Search

Breast cancer; Lurbinectedin; Response rate Cáncer de mama; Lurbinectedina; Tasa de respuesta Càncer de mama; Lurbinectedina; Taxa de resposta Background Lurbinectedin, a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription, has shown preclinical antitumor activity against homologous recombination repair-deficient models and preliminary clinical activity in BRCA1/2 breast cancer. Patients and methods This phase II basket multitumor trial (NCT02454972) evaluated lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in a cohort of 21 patients with pretreated germline BRCA1/2 breast cancer. Patients with any hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status were enrolled. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results Confirmed partial response (PR) was observed in six patients [ORR = 28.6%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.3% to 52.2%] who had received a median of two prior advanced chemotherapy lines. Lurbinectedin was active in both BRCA mutations: four PRs in 11 patients (36.4%) with BRCA2 and two PRs in 10 patients (20.0%) with BRCA1. Median DoR was 8.6 months, median PFS was 4.1 months and median OS was 16.1 months. Stable disease (SD) was observed in 10 patients (47.6%), including 3 with unconfirmed response in a subsequent tumor assessment [ORR unconfirmed = 42.9% (95% CI 21.8% to 66.0%)]. Clinical benefit rate (PR + SD ≥ 4 months) was 76.2% (95% CI 52.8% to 91.8%). No objective response was observed among patients who had received prior poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were nausea (61.9%), fatigue (38.1%) and vomiting (23.8%). These AEs were mostly grade 1/2. The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (42.9%: grade 4, 23.8%: with no febrile neutropenia). Conclusions This phase II study met its primary endpoint and showed activity of lurbinectedin in germline BRCA1/2 breast cancer. Lurbinectedin showed a predictable and manageable safety profile. Considering the exploratory aim of this trial as well as previous results in other phase II studies, further development of lurbinectedin in this indication is warranted. This work was supported by PharmaMar S.A, including partial funding by grants from the Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico IndustrialCentro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial (CDTI) during the conduct of the study (grant number IDI-20150006). VS is supported by NIH [grant number R01CA242845]. MD Anderson Cancer Center Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics is supported by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas [grant number RP1100584], the Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Institute for Personalized Cancer Therapy [grant number 1U01 CA180964], NCATS [grant number UL1 TR000371] (Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences) and the MD Anderson Cancer Center Support [grant number P30 CA016672].

Objective The randomized phase 3 CORAIL trial evaluated whether lurbinectedin improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) or topotecan in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Methods Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 1-h i.v. infusion q3wk (experimental arm), versus PLD 50 mg/m2 1-h i.v. infusion q4wk or topotecan 1.50 mg/m2 30-min i.v. infusion Days 1–5 q3wk (control arm). Stratification factors were PS (0 vs. ≥1), prior PFI (1–3 months vs. >3 months), and prior chemotherapy lines (1–2 vs. 3). The primary endpoint was PFS by Independent Review Committee in all randomized patients. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02421588 . Results 442 patients were randomized: 221 in lurbinectedin arm and 221 in control arm (127 PLD and 94 topotecan). With a median follow-up of 25.6 months, median PFS was 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.1–3.7) in the lurbinectedin arm and 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.7–3.8) in the control arm (stratified log-rank p = 0.6294; HR = 1.057). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were most frequent in the control arm: 64.8% vs. 47.9% (p = 0.0005), mainly due to hematological toxicities. The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were: fatigue (7.3% of patients) and nausea (5.9%) with lurbinectedin; mucosal inflammation (8.5%) and fatigue (8.0%) in the control arm. Conclusions The primary endpoint of improvement in PFS was not met. Lurbinectedin showed similar antitumor efficacy and was better tolerated than current standard of care in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Breast cancer; Capecitabine; Lurbinectedin Cáncer de mama; Capecitabina; Lurbinectedina Càncer de mama; Capecitabina; Lurbinectedina Background Preclinical studies showed a synergistic effect for 5-fluorouracil and lurbinectedin against solid tumors. This phase I trial evaluated a combination of capecitabine plus lurbinectedin in patients with selected advanced solid tumors. Results in patients with relapsed metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are described. Patients and methods Patients received capecitabine daily on day (D)1-D14 combined with lurbinectedin on D1, D8 or D1 every 3 weeks (q3w) intravenously, following a standard 3 + 3 escalation design and expansion at the recommended dose (RD). Results Of the 81 enrolled patients, 28 had relapsed MBC: 20 with hormone receptor (HR)-positive tumors and 8 with triple-negative tumors; 3 treated in the D1,D8 schedule and 25 in the D1 schedule. The RD was capecitabine 1650 mg/m2 daily on D1-D14 plus lurbinectedin 2.2 mg/m2 on D1 q3w. Sixteen confirmed responses and two prolonged disease stabilizations (≥6 months) were observed [overall response rate (ORR)/clinical benefit rate (CBR) = 57%/64% at all dose levels; 47%/60% at the RD]. Twelve responses and both prolonged stabilizations occurred in HR-positive tumors (ORR/CBR = 60%/70% at all dose levels, 56%/78% at the RD). Four responses were found in triple-negative tumors (ORR and CBR = 50% at all dose levels; 33% at the RD). Myelotoxicity was reversible and manageable at the RD; most non-hematological toxicities were mild/moderate. No episodes of febrile neutropenia or severe palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome occurred. No major pharmacokinetic drug–drug interaction was found between lurbinectedin, capecitabine or capecitabine metabolites. Conclusions The capecitabine/lurbinectedin combination showed encouraging clinical activity in relapsed MBC, especially in HR-positive tumors. Toxicity was manageable at the RD. Further development is warranted in relapsed MBC. This work was supported by Pharma Mar S.A., including grants from the Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial (CDTI) during the conduct of the study [grant number IDI-20130013].