Search

Background: HER2-targeted treatments have improved outcomes in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings; however, some patients remain at risk of relapse or death for many years after treatment of early-stage disease. Therefore, new strategies are needed. We did a phase 3 trial to assess a neoadjuvant regimen for HER2-positive breast cancer that replaces traditional systemic chemotherapy with targeted treatment.Methods: We did a randomised, open-label phase 3 KRISTINE trial in 68 Translational Research In Oncology centres (hospitals and specialty cancer centres in Asia, Europe, USA, and Canada). Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with centrally confirmed HER2-positive stage II-III operable breast cancer (>2 cm tumour size), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55% (by echocardiogram or multiple-gated acquisition scan). We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive either trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab. We did the randomisation via an interactive response system under a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of four), stratified by hormone receptor status, stage at diagnosis, and geographical location. Patients received six cycles (every 3 weeks) of neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab (trastuzumab emtansine 3·6 mg/kg; pertuzumab 840 mg loading dose, 420 mg maintenance doses) or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab (docetaxel 75 mg/m2; carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve 6 mg/mL × min; trastuzumab 8 mg/kg loading dose, 6 mg/kg maintenance doses) plus pertuzumab [same dosing as in the other group]). All treatments were administered intravenously. The primary objective was to compare the number of patients who achieved a pathological complete response (ypT0/is, ypN0), between groups in the intention-to-treat population (two-sided assessment), based on local evaluation of tumour samples taken at breast cancer surgery done between 14 days and 6 weeks after completion of neoadjuvant therapy. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02131064, and follow-up of the adjuvant phase is ongoing.Findings: Between June 25, 2014, and June 15, 2015, we randomly assigned 444 patients to neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab (n=223) or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab (n=221). A pathological complete response was achieved by 99 (44·4%) of 223 patients in the trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab group and 123 (55·7%) of 221 patients in the docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab group (absolute difference -11·3 percentage points, 95% CI -20·5 to -2·0; p=0·016). During neoadjuvant treatment, compared with patients receiving docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, fewer patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab had a grade 3-4 adverse event (29 [13%] of 223 vs 141 [64%] of 219) or a serious adverse event (11 [5%] of 223 vs 63 [29%] of 219). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab group were decreased platelet count (three [1%] of 223 patients vs 11 [5%] of 219 with docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab), fatigue (three [1%] vs seven [3%]), alanine aminotransferase increase (three [1%] vs four [2%]), and hypokalaemia (three [1%] vs five [2%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab group were neutropenia (55 [25%] of 219 vs one [<1%] of 223 with trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab), diarrhoea (33 [15%] vs 2 [<1%]), and febrile neutropenia (33 [15%] vs 0). No deaths were reported during neoadjuvant treatment.Interpretation: Traditional neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy plus dual HER2-targeted blockade (docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab) resulted in significantly more patients achieving a pathological complete response than HER2-targeted chemotherapy plus HER2-targeted blockade (trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab); however, numerically more grade 3-4 and serious adverse events occurred in the chemotherapy plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab group. Further efforts to improve the efficacy of chemotherapy without imparting more toxicity are warranted.Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although several randomised trials in patients with triple-negative breast cancer have shown that the addition of carboplatin, with or without poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, to neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases the likelihood of achieving a pathological complete response, the use of these therapies in this setting has remained controversial. The BrighTNess trial was designed to assess the addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus carboplatin or carboplatin alone to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer.Methods: We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (BrighTNess) across 145 sites in 15 countries. Patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated histologically or cytologically confirmed clinical stage II-III triple-negative breast cancer, who were candidates for potentially curative surgery and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, were randomly assigned (2:1:1) by an interactive response technology system via permuted blocks (block size of four) within strata to receive one of three segment 1 regimens: paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 intravenously weekly for 12 doses) plus carboplatin (area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min, intravenously every 3 weeks, for four cycles) plus veliparib (50 mg orally, twice a day); paclitaxel plus carboplatin plus veliparib placebo (twice a day); or paclitaxel plus carboplatin placebo (every 3 weeks for four cycles) plus veliparib placebo. Following segment 1, all patients were assigned to segment 2 in which they received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide every 2-3 weeks for four cycles. Randomisation for segment 1 was stratified by germline BRCA mutation status, nodal stage, and planned schedule of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide administration. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response in breast and lymph nodes as determined by site pathologists following completion of neoadjuvant therapy. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. These are the first results of an ongoing clinical trial; the data cutoff for the analyses presented was Dec 8, 2016. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02032277.Findings: Between April 4, 2014, and March 18, 2016, 634 patients were randomly assigned: 316 to paclitaxel plus carboplatin plus veliparib, 160 to paclitaxel plus carboplatin, and 158 to paclitaxel alone. The proportion of patients who achieved a pathological complete response was higher in the paclitaxel, carboplatin, and veliparib group than in patients receiving paclitaxel alone (168 [53%] of 316 patients vs 49 [31%] of 158, p<0·0001), but not compared with patients receiving paclitaxel plus carboplatin (92 [58%] of 160 patients, p=0·36). Grade 3 or 4 toxicities, and serious adverse events were more common in patients receiving carboplatin, whereas veliparib did not substantially increase toxicity. The most common grade 3 or 4 events overall were neutropenia (352 [56%] of 628 patients), anaemia (180 [29%]), and thrombocytopenia (75 [12%]) through complete treatment, and febrile neutropenia (88 [15%] of 601 patients) during segment 2. The most common serious adverse events were febrile neutropenia (80 [13%] of 628 patients) and anaemia (20 [3%]).Interpretation: Although the addition of veliparib and carboplatin to paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide improved the proportion of patients with triple-negative breast cancer who achieved a pathological complete response, the addition of veliparib to carboplatin and paclitaxel did not. Increased toxicities with the addition of carboplatin (with or without veliparib) to paclitaxel were manageable and did not substantially affect treatment delivery of paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. Given the consistent results with previous studies, the addition of carboplatin appears to have a favourable risk to benefit profile and might be considered as a potential component of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk, triple-negative breast cancer.Funding: AbbVie. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies have independently validated the prognostic relevance of residual cancer burden (RCB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We used results from several independent cohorts in a pooled patient-level analysis to evaluate the relationship of RCB with long-term prognosis across different phenotypic subtypes of breast cancer, to assess generalisability in a broad range of practice settings., Methods: In this pooled analysis, 12 institutes and trials in Europe and the USA were identified by personal communications with site investigators. We obtained participant-level RCB results, and data on clinical and pathological stage, tumour subtype and grade, and treatment and follow-up in November, 2019, from patients (aged ≥18 years) with primary stage I-III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. We assessed the association between the continuous RCB score and the primary study outcome, event-free survival, using mixed-effects Cox models with the incorporation of random RCB and cohort effects to account for between-study heterogeneity, and stratification to account for differences in baseline hazard across cancer subtypes defined by hormone receptor status and HER2 status. The association was further evaluated within each breast cancer subtype in multivariable analyses incorporating random RCB and cohort effects and adjustments for age and pretreatment clinical T category, nodal status, and tumour grade. Kaplan-Meier estimates of event-free survival at 3, 5, and 10 years were computed for each RCB class within each subtype., Findings: We analysed participant-level data from 5161 patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy between Sept 12, 1994, and Feb 11, 2019. Median age was 49 years (IQR 20-80). 1164 event-free survival events occurred during follow-up (median follow-up 56 months [IQR 0-186]). RCB score was prognostic within each breast cancer subtype, with higher RCB score significantly associated with worse event-free survival. The univariable hazard ratio (HR) associated with one unit increase in RCB ranged from 1·55 (95% CI 1·41-1·71) for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative patients to 2·16 (1·79-2·61) for the hormone receptor-negative, HER2-positive group (with or without HER2-targeted therapy; p<0·0001 for all subtypes). RCB score remained prognostic for event-free survival in multivariable models adjusted for age, grade, T category, and nodal status at baseline: the adjusted HR ranged from 1·52 (1·36-1·69) in the hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative group to 2·09 (1·73-2·53) in the hormone receptor-negative, HER2-positive group (p<0·0001 for all subtypes)., Interpretation: RCB score and class were independently prognostic in all subtypes of breast cancer, and generalisable to multiple practice settings. Although variability in hormone receptor subtype definitions and treatment across patients are likely to affect prognostic performance, the association we observed between RCB and a patient's residual risk suggests that prospective evaluation of RCB could be considered to become part of standard pathology reporting after neoadjuvant therapy., Funding: National Cancer Institute at the US National Institutes of Health., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AKG reports personal fees from Sinochips Diagnostics. CC reports institutional funding from Genentech, Roche, Servier, and AstraZeneca; and participation in a data and safety monitoring advisory board for iMED External Science Panel. CY reports institutional funding from Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative. DC reports institutional research funding from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Eli-Lilly, Puma Biotechnology, Daiichi Sankyo, Synthon, Seagen, Zymeworks, Elsevier, European Cancer Organisation, Celgene, Succinct Medical Communications, Prima BioMed (now Immutep), Oncolytics Biotech (US), Celldex Therapeutics, San Antonio Breast Cancer Consortium, Highfield Communication, Samsung Bioepis, prIME Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Prima BioMed (now Immutep), RTI Health Solutions, and Eisai. WFS owns stocks in Delphi Diagnostics; and reports the patent “method of measuring residual cancer and predicting patient survival” (US Patent and Trademark Office [USPTO] number 7711494B2). GSS reports institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche. HE reports institutional research funding from Roche Sanofi-Aventis; is a consultant for Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Intas Pharmaceuticals, and prIME Oncology; and reports travel support from Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Amgen. JEA reports institutional research funding from AstraZeneca; and honoraria from Pfizer and Eisai. JMSB reports grants from Thermo Fisher Scientific, Geoptix, Agendia, NanoString Technologies, Stratifyer, and Biotheranostics; is a consultant for Insight Genetics, BioNTech, Biotheranostics, Pfizer, RNA Diagnostics, and OncoXchange; reports honoraria from NanoString Technology, Oncology Education, and Biotheranostics; reports travel support from Biotheranostics and Nanostring Technologies; reports patents “histone gene module predicts anthracycline benefit” (Patent Cooperation Treaty [PCT] number CA2016/000247); “95-gene signature of residual risk following endocrine treatment” (PCT number CA2016/000304); “immune gene signature predicts anthracycline benefit” (PCT number CA2016/000305); and applied for patents “methods and devices for predicting anthracycline treatment efficacy” (USPTO application number 15/325,472; European Patent Office number 15822898.1; Canada, not yet assigned) and “systems, devices and methods for constructing and using a biomarker” (USPTO application number 15/328,108; European Patent Office number 15824751.0; Canada, not yet assigned). JCB reports institutional research funding from Eli Lilly. LP is a consultant for and receives honoraria from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Genentech, Eisai, Pieris, Immunomedics, Seattle Genetics, Almac, H3 Biomedicine, Clovis, and Syndax; and reports the patent “method of measuring residual cancer and predicting patient survival” (US Patent Number 7711494B2). LaH reports individual research grants from Roche and Sanofi-Aventis; and travel support from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. LJE reports institutional research funding from Merck; participation in an advisory board for Blue Cross Blue Shield; and personal fees from UpToDate. LJvV is an employee of and owns stock in Agendia. MPG reports individual research grants from Pfizer, Sermonix, and Eli Lilly; and is a consultant for Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Biotheranostics, Sermonix, Context Therapeutics, and Eagle Therapeutics. MM reports grants from Roche, Puma, and Novartis; is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Glaxo, Taiho Oncology, Roche, Novartis, PharmaMar, Eli Lilly, Puma Biotechnology, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer; reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, and Pfizer; and reports personal fees from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. PS reports institutional research funding from Novartis, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and is a consultant for Merck, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Gilead Immunomedics, AstraZeneca, and ExactSciences. SL-T has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Pierre-Fabre, Eisai, and Eli Lilly; reports honoraria from Eli Lilly; and reports travel support from Novartis, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Pfizer. SBE reports institutional research funding from Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)