Overall survival with sacituzumab govitecan in hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (TROPiCS-02): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated significant progression-free survival benefit over chemotherapy in the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 trial in patients with pretreated, endocrine-resistant hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+ and HER2-) metastatic breast cancer with limited treatment options. Here, we report the protocol-specified final analysis of overall survival and endpoints by trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (Trop-2) expression and other variables. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial, which took place in 91 centres across North America (the USA and Canada) and Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sacituzumab govitecan or chemotherapy (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine). Patients had confirmed HR+ and HER2- locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic breast cancer and had received at least one previous endocrine therapy, a taxane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor in any setting and two to four previous chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (previously reported and not included in this analysis), and secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and patient-reported outcomes. Overall survival was assessed using stratified log-rank tests and Cox regression. Trop-2 expression was assessed in tumour tissue by immunohistochemistry. In the statistical testing hierarchy, ORR and patient-reported outcomes were tested sequentially if overall survival was significant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03901339. FINDINGS: At the data cutoff date of July 1, 2022, 543 of 776 screened patients were randomly assigned between May 30, 2019, and April 5, 2021, with 272 patients in the sacituzumab govitecan group and 271 patients in the chemotherapy group. With a 12·5-month (IQR 6·4-18·8) median follow-up, 390 deaths occurred among 543 patients. Overall survival was significantly improved with sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy (median 14·4 months [95% CI 13·0-15·7] vs 11·2 months [10·1-12·7]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·65-0·96; p=0·020); survival benefit was consistent across Trop-2 expression-level subgroups. ORR was significantly improved with sacituzumab govitecan compared with chemotherapy (57 [21%] patients vs 38 [14%]; odds ratio 1·63 [95% CI 1·03-2·56]; p=0·035), as was time to deterioration of global health status and quality of life (median 4·3 months vs 3·0 months; HR 0·75 [0·61-0·92]; p=0·0059) and fatigue (median 2·2 months vs 1·4 months; HR 0·73 [0·60-0·89]; p=0·0021). The safety profile of sacituzumab govitecan was consistent with previous studies (including the TROPiCS-02 primary analysis and the ASCENT trial). One fatal adverse event (septic shock caused by neutropenic colitis) was determined to be related to sacituzumab govitecan treatment. INTERPRETATION: Sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit over chemotherapy, with a 3·2-month median overall survival improvement and a manageable safety profile. These data support sacituzumab govitecan as a new treatment option for patients with pretreated, endocrine-resistant HR+ and HER2- metastatic breast cancer. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Oral metronomic vinorelbine combined with endocrine therapy in hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer: SOLTI-1501 VENTANA window of opportunity trial.

BACKGROUND: The biological effect of oral metronomic vinorelbine (mVNB) alone or in combination with endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative breast cancer has been scarcely addressed. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with untreated stage I-III HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer were randomized (1:1:1) to receive 3 weeks of letrozole (LTZ) 2.5 mg/day, oral mVNB 50 mg 3 days/week, or the combination. The primary objective was to evaluate, within PAM50 Luminal A/B disease, if the anti-proliferative effect of LTZ+mVNB was superior to monotherapy. An anti-proliferative effect was defined as the mean relative decrease of the PAM50 11-gene proliferation score in combination arm vs. both monotherapy arms. Secondary objectives included the evaluation of a comprehensive panel of breast cancer-related genes and safety. An unplanned analysis of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) was also performed. PAM50 analyses were performed using the nCounter®-based Breast Cancer 360™ gene panel, which includes 752 genes and 32 signatures. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were randomized, and 54 paired samples (89%) were analyzed. The main patient characteristics were mean age of 67, mean tumor size of 1.7 cm, mean Ki67 of 14.3%, stage I (55.7%), and grades 1-2 (90%). Most baseline samples were PAM50 Luminal A (74.1%) or B (22.2%). The anti-proliferative effect of 3 weeks of LTZ+mVNB (- 73.2%) was superior to both monotherapy arms combined (- 49.9%; p = 0.001) and mVNB (- 19.1%; p < 0.001). The anti-proliferative effect of LTZ+mVNB (- 73.2%) was numerically higher compared to LTZ (- 65.7%) but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.328). LTZ+mVNB induced high expression of immune-related genes and gene signatures, including CD8 T cell signature and PDL1 gene and low expression of ER-regulated genes (e.g., progesterone receptor) and cell cycle-related and DNA repair genes. In tumors with ≤ 10% sTILs at baseline, a statistically significant increase in sTILs was observed following LTZ (paired analysis p = 0.049) and LTZ+mVNB (p = 0.012). Grade 3 adverse events occurred in 3.4% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term mVNB is well-tolerated and presents anti-proliferative activity alone and in combination with LTZ. The high expression of immune-related biological processes and sTILs observed with the combination opens the possibility of studying this combination with immunotherapy. Further investigation comparing these biological results with other metronomic schedules or drug combinations is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02802748 , registered 16 June 2016.

Balixafortide plus eribulin in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a phase 1, single-arm, dose-escalation trial.

BACKGROUND: The C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4)-stromal cell-derived factor-1α (SDF-1α) axis regulates function and trafficking of immune cells and the tumour microenvironment. CXCR4 antagonists have been shown to enhance the activity of different anticancer treatments in preclinical models. We assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary phase 1 activity of the CXCR4 antagonist, balixafortide, in combination with eribulin chemotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This single-arm, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial enrolled patients at 11 sites in Spain and the USA. Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older who had histologically confirmed HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, evidence of tumour cell CXCR4 expression, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had previously received between one and three chemotherapy regimens for metastatic breast cancer, and at least one endocrine therapy if they had hormone receptor-positive disease, unless they were considered unsuitable for endocrine therapy. A standard 3+3 dose-escalation design was used, followed by an expanded cohort at the established maximum tolerated dose or highest dose if no dose-limiting toxicity was observed for the combination. After a treatment-related fatal adverse event in the first cohort who received 21-day cycles of treatment with eribulin and balixafortide, a protocol amendment modified the study design to be done in two parts. Patients enrolled to part 1 received an initial 28-day run-in cycle, with some cohorts receiving de-escalated doses of eribulin plus balixafortide to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of the combination. The evaluation of part 1 did not confirm any dose-limiting toxicities or eribulin-balixafortide interactions, and therefore part 2 started enrolling patients to receive eribulin at the originally planned dose of 1·4 mg/m2 on days 2 and 9 of a 21-day cycle and balixafortide from a starting dose of 2 mg/kg with dose increments of 0·5 or 1 mg/kg on days 1-3 and 8-10 of the 21-day cycle. Both drugs were administered as intravenous infusions. All patients were to receive treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events, and the establishment of a maximum tolerated dose or recommended phase 2 dose, and pharmacokinetic parameters. Safety analysis was done in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Analysis of antitumour activity was done in all patients who received at least one full cycle of study treatment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01837095, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Jan 28, 2014, and Oct 4, 2016, 56 patients were enrolled into the trial. No dose-limiting toxicities were confirmed and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The highest dose was established as eribulin 1·4 mg/m2 on days 2 and 9, and balixafortide 5·5 mg/kg on days 1-3 and 8-10 of the 21-day cycle. Objective responses (all partial responses) were observed in 16 (30%; 95% CI 18-44) of 54 patients who were evaluable for antitumour activity. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were fatigue (44 [79%] of 56 patients), neutropenia (32 [57%]), infusion-related reactions (27 [48%]), alopecia (26 [46%]), constipation (26 [46%]), and nausea (25 [45%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 21 (38%) of 56 patients, including febrile neutropenia in five (9%) of 56 patients, neutrophil count decrease in two (4%) patients, constipation in two (4%) patients, pneumonia in two (4%) patients, and urinary tract infection in three (5%) patients. Two (4%) of 56 patients died while receiving study treatment; one from septic shock and one from pneumonia. INTERPRETATION: The safety and tolerability of balixafortide plus eribulin seems to be similar to that of eribulin or balixafortide monotherapy, and the preliminary activity of the combination seems promising in patients with HER-negative metastatic breast cancer. The results suggest that balixafortide plus eribulin has potential to provide a new therapeutic option in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer and warrants further investigation in randomised trials. FUNDING: Polyphor.

Prolonged survival in patients with breast cancer and a history of brain metastases: results of a preplanned subgroup analysis from the randomized phase III BEACON trial.

PURPOSE: Conventional chemotherapy has limited activity in patients with breast cancer and brain metastases (BCBM). Etirinotecan pegol (EP), a novel long-acting topoisomerase-1 inhibitor, was designed using advanced polymer technology to preferentially accumulate in tumor tissue including brain metastases, providing sustained cytotoxic SN38 levels. METHODS: The phase 3 BEACON trial enrolled 852 women with heavily pretreated locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer between 2011 and 2013. BEACON compared EP with treatment of physician's choice (TPC; eribulin, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, ixabepilone, or docetaxel) in patients previously treated with anthracycline, taxane, and capecitabine, including those with treated, stable brain metastases. The primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was assessed in a pre-defined subgroup of BCBM patients; an exploratory post hoc analysis adjusting for the diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment (GPA) index was also conducted. RESULTS: In the trial, 67 BCBM patients were randomized (EP, n = 36; TPC, n = 31). Treatment subgroups were balanced for baseline characteristics and GPA indices. EP was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (HR 0.51; P < 0.01) versus TPC; median OS was 10.0 and 4.8 months, respectively. Improvement in OS was observed in both poorer and better GPA prognostic groups. Survival rates at 12 months were 44.4% for EP versus 19.4% for TPC. Consistent with the overall BEACON population, fewer patients on EP experienced grade ≥3 toxicity (50 vs. 70%). CONCLUSIONS: The significant improvement in survival in BCBM patients provides encouraging data for EP in this difficult-to-treat subgroup of patients. A phase three trial of EP in BCBM patients is underway (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02915744).

Etirinotecan pegol (NKTR-102) versus treatment of physician's choice in women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine (BEACON): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: New options are needed for patients with heavily pretreated breast cancer. Etirinotecan pegol is a long-acting topoisomerase-I inhibitor that prolongs exposure to, but reduces the toxicity of, SN38 (the active metabolite of irinotecan). We assessed whether etirinotecan pegol is superior to currently available treatments for patients with previously treated, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 study (BEACON; BrEAst Cancer Outcomes with NKTR-102), conducted at 135 sites in 11 countries, patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine (and two to five previous regimens for advanced disease) were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally via an interactive response system to etirinotecan pegol (145 mg/m(2) as a 90-min intravenous infusion every 3 weeks) or single-drug treatment of physician's choice. Patients with stable brain metastases and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 were eligible. Randomisation was stratified with a permuted block scheme by region, previous eribulin, and receptor status. After randomisation, patients and investigators were aware of treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01492101. FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2011, and Aug 20, 2013, 852 patients were randomly assigned; 429 to etirinotecan pegol and 423 to treatment of physician's choice. There was no significant difference in overall survival between groups (median 12·4 months [95% CI 11·0-13·6] for the etirinotecan pegol group vs 10·3 months [9·0-11·3] for the treatment of physician's choice group; hazard ratio 0·87 [95% CI 0·75-1·02]; p=0·084). The safety population includes the 831 patients who received at least one dose of assigned treatment (425 assigned to etirinotecan pegol and 406 to treatment of physician's choice). Serious adverse events were recorded for 128 (30%) patients treated with etirinotecan pegol and 129 (32%) treated with treatment of physician's choice. Fewer patients in the etirinotecan pegol group had grade 3 or worse toxicity than those in the treatment of physician's choice group (204 [48%] vs 256 [63%]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were diarrhoea (41 [10%] in the experimental group vs five [1%] in the control group), neutropenia (41 [10%] vs 125 [31%]), and peripheral neuropathy (two [<1%] vs 15 [4%]). Three patients in the etirinotecan pegol group died of treatment-related adverse events (pneumonia, myelodysplastic syndrome, and acute renal failure) and two in the treatment of physician's choice group (neutropenic sepsis and septic shock). INTERPRETATION: This trial did not demonstrate an improvement in overall survival for etirinotecan pegol compared to treatment of physician's choice in patients with heavily pre-treated advanced breast cancer. The toxicity profile noted in the etirinotecan pegol group differed from that in the control group. In view of the frequency of cross-resistance and overlapping toxicities noted with many available drugs and the need for effective drugs in highly refractory disease, etirinotecan pegol may warrant further research in some subgroups of patients. FUNDING: Nektar Therapeutics.

Broad consensus on the optimal sequence for the systemic treatment of metastatic breast cancer: results from a survey of Spanish medical oncologists.

Objective: The aim of this survey conducted by 20 leading Spanish oncologists was to analyze the concurrence between Spanish clinical practice and the recently published definition of the optimal sequence for the systemic treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) according to patient profiles. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was developed, divided into five sections comprising 34 specific questions related to sequential treatments, plus three additional general questions. Respondents were asked to justify negative answers. Participants were recruited randomly by invitation out of a total of 619 oncologists. The questionnaire was sent and collected via e-mail between October 2015 and May 2016. A total of 191 completed questionnaires were received. Results: Overall, 70% of oncologists would keep the three patient profiles exactly as proposed (hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative, HER2-positive, and triple negative breast cancer). Affirmative answers to questions regarding treatment sequences for these patient profiles (1-34) ranged from 77.8-99.5%, with an average of 90.9% of oncologists being in agreement with the recommended sequential treatments. The lowest degree of consensus was observed for endocrine treatments in pre-menopausal women and for chemotherapy options in hormone-resistant patients, whilst the highest degree of consensus was reached for targeted therapies in HER2-positive patients and for endocrine therapy in post-menopausal women. In their comments, participants revealed a number of economic constraints that prevented them from implementing some of the best treatment options. Conclusions: In conclusion, despite the complexity of MBC treatment, there is general agreement on the optimal treatment sequences.

Health-related quality of life in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer treated with etirinotecan pegol versus treatment of physician's choice: Results from the randomised phase III BEACON trial.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) enhances understanding of treatment effects that impact clinical decision-making. Although the primary end-point was not achieved, the BEACON (BrEAst Cancer Outcomes with NKTR-102) trial established etirinotecan pegol, a long-acting topoisomerase-1 (TOP1) inhibitor, as a promising therapeutic for patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (MBC) achieving clinically meaningful benefits in median overall survival (OS) for patients with stable brain metastases, with liver metastases or ≥ 2 sites of metastatic disease compared to treatment of physician's choice (TPC). Reported herein are the findings from the preplanned secondary end-point of HRQoL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HRQoL, assessed by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) (version 3.0) supplemented by the breast cancer-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-BR23), was evaluated post randomisation in 733 of 852 patients with either anthracycline-, taxane- and capecitabine-pretreated locally recurrent or MBC randomised to etirinotecan pegol (n = 378; 145 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (q3wk)) or single-agent TPC (n = 355). Patients completed assessments at screening, every 8 weeks (q8wk) during treatment, and end-of-treatment. Changes from baseline were analysed, and the proportions of patients achieving differences (≥5 points) in HRQoL scores were compared. RESULTS: Differences were seen favouring etirinotecan pegol up to 32 weeks for global health status (GHS) and physical functioning scales (P < 0.02); numerical improvement was reported in other functional scales. The findings from HRQoL symptom scales were consistent with adverse event profiles; etirinotecan pegol was associated with worsening gastrointestinal symptoms whereas TPC was associated with worsened dyspnoea and other systemic side-effects. Analysis of GHS and physical functioning at disease progression showed a decline in HRQoL in both treatment arms, with a mean change from baseline of -9.4 and -10.8 points, respectively. CONCLUSION: There was evidence of benefit associated with etirinotecan pegol compared with current standard of care agents in multiple HRQoL measurements, including global health status and physical functioning, despite worse gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g. diarrhoea). Patients in both arms had a decline in HRQoL at disease progression. STUDY NUMBER: NCT01492101.