Lasofoxifene versus fulvestrant for ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation: results from the randomized, phase II ELAINE 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Acquired estrogen receptor alpha (ER/ESR1) mutations commonly cause endocrine resistance in ER+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Lasofoxifene, a novel selective ER modulator, stabilizes an antagonist conformation of wild-type and ESR1-mutated ER-ligand binding domains, and has antitumor activity in ESR1-mutated xenografts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, randomized, phase II, multicenter, ELAINE 1 study (NCT03781063), we randomized women with ESR1-mutated, ER+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) mBC that had progressed on an aromatase inhibitor (AI) plus a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) to oral lasofoxifene 5 mg daily or IM fulvestrant 500 mg (days 1, 15, and 29, and then every 4 weeks) until disease progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were safety/tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients received lasofoxifene (n = 52) or fulvestrant (n = 51). The most current efficacy analysis showed that lasofoxifene did not significantly prolong median PFS compared with fulvestrant: 24.2 weeks (∼5.6 months) versus 16.2 weeks (∼3.7 months; P = 0.138); hazard ratio 0.699 (95% confidence interval 0.434-1.125). However, PFS and other clinical endpoints numerically favored lasofoxifene: clinical benefit rate (36.5% versus 21.6%; P = 0.117), objective response rate [13.2% (including a complete response in one lasofoxifene-treated patient) versus 2.9%; P = 0.124], and 6-month (53.4% versus 37.9%) and 12-month (30.7% versus 14.1%) PFS rates. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events with lasofoxifene were nausea, fatigue, arthralgia, and hot flushes. One death occurred in the fulvestrant arm. Circulating tumor DNA ESR1 mutant allele fraction (MAF) decreased from baseline to week 8 in 82.9% of evaluable lasofoxifene-treated versus 61.5% of fulvestrant-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Lasofoxifene demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity versus fulvestrant and was well tolerated in patients with ESR1-mutated, endocrine-resistant mBC following progression on AI plus CDK4/6i. Consistent with target engagement, lasofoxifene reduced ESR1 MAF, and to a greater extent than fulvestrant. Lasofoxifene may be a promising targeted treatment for patients with ESR1-mutated mBC and warrants further investigation.

Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for high-risk early breast cancer: safety and patient-reported outcomes from the monarchE study.

BACKGROUND: In monarchE, abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) as adjuvant treatment of hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative, high-risk, early breast cancer (EBC) demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival versus ET alone. Detailed safety analyses conducted at a median follow-up of 27 months and key patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are presented. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment (n = 5591). Safety analyses included incidence, management, and outcomes of common and clinically relevant adverse events (AEs). Patient-reported health-related quality of life, ET symptoms, fatigue, and side-effect burden were assessed. RESULTS: The addition of abemaciclib to ET resulted in higher incidence of grade ≥3 AEs (49.7% versus 16.3% with ET alone), predominantly laboratory cytopenias [e.g. neutropenia (19.6%)] without clinical complications. Abemaciclib-treated patients experienced more serious AEs (15.2% versus 8.8%). Discontinuation of abemaciclib and/or ET due to AEs occurred in 18.5% of patients, mainly due to grade 1/2 AEs (66.8%). AEs were managed with comedications (e.g. antidiarrheals), abemaciclib dose holds (61.7%), and/or dose reductions (43.4%). Diarrhea was generally low grade (grade 1/2: 76%); grade 2/3 events were highest in the first month (20.5%), most were short-lived (≤7 days) and did not recur. Venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) were higher with abemaciclib + ET (2.5%) versus ET (0.6%); in the abemaciclib arm, increased VTE risk was observed with tamoxifen versus aromatase inhibitors (4.3% versus 1.8%). PROs were similar between arms, including being 'bothered by side-effects of treatment', except for diarrhea. At ≥3 months, most patients reporting diarrhea reported 'a little bit' or 'somewhat'. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high-risk EBC, adjuvant abemaciclib + ET has an acceptable safety profile and tolerability is supported by PRO findings. Most AEs were reversible and manageable with comedications and/or dose modifications, consistent with the known abemaciclib toxicity profile.

Long-term efficacy and safety of addition of carboplatin with or without veliparib to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer: 4-year follow-up data from BrighTNess, a randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary analyses of the phase III BrighTNess trial showed addition of carboplatin with/without veliparib to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response (pCR) rates with manageable acute toxicity in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Here, we report 4.5-year follow-up data from the trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with untreated stage II-III TNBC were randomized (2 : 1 : 1) to paclitaxel (weekly for 12 doses) plus: (i) carboplatin (every 3 weeks for four cycles) plus veliparib (twice daily); (ii) carboplatin plus veliparib placebo; or (iii) carboplatin placebo plus veliparib placebo. All patients then received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide every 2-3 weeks for four cycles. The primary endpoint was pCR. Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Since the co-primary endpoint of increased pCR with carboplatin plus veliparib with paclitaxel versus carboplatin with paclitaxel was not met, secondary analyses are descriptive. RESULTS: Of 634 patients, 316 were randomized to carboplatin plus veliparib with paclitaxel, 160 to carboplatin with paclitaxel, and 158 to paclitaxel. With median follow-up of 4.5 years, the hazard ratio for EFS for carboplatin plus veliparib with paclitaxel versus paclitaxel was 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-0.92, P = 0.02], but 1.12 (95% CI 0.72-1.72, P = 0.62) for carboplatin plus veliparib with paclitaxel versus carboplatin with paclitaxel. In post hoc analysis, the hazard ratio for EFS was 0.57 (95% CI 0.36-0.91, P = 0.02) for carboplatin with paclitaxel versus paclitaxel. OS did not differ significantly between treatment arms, nor did rates of myelodysplastic syndromes, acute myeloid leukemia, or other secondary malignancies. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in pCR with the addition of carboplatin was associated with long-term EFS benefit with a manageable safety profile, and without increasing the risk of second malignancies, whereas adding veliparib did not impact EFS. These findings support the addition of carboplatin to weekly paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage TNBC.

Treatment Efficacy Score-continuous residual cancer burden-based metric to compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy efficacy between randomized trial arms in breast cancer trials.

BACKGROUND: Difference in pathologic complete response (pCR) rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not capture the impact of treatment on downstaging of residual cancer in the experimental arm. We developed a method to compare the entire distribution of residual cancer burden (RCB) values between clinical trial arms to better quantify the differences in cytotoxic efficacy of treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Treatment Efficacy Score (TES) reflects the area between the weighted cumulative distribution functions of RCB values from two trial arms. TES is based on a modified Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with added weight function to capture the importance of high RCB values and uses the area under the difference between two distribution functions as a statistical metric. The higher the TES the greater the shift to lower RCB values in the experimental arm. We developed TES from the durvalumab + olaparib arm (n = 72) and corresponding controls (n = 282) of the I-SPY2 trial. The 11 other experimental arms and control cohorts (n = 947) were used as validation sets to assess the performance of TES. We compared TES to Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Mann-Whitney, and Fisher's exact tests to identify trial arms with higher cytotoxic efficacy and assessed associations with trial arm level survival differences. Significance was assessed with a permutation test. RESULTS: In the validation set, TES identified arms with a higher pCR rate but was more accurate to identify regimens as less effective if treatment did not reduce the frequency of high RCB values, even if the pCR rate improved. The correlation between TES and survival was higher than the correlation between the pCR rate difference and survival. CONCLUSIONS: TES quantifies the difference between the entire distribution of pathologic responses observed in trial arms and could serve as a better early surrogate to predict trial arm level survival differences than pCR rate difference alone.

Immunotherapy toxicity: identification and management.

The widespread adoption of immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of various cancer types, including metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), which has long been associated with poor prognostic outcomes. In particular, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) that target and inhibit programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1), have shown promising results in the treatment of patients with metastatic TNBC. However, while manipulating the immune system to induce antitumor response, ICIs can also lead to a unique set of immune-related adverse events (IRAEs), which differ from standard chemotherapy toxicities due to their immune-based origin. These toxicities require highly specific management, including guidance from multidisciplinary specialists. The primary treatment strategy against IRAEs is systemic corticosteroid use, but additional treatment approaches may also involve supportive care, additional immunosuppression, and concurrent treatment delay or discontinuation. Given the rising prevalence of ICI therapy, it is essential to educate clinicians on the presentation and management of these potentially life-threatening events so that they are identified early and treated appropriately. Using data from recent clinical trials, this review will focus on known IRAEs, particularly those seen in patients with breast cancer, and will summarize their prevalence, severity, and outcomes. We will discuss optimal strategies for early recognition and management, as well as approaches toward cautious retreatment following resolution of IRAEs.

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.

Alpelisib plus fulvestrant for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative advanced breast cancer: final overall survival results from SOLAR-1.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) pathway via PIK3CA mutations occurs in 28%-46% of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancers (ABCs) and is associated with poor prognosis. The SOLAR-1 trial showed that the addition of alpelisib to fulvestrant treatment provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in PIK3CA-mutated, HR+, HER2- ABC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men and postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC whose disease progressed on or after aromatase inhibitor (AI) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive alpelisib (300 mg/day) plus fulvestrant (500 mg every 28 days and once on day 15) or placebo plus fulvestrant. Overall survival (OS) in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier methodology and a one-sided stratified log-rank test was carried out with an O'Brien-Fleming efficacy boundary of P ≤ 0.0161. RESULTS: In the PIK3CA-mutated cohort (n = 341), median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 39.3 months (34.1-44.9) for alpelisib-fulvestrant and 31.4 months (26.8-41.3) for placebo-fulvestrant [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (95% CI, 0.64-1.15; P = 0.15)]. OS results did not cross the prespecified efficacy boundary. Median OS (95% CI) in patients with lung and/or liver metastases was 37.2 months (28.7-43.6) and 22.8 months (19.0-26.8) in the alpelisib-fulvestrant and placebo-fulvestrant arms, respectively [HR = 0.68 (0.46-1.00)]. Median times to chemotherapy (95% CI) for the alpelisib-fulvestrant and placebo-fulvestrant arms were 23.3 months (15.2-28.4) and 14.8 months (10.5-22.6), respectively [HR = 0.72 (0.54-0.95)]. No new safety signals were observed with longer follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the analysis did not cross the prespecified boundary for statistical significance, there was a 7.9-month numeric improvement in median OS when alpelisib was added to fulvestrant treatment of patients with PIK3CA-mutated, HR+, HER2- ABC. Overall, these results further support the statistically significant prolongation of PFS observed with alpelisib plus fulvestrant in this population, which has a poor prognosis due to a PIK3CA mutation. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV ID: NCT02437318.

Biomarker analyses in the phase III ASCENT study of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The pivotal phase III ASCENT trial demonstrated improved survival outcomes associated with sacituzumab govitecan (SG), an anti-trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (anti-Trop-2) antibody-drug conjugate linked with the topoisomerase-inhibitor SN-38, over single-agent chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). This prespecified, exploratory biomarker analysis from the ASCENT trial evaluates the association between tumor Trop-2 expression and germline BRCA1/2 mutation status with clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mTNBC refractory to or progressing after two or more prior chemotherapies, with one or more in the metastatic setting, were randomized to receive SG (10 mg/kg intravenously days 1 and 8, every 21 days) or TPC (capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Biopsy or surgical specimens were collected at study entry to determine Trop-2 expression level using a validated immunohistochemistry assay and histochemical scoring. Germline BRCA1/2 mutation status was collected at baseline. RESULTS: Of 468 assessable patients, 290 had Trop-2 expression data [64% (n = 151 SG) versus 60% (n = 139 TPC)] and 292 had known BRCA1/2 mutation status [63% (n = 149 SG) versus 61% (n = 143 TPC)]. Median progression-free survival in SG- versus TPC-treated patients was 6.9, 5.6, and 2.7 months versus 2.5, 2.2, and 1.6 months for high, medium, and low Trop-2 expression, respectively. Median overall survival (14.2, 14.9, and 9.3 months versus 6.9, 6.9, and 7.6 months) and objective response rates (44%, 38%, and 22% versus 1%, 11%, and 6%) were numerically higher with SG versus TPC in patients with high, medium, and low Trop-2 expression, respectively. Efficacy outcomes were numerically higher with SG versus TPC in patients with and without germline BRCA1/2 mutations. CONCLUSIONS: SG benefits patients with previously treated mTNBC expressing high/medium Trop-2 compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy and regardless of germline BRCA1/2 mutation status. The small number of patients with low Trop-2 expression precludes definitive conclusions on the benefit of SG in this subgroup.

Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for high-risk early breast cancer: updated efficacy and Ki-67 analysis from the monarchE study.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) previously demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer at the second interim analysis, however follow-up was limited. Here, we present results of the prespecified primary outcome analysis and an additional follow-up analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This global, phase III, open-label trial randomized (1 : 1) 5637 patients to adjuvant ET for ≥5 years ± abemaciclib for 2 years. Cohort 1 enrolled patients with ≥4 positive axillary lymph nodes (ALNs), or 1-3 positive ALNs and either grade 3 disease or tumor ≥5 cm. Cohort 2 enrolled patients with 1-3 positive ALNs and centrally determined high Ki-67 index (≥20%). The primary endpoint was IDFS in the intent-to-treat population (cohorts 1 and 2). Secondary endpoints were IDFS in patients with high Ki-67, DRFS, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: At the primary outcome analysis, with 19 months median follow-up time, abemaciclib + ET resulted in a 29% reduction in the risk of developing an IDFS event [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-0.87; nominal P = 0.0009]. At the additional follow-up analysis, with 27 months median follow-up and 90% of patients off treatment, IDFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.82; nominal P < 0.0001) and DRFS (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.83; nominal P < 0.0001) benefit was maintained. The absolute improvements in 3-year IDFS and DRFS rates were 5.4% and 4.2%, respectively. Whereas Ki-67 index was prognostic, abemaciclib benefit was consistent regardless of Ki-67 index. Safety data were consistent with the known abemaciclib risk profile. CONCLUSION: Abemaciclib + ET significantly improved IDFS in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer, with an acceptable safety profile. Ki-67 index was prognostic, but abemaciclib benefit was observed regardless of Ki-67 index. Overall, the robust treatment benefit of abemaciclib extended beyond the 2-year treatment period.

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.

Talazoparib versus chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: final overall survival results from the EMBRACA trial.

BACKGROUND: In EMBRACA, talazoparib prolonged progression-free survival versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.542 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.413-0.711]; P < 0.0001) and improved patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated advanced breast cancer (ABC). We report final overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized phase III trial enrolled patients with gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC. Patients received talazoparib or physician's choice of chemotherapy. OS was analyzed using stratified HR and log-rank test and prespecified rank-preserving structural failure time model to account for subsequent treatments. RESULTS: A total of 431 patients were entered in a randomized study (287 talazoparib/144 chemotherapy) with 412 patients treated (286 talazoparib/126 chemotherapy). By 30 September 2019, 216 deaths (75.3%) occurred for talazoparib and 108 (75.0%) chemotherapy; median follow-up was 44.9 and 36.8 months, respectively. HR for OS with talazoparib versus chemotherapy was 0.848 (95% CI 0.670-1.073; P = 0.17); median (95% CI) 19.3 months (16.6-22.5 months) versus 19.5 months (17.4-22.4 months). Kaplan-Meier survival percentages (95% CI) for talazoparib versus chemotherapy: month 12, 71% (66% to 76%)/74% (66% to 81%); month 24, 42% (36% to 47%)/38% (30% to 47%); month 36, 27% (22% to 33%)/21% (14% to 29%). Most patients received subsequent treatments: for talazoparib and chemotherapy, 46.3%/41.7% received platinum and 4.5%/32.6% received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, respectively. Adjusting for subsequent PARP and/or platinum use, HR for OS was 0.756 (95% bootstrap CI 0.503-1.029). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 69.6% (talazoparib) and 64.3% (chemotherapy) patients, consistent with previous reports. Extended follow-up showed significant overall improvement and delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration in global health status/quality of life and breast symptoms favoring talazoparib versus chemotherapy (P < 0.01 for all), consistent with initial analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC, talazoparib did not significantly improve OS over chemotherapy; subsequent treatments may have impacted analysis. Safety was consistent with previous observations. PRO continued to favor talazoparib.

Time course and management of key adverse events during the randomized phase III SOLAR-1 study of PI3K inhibitor alpelisib plus fulvestrant in patients with HR-positive advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Alpelisib (α-selective phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor) plus fulvestrant is approved in multiple countries for men and postmenopausal women with PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer following progression on or after endocrine therapy. A detailed understanding of alpelisib's safety profile should inform adverse event (AE) management and enhance patient care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: AEs in the phase III SOLAR-1 trial were assessed in patients with and without PIK3CA mutations. The impact of protocol-specified AE-management recommendations was evaluated, including an amendment to optimize hyperglycemia and rash management. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus alpelisib (n = 284) or placebo (n = 287). The most common grade 3/4 AEs with alpelisib were hyperglycemia (grade 3, 32.7%; grade 4, 3.9%), rash (grade 3, 9.9%), and diarrhea (grade 3, 6.7%). Median time to onset of grade ≥3 toxicity was 15 days (hyperglycemia, based on fasting plasma glucose), 13 days (rash), and 139 days (diarrhea). Metformin alone or in combination with other antidiabetic agents was used by most patients (87.1%) with hyperglycemia. Preventive anti-rash medication resulted in lower incidence (any grade, 26.7% versus 64.1%) and severity of rash (grade 3, 11.6% versus 22.7%) versus no preventative medication. Discontinuations due to grade ≥3 AEs were lower following more-detailed AE management guidelines (7.9% versus 18.1% previously). Patients with PIK3CA mutations had a median alpelisib dose intensity of 248 mg/day. Median progression-free survival with alpelisib was 12.5 and 9.6 months for alpelisib dose intensities of ≥248 mg/day and <248 mg/day, respectively, compared with 5.8 months with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperglycemia and rash occurred early during alpelisib treatment, while diarrhea occurred at a later time point. Early identification, prevention, and intervention, including concomitant medications and alpelisib dose modifications, resulted in less severe toxicities. Reductions in treatment discontinuations and improved progression-free survival at higher alpelisib dose intensities support the need for optimal AE management. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV ID: NCT02437318.

Improved tolerability of neratinib in patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer: the CONTROL trial.

BACKGROUND: Neratinib is an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for extended adjuvant treatment in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer based on the phase III ExteNET study. In that trial, in which no antidiarrheal prophylaxis was mandated, grade 3 diarrhea was observed in 40% of patients and 17% discontinued due to diarrhea. The international, open-label, sequential-cohort, phase II CONTROL study is investigating several strategies to improve tolerability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who completed trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy received neratinib 240 mg/day for 1 year plus loperamide prophylaxis (days 1-28 or 1-56). Sequential cohorts evaluated additional budesonide or colestipol prophylaxis (days 1-28) and neratinib dose escalation (DE; ongoing). The primary end point was the incidence of grade ≥3 diarrhea. RESULTS: Final data for loperamide (L; n = 137), budesonide + loperamide (BL; n = 64), colestipol + loperamide (CL; n = 136), and colestipol + as-needed loperamide (CL-PRN; n = 104) cohorts, and interim data for DE (n = 60; completed ≥six cycles or discontinued; median duration 11 months) are available. No grade 4 diarrhea was observed. Grade 3 diarrhea rates were lower than ExteNET in all cohorts and lowest in DE (L 31%, BL 28%, CL 21%, CL-PRN 32%, DE 15%). Median number of grade 3 diarrhea episodes was one; median duration per grade 3 episode was 1.0-2.0 days across cohorts. Most grade 3 diarrhea and diarrhea-related discontinuations occurred in month 1. Diarrhea-related discontinuations were lowest in DE (L 20%, BL 8%, CL 4%, CL-PRN 8%, DE 3%). Decreases in health-related quality of life did not cross the clinically important threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Neratinib tolerability was improved with preemptive prophylaxis or DE, which reduced the rate, severity, and duration of neratinib-associated grade ≥3 diarrhea compared with ExteNET. Lower diarrhea-related treatment discontinuations in multiple cohorts indicate that proactive management can allow patients to stay on neratinib for the recommended time period. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT02400476.

Pembrolizumab monotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-positive, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: cohort B of the phase II KEYNOTE-086 study.

BACKGROUND: Standard first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is chemotherapy. However, outcomes are poor, and new treatment options are needed. In cohort B of the phase II KEYNOTE-086 study, we evaluated pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for patients with PD-L1-positive mTNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had centrally confirmed mTNBC, no prior systemic anticancer therapy for metastatic disease, measurable disease at baseline per RECIST v1.1 by central review, no radiographic evidence of central nervous system metastases, and a tumor PD-L1 combined positive score ≥1. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 2 years. The primary end point was safety. Secondary end points included objective response rate, disease control rate (percentage of patients with complete or partial response or stable disease for ≥24 weeks), duration of response, progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: All 84 patients enrolled were women, and 73 (86.9%) received prior (neo)adjuvant therapy. Fifty-three (63.1%) patients had treatment-related adverse events (AEs), including 8 patients (9.5%) with grade 3 severity; no patients experienced grade 4 AEs or died because of treatment-related AEs. Four patients had a complete response and 14 had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 21.4% (95% CI 13.9-31.4). Of the 13 patients with stable disease, 2 had stable disease lasting ≥24 weeks, for a disease control rate of 23.8% (95% CI 15.9-34.0). At data cut-off, 8 of 18 (44.4%) responses were ongoing, and median duration of response was 10.4 months (range 4.2 to 19.2+). Median progression-free survival was 2.1 months (95% CI 2.0-2.2), and median overall survival was 18.0 months (95% CI 12.9-23.0). CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab monotherapy had a manageable safety profile and showed durable antitumor activity as first-line therapy for patients with PD-L1-positive mTNBC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02447003.

Pembrolizumab monotherapy for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: cohort A of the phase II KEYNOTE-086 study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) are limited. In cohort A of the phase II KEYNOTE-086 study, we evaluated pembrolizumab as second or later line of treatment for patients with mTNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had centrally confirmed mTNBC, ≥1 systemic therapy for metastatic disease, prior treatment with anthracycline and taxane in any disease setting, and progression on or after the most recent therapy. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 2 years. Primary end points were objective response rate in the total and PD-L1-positive populations, and safety. Secondary end points included duration of response, disease control rate (percentage of patients with complete or partial response or stable disease for ≥24 weeks), progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: All enrolled patients (N = 170) were women, 61.8% had PD-L1-positive tumors, and 43.5% had received ≥3 previous lines of therapy for metastatic disease. ORR (95% CI) was 5.3% (2.7-9.9) in the total and 5.7% (2.4-12.2) in the PD-L1-positive populations. Disease control rate (95% CI) was 7.6% (4.4-12.7) and 9.5% (5.1-16.8), respectively. Median duration of response was not reached in the total (range, 1.2+-21.5+) and in the PD-L1-positive (range, 6.3-21.5+) populations. Median PFS was 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.9-2.0), and the 6-month rate was 14.9%. Median OS was 9.0 months (95% CI, 7.6-11.2), and the 6-month rate was 69.1%. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 103 (60.6%) patients, including 22 (12.9%) with grade 3 or 4 AEs. There were no deaths due to AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated durable antitumor activity in a subset of patients with previously treated mTNBC and had a manageable safety profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02447003.

A phase II feasibility study of palbociclib in combination with adjuvant endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive invasive breast carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib prolongs progression-free survival in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer when combined with endocrine therapy. This phase II trial was designed to determine the feasibility of adjuvant palbociclib and endocrine therapy for early breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with HR+/HER2- stage II-III breast cancer received 2 years of palbociclib at 125 mg daily, 3 weeks on/1 week off, with endocrine therapy. The primary end point was discontinuation from palbociclib due to toxicity, non-adherence, or events related to tolerability. A discontinuation rate of 48% or higher would indicate the treatment duration of 2 years was not feasible, and was evaluated under a binomial test using a one-sided α = 0.025. RESULTS: Overall, 162 patients initiated palbociclib; over half had stage III disease (52%) and most received prior chemotherapy (80%). A total of 102 patients (63%) completed 2 years of palbociclib; 50 patients discontinued early for protocol-related reasons (31%, 95% CI 24% to 39%, P = 0.001), and 10 discontinued due to protocol-unrelated reasons. The cumulative incidence of protocol-related discontinuation was 21% (95% CI 14% to 27%) at 12 months from start of treatment. Rates of palbociclib-related toxicity were congruent with the metastatic experience, and there were no cases of febrile neutropenia. Ninety-one patients (56%) required at least one dose reduction. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant palbociclib is feasible in early breast cancer, with a high proportion of patients able to complete 2 years of therapy. The safety profile in the adjuvant setting mirrors that observed in metastatic disease, with approximately half of the patients requiring dose-modification. As extended duration adjuvant palbociclib appears feasible and tolerable for most patients, randomized phase III trials are evaluating clinical benefit in this population. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION: NCT02040857.

Palbociclib plus letrozole as first-line therapy in estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer with extended follow-up.

PURPOSE: In the initial PALOMA-2 (NCT01740427) analysis with median follow-up of 23 months, palbociclib plus letrozole significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58; P < 0.001]. Herein, we report results overall and by subgroups with extended follow-up. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 study, post-menopausal women with ER+/HER2- ABC who had not received prior systemic therapy for their advanced disease were randomized 2:1 to palbociclib-letrozole or placebo-letrozole. Endpoints include investigator-assessed PFS (primary), safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: After a median follow-up of approximately 38 months, median PFS was 27.6 months for palbociclib-letrozole (n = 444) and 14.5 months for placebo-letrozole (n = 222) (HR 0.563; 1-sided P < 0.0001). All subgroups benefited from palbociclib treatment. The improvement of PFS with palbociclib-letrozole was maintained in the next 2 subsequent lines of therapy and delayed the use of chemotherapy (40.4 vs. 29.9 months for palbociclib-letrozole vs. placebo-letrozole). Safety data were consistent with the known profile. Patients' quality of life was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: With approximately 15 months of additional follow-up, palbociclib plus letrozole continued to demonstrate improved PFS compared with placebo plus letrozole in the overall population and across all patient subgroups, while the safety profile remained favorable and quality of life was maintained. These data confirm that palbociclib-letrozole should be considered the standard of care for first-line therapy in patients with ER+/HER2- ABC, including those with low disease burden or long disease-free interval. Sponsored by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01740427.

Quality of life with talazoparib versus physician's choice of chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer and germline BRCA1/2 mutation: patient-reported outcomes from the EMBRACA phase III trial.

Background: In the EMBRACA phase III trial, talazoparib (1 mg daily, orally) demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT; capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine) in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer carrying a germline BRCA1/2 mutation; we evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to receive talazoparib or PCT. PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline), the start of each treatment cycle (every 3 weeks), and at the end of treatment, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-30) and its breast cancer module, QLQ-BR23. Prespecified exploratory analyses included a longitudinal mixed-effect model comparing treatment arms and a time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (TTD) analysis carried out in the global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL), and all functional and symptom scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and -BR23 questionnaires. Between-arm TTD comparisons were made using a stratified log-rank test and a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Baseline scores were similar between arms. Statistically significant estimated overall improvement from baseline in GHS/QoL was seen for talazoparib compared with statistically significant deterioration for PCT {3.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2, 4.8] versus -5.4 [95% CI -8.8, -2.0]; between arms, P < 0.0001}. A statistically significant greater delay was observed in TTD in GHS/QoL, favoring talazoparib over PCT [hazard ratio, 0.38 (95% CI 0.26, 0.55; median, 24.3 versus 6.3 months, respectively; P < 0.0001)]. A statistically significant overall change and a statistically significant delay in TTD, all favoring talazoparib, were also observed in multiple functions and symptoms. Conclusion: Patients who received talazoparib had significant overall improvements and significant delay in TTD in multiple cancer-related and breast cancer-specific symptoms, functions, and GHS/QoL. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01945775.

Impact of palbociclib plus letrozole on patient-reported health-related quality of life: results from the PALOMA-2 trial.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes are integral in benefit-risk assessments of new treatment regimens. The PALOMA-2 study provides the largest body of evidence for patient-reported health-related quality of life (QOL) for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving first-line endocrine-based therapy (palbociclib plus letrozole and letrozole alone). Patients and methods: Treatment-naïve postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) MBC were randomized 2 : 1 to palbociclib plus letrozole (n = 444) or placebo plus letrozole (n = 222). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, day 1 of cycles 2 and 3, and day 1 of every other cycle from cycle 5 using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-Breast and EuroQOL 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires. Results: As of 26 February 2016, the median duration of follow-up was 23 months. Baseline scores were comparable between the two treatment arms. No significant between-arm differences were observed in change from baseline in FACT-Breast Total, FACT-General Total, or EQ-5D scores. Significantly greater improvement in pain scores was observed in the palbociclib plus letrozole arm (-0.256 versus -0.098; P = 0.0183). In both arms, deterioration of FACT-Breast Total score was significantly delayed in patients without progression versus those with progression and patients with partial or complete response versus those without. No significant difference was observed in FACT-Breast and EQ-5D index scores in patients with and without neutropenia. Conclusions: Overall, women with MBC receiving first-line endocrine therapy have a good QOL. The addition of palbociclib to letrozole maintains health-related QOL and improves pain scores in treatment-naïve postmenopausal patients with ER+/HER2- MBC compared with letrozole alone. Significantly greater delay in deterioration of health-related QOL was observed in patients without progression versus those who progressed and in patients with an objective response versus non-responders. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01740427 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01740427).