B (neratinib, N = 1171; placebo, N = 1236) and 2427 patients for EQ-5D (neratinib, N = 1186; placebo, N = 1241). Questionnaire completion rates exceeded 85%. Neratinib was associated with a decrease in global HRQoL scores at month 1 compared with placebo (adjusted mean differences: FACT-B total, -2.9 points; EQ-5D index, -0.02), after which between-group differences diminished at later time-points. Except for the FACT-B physical well-being (PWB) subscale at month 1; all between-group differences were less than reported IDs. The FACT-B breast cancer-specific subscale showed small improvements with neratinib at months 3-9, but all were less than IDs. Sensitivity analyses exploring missing data did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: Extended adjuvant neratinib was associated with a transient, reversible decrease in HRQoL during the first month of treatment, possibly linked to treatment-related diarrhea. With the exception of the PWB subscale at month 1, all neratinib-related HRQoL changes did not reach clinically meaningful thresholds. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00878709.

Trends in progression-free survival (PFS) and time to progression (TTP) over time within first-line aromatase inhibitors trials in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 20 years, aromatase inhibitors (AI) have been tested in clinical trials as first-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive) advanced breast cancer (ABC), firstly as experimental arms, when they proved to be effective, and recently as control arms. This analysis aims to evaluate trends in progression-free survival (PFS) and time to progression (TTP) over time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE database to identify randomized controlled phase II or III trials which reported PFS or TTP of at least one arm using first-line AI HR-positive ABC patients. A linear correlation was used to access the association between the year of the first patient enrolled and the observed PFS/TTP. RESULTS: The search retrieved 19 trials, accounting for 4552 postmenopausal patients divided into 21 separate AI treatment arms. The PFS/TTP increased from 6 to 9 months in the earlier trials to 13-16 months in the current era, representing an absolute gain of approximately 7 months, without the addition of any other drug. Our analysis showed a positive correlation between the year of the first patient enrolled in these trials and median PFS/TTP reported (R 2 = 0.34; p < 0.01). No correlation was found between the year of the first patient included in these trials and other potential prognostic factors such as visceral metastasis at baseline (R 2 = 0.26; p = 0.20) or exposure to adjuvant therapy (R 2 = 0.05; p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with first-line AIs in the more recently conducted trials have longer PFS/TTP when compared to their counterparts treated with the same drugs in older studies. These findings have important implications for the estimation of sample size and follow-up periods for the planning of future trials as well as in the translation of the results into clinical practice decisions.

Exploring disparities in incidence and mortality rates of breast and gynecologic cancers according to the Human Development Index in the Pan-American region.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a country's Human Development Index (HDI) can help explain the differences in the country's breast cancer and gynecological cancer incidence and mortality rates in the Pan-American region. STUDY DESIGN: Ecological analysis. METHODS: Pan-American region countries with publicly available data both in GLOBOCAN 2012 and the United Nations Development Report 2012 were included (n = 28). Incidence and mortality rates age-standardized per 100,000 were natural log-transformed for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, corpus uteri cancer, and cervical cancer. The mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) was calculated for each site. Pearson's correlation test and a simple linear regression were performed. RESULTS: The HDI showed a positive correlation with breast cancer and ovarian cancer incidence and mortality rates, respectively, and a negative correlation with cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates. The HDI and corpus uteri cancer showed no association. MIR and the HDI showed a negative correlation for all tumor types except ovarian cancer. An increment in 1 HDI unit leads to changes in cancer rates: in breast cancer incidence ß = 4.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.61; 5.45) P < 0.001, breast cancer mortality ß = 1.76 (95% CI 0.32; 3.21) P = 0.019, and breast cancer-MIR ß = -0.705 (95% CI 0.704; 0.706) P < 0.001; in cervical cancer incidence ß = -3.28 (95% CI -4.78; -1.78) P < 0.001, cervical cancer mortality ß = -4.63 (95% CI -6.10; -3.17) P < 0.001, and cervical cancer-MIR ß = -1.35 (95% CI -1.83; -0.87) P < 0.001; in ovarian cancer incidence ß = 3.26 (95% CI 1.78; 4.75) P < 0.001, ovarian cancer mortality ß = 1.82 (95% CI 0.44; 3.20) P = 0.012, and ovarian cancer-MIR ß = 5.10 (95% CI 3.22; 6.97) P < 0.001; in corpus uteri cancer incidence ß = 2.37 (95% CI -0.33; 5.06) P = 0.83, corpus uteri cancer mortality ß = 0.68 (95% CI -2.68; 2.82) P = 0.96, and corpus uteri cancer-MIR ß = -2.30 (95% CI -3.19; -1.40) P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: A country's HDI should be considered to understand disparities in breast cancer and gynecological cancer in the Pan-American region.

Final overall survival analysis for the phase II RECORD-3 study of first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib versus first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus in metastatic RCC.

BACKGROUND: RECORD-3 compared everolimus and sunitinib as first-line therapy, and the sequence of everolimus followed by sunitinib at progression compared with the opposite (standard) sequence in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This final overall survival (OS) analysis evaluated mature data for secondary end points. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received either first-line everolimus followed by second-line sunitinib at progression (n = 238) or first-line sunitinib followed by second-line everolimus (n = 233). Secondary end points were combined first- and second-line progression-free survival (PFS), OS, and safety. The impacts of neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and baseline levels of soluble biomarkers on OS were explored. RESULTS: At final analysis, median duration of exposure was 5.6 months for everolimus and 8.3 months for sunitinib. Median combined PFS was 21.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.1-26.7] with everolimus-sunitinib and 22.2 months (95% CI 16.0-29.8) with sunitinib-everolimus [hazard ratio (HR)EVE-SUN/SUN-EVE, 1.2; 95% CI 0.9-1.6]. Median OS was 22.4 months (95% CI 18.6-33.3) for everolimus-sunitinib and 29.5 months (95% CI 22.8-33.1) for sunitinib-everolimus (HREVE-SUN/SUN-EVE, 1.1; 95% CI 0.9-1.4). The rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events suspected to be related to second-line therapy were 47% with everolimus and 57% with sunitinib. Higher NLR and 12 soluble biomarker levels were identified as prognostic markers for poor OS with the association being largely independent of treatment sequences. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this final OS analysis support the sequence of sunitinib followed by everolimus at progression in patients with mRCC. The safety profiles of everolimus and sunitinib were consistent with those previously reported, and there were no unexpected safety signals. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00903175.