Search

Purpose: Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is) are an important component of treatment for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), but it is not known if patients might derive benefit from continuation of CDK4/6i with endocrine therapy beyond initial tumor progression or if the addition of checkpoint inhibitor therapy has value in this setting., Methods: The randomized multicenter phase II PACE trial enrolled patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2- MBC whose disease had progressed on previous CDK4/6i and aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:2:1 to receive fulvestrant (F), fulvestrant plus palbociclib (F + P), or fulvestrant plus palbociclib and avelumab (F + P + A). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with F versus F + P., Results: Overall, 220 patients were randomly assigned between September 2017 and February 2022. The median age was 57 years (range, 25-83 years). Most patients were postmenopausal (80.9%), and 40% were originally diagnosed with de novo MBC. Palbociclib was the most common previous CDK4/6i (90.9%). The median PFS was 4.8 months on F and 4.6 months on F + P (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11 [90% CI, 0.79 to 1.55]; P = .62). The median PFS on F + P + A was 8.1 months (HR v F, 0.75 [90% CI, 0.50 to 1.12]; P = .23). The difference in PFS with F + P and F + P + A versus F was greater among patients with baseline ESR1 and PIK3CA alterations., Conclusion: The addition of palbociclib to fulvestrant did not improve PFS versus fulvestrant alone among patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2- MBC whose disease had progressed on a previous CDK4/6i plus AI. The increased PFS seen with the addition of avelumab warrants further investigation in this patient population.

Purpose: We had previously reported on the safety and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of olaparib in combination with the PI3Kα-specific inhibitor alpelisib in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer as studied in a phase 1b trial (NCT01623349). Here, we report on the breast cancer cohort from that study., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had recurrent triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or recurrent breast cancer of any subtype with a germline BRCA mutation and were enrolled to a dose-escalation or -expansion cohort. After definition of the RP2D, secondary end points included safety and objective response rate (ORR). Exploratory analyses were performed using circulating-free DNA (cfDNA)., Results: Seventeen patients with TNBC were enrolled with a median of three prior lines of chemotherapy. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hyperglycemia (18%) and rash (12%). The ORR was 18% (23% for patients treated at the RP2D) and 59% had disease control. The median duration of response was 7.4 months. Analysis of cfDNA tumor fractions (TFx) revealed that patients with TFx < 15% after completion of the first cycle had a longer progression-free survival compared with those with TFx ≥ 15% (6.0 vs. 0.9 months; P = 0.0001)., Conclusions: Alpelisib in combination with olaparib is tolerable in patients with pre-treated TNBC, with evidence of activity in non-BRCA carriers. cfDNA provided important prognostic information. Results highlight potential synergistic use of a PI3K inhibitor to sensitize HR-proficient (BRCA wild-type) TNBC to PARP inhibition and suggest the potential to expand the use of PARP inhibition beyond BRCA-mutant tumors., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: The PALLAS study investigated whether the addition of palbociclib, an oral CDK4/6 inhibitor, to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) improves invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in early hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. In this analysis, we evaluated palbociclib exposure and discontinuation in PALLAS., Methods: Patients with stage II-III HR+, HER2- disease were randomly assigned to 2 years of palbociclib with adjuvant ET versus ET alone. The primary objective was to compare iDFS between arms. Continuous monitoring of toxicity, dose modifications, and early discontinuation was performed. Association of baseline covariates with time to palbociclib reduction and discontinuation was analyzed with multivariable competing risk models. Landmark and inverse probability weighted per-protocol analyses were performed to assess the impact of drug persistence and exposure on iDFS., Results: Of the 5,743 patient analysis population (2,840 initiating palbociclib), 1,199 (42.2%) stopped palbociclib before 2 years, the majority (772, 27.2%) for adverse effects, most commonly neutropenia and fatigue. Discontinuation of ET did not differ between arms. Discontinuations for non-protocol-defined reasons were greater in the first 3 months of palbociclib, and in the first calendar year of accrual, and declined over time. No significant relationship was seen between longer palbociclib duration or ≥ 70% exposure intensity and improved iDFS. In the weighted per-protocol analysis, no improvement in iDFS was observed in patients receiving palbociclib versus not (hazard ratio 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.11)., Conclusion: Despite observed rates of discontinuation in PALLAS, analyses suggest that the lack of significant iDFS difference between arms was not directly related to inadequate palbociclib exposure. However, the discontinuation rate illustrates the challenge of introducing novel adjuvant treatments, and the need for interventions to improve persistence with oral cancer therapies., Competing Interests: Erica L. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Christian FeslResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Dominik HlauschekResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Laura Garcia-EstevezConsulting or Advisory Role: Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Palex, Seattle GeneticsResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech (Inst) Nicholas ZdenkowskiHonoraria: Roche, Pfizer, EisaiConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, AstraZeneca, EisaiResearch Funding: Roche (Inst), Pfizer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Amgen, Novartis Kathy D. MillerThis author is the Senior Deputy Editor of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Athenex, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/CelgeneResearch Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Astex Pharmaceuticals (Inst), British Biotech (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst), Alphamab (Inst) Marija BalicConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, SamsungSpeakers' Bureau: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle GeneticsResearch Funding: Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD Ingrid A. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Macrogenics, Pfizer, AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Cyclacel, Blueprint Medicines, SanofiResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst) David CameronConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Research Triangle Institute RTI Health Solutions (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Prima BioMed (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Zymeworks (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Oncolytics (Inst), Roche (Inst), Roche (Inst), Samsung Bioepis (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Synthon (Inst), Clarity Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Bexon/Zymeworks (Inst), Sanofi (Inst)Research Funding: Roche (Inst), Novartis (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst) Eric P. WinerHonoraria: Genentech/Roche, Genomic HealthConsulting or Advisory Role: Leap Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Jounce Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Carrick Therapeutics, Lilly, G1 Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Zymeworks, AthenexResearch Funding: Genentech (Inst)Other Relationship: InfiniteMD José Juan Ponce LorenzoHonoraria: Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, Novartis, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Roche Tufia C. HaddadResearch Funding: Takeda (Inst) Hiroji IwataHonoraria: Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Japan, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Taiho PharmaceuticalConsulting or Advisory Role: Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lilly Japan, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, NovartisResearch Funding: MSD (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Kyowa Hakko Kirin (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Chugai Pharma (Inst), Nihonkayaku (Inst), Lilly Japan (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Sanofi (Inst) Matthew GoetzConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, bioTheranostics, Genomic Health, Novartis, Eisai, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Context Therapeutics, Pfizer, BiovicaResearch Funding: Lilly (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Sermonix Pharmaceuticals (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Methods and Materials for Assessing Chemotherapy Responsiveness and Treating Cancer, Methods and Materials for Using Butyrylcholinesterases to Treat Cancer, Development of Human Tumor Xenografts from Women with Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Lilly Fatima CardosoConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Teva, Astellas Pharma, Merus, Celgene, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Macrogenics, Amgen, GE Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Seattle Genetics, Samsung Bioepis, Medscape, Prime OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca Tiffany A. TrainaConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck, Puma Biotechnology, Athenex, Daiichi Sankyo, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Foundation Medicine, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Blueprint Medicines, Ellipses Pharma, Fuji Pharma, ITeos Therapeutics, AgendiaResearch Funding: Eisai (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Innocrin Pharma (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Carrick Pharm (Inst), Ayala Pharmaceuticals (Inst) Urs BreitensteinConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca (Inst), Elie Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), Roche (Inst) Kerstin AckerlResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Otto Metzger FilhoHonoraria: Grupo Oncoclinicas, RocheResearch Funding: Susan G. Komen for the Cure (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Cascadian Therapeutics (Inst), AbbVie (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Grupo Oncoclinicas Karin ZehetnerResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Kadine SolomonEmployment: Alliance Foundation TrialsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer, Merck, Moderna Therapeutics Sarra El-AbedEmployment: Astellas Pharma (I), argenx (I)Research Funding: Novartis (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Pfizer (Inst) Kathy Puyana TheallEmployment: Pfizer (I)Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer (I)Honoraria: PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer Dongrui Ray LuEmployment: PfizerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer Amylou DueckPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties from licensing fees for a patient symptom questionnaire (MPN-SAF) Michael GnantEmployment: Sandoz (I)Honoraria: Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Daiichi-Sankyo, Veracyte, Tolmar, LifeBrain, Lilly Angela DeMicheleResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Calithera Biosciences (Inst), Novartis (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Palbociclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor approved for advanced breast cancer. In the adjuvant setting, the potential value of adding palbociclib to endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer has not been confirmed., Patients and Methods: In the prospective, randomized, phase III PALLAS trial, patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with adjuvant endocrine therapy or adjuvant endocrine therapy alone (for at least 5 years). The primary end point of the study was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS); secondary end points were invasive breast cancer-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, locoregional cancer-free survival, and overall survival., Results: Among 5,796 patients enrolled at 406 centers in 21 countries worldwide over 3 years, 5,761 were included in the intention-to-treat population. At the final protocol-defined analysis, at a median follow-up of 31 months, iDFS events occurred in 253 of 2,884 (8.8%) patients who received palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and in 263 of 2,877 (9.1%) patients who received endocrine therapy alone, with similar results between the two treatment groups (iDFS at 4 years: 84.2% v 84.5%; hazard ratio, 0.96; CI, 0.81 to 1.14; P = .65). No significant differences were observed for secondary time-to-event end points, and subgroup analyses did not show any differences by subgroup. There were no new safety signals for palbociclib in this trial., Conclusion: At this final analysis of the PALLAS trial, the addition of adjuvant palbociclib to standard endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone in patients with early hormone receptor-positive breast cancer., Competing Interests: Michael GnantEmployment: Sandoz (I)Honoraria: Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Daiichi Sankyo, Veracyte, Tolmar¸ LifeBrain, Lilly Amylou C. DueckPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties from licensing fees for a patient symptom questionnaire (MPN-SAF) Miguel MartinHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre FabreConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Taiho Pharmaceutical, PharmaMarSpeakers' Bureau: Lilly/ImClone, Roche/Genentech, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst)¸ Puma Biotechnology (Inst)Other Relationship: Roche, Novartis Hal J. BursteinThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript. Richard GreilHonoraria: Celgene, Roche, Merck, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD¸ Sandoz, AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi SankyoConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, MSD, Merck, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi SankyoResearch Funding: Celgene (Inst), Merck (Inst), Takeda (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sandoz (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Roche (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo Antonio C. WolffThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Ionis PharmaceuticalsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: A.C.W. has been named as an inventor on one or more issued patents or pending patent applications related to methylation in breast cancer, has assigned his rights to JHU, and participates in a royalty sharing agreement with JHUOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/357301/summary Arlene ChanHonoraria: Novartis, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: LillyResearch Funding: Eisai Eric P. WinerHonoraria: Genomic Health, Genentech/RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Leap Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Jounce Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Carrick Therapeutics, Lilly, G1 Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Zymeworks, AthenexResearch Funding: Genentech (Inst)Other Relationship: InfiniteMD Georg PfeilerHonoraria: Amgen, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer¸ Lilly, AstraZeneca/Merck, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, UCB, Accord HealthcareConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer¸ Amgen¸ Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca/Merck, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, UCB, Roche/GenentechSpeakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, AstraZeneca/Merck, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Accord Healthcare, Amgen, Accord HealthcareResearch Funding: Pfizer, Roche/GenentechTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Lilly, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo Kathy MillerThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Athenex, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/CelgeneResearch Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Astex Pharmaceuticals (Inst), British Biotech (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst), Alphamab (Inst) Marco ColleoniResearch Funding: Roche (Inst) Gabor RubovskyConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Gilead SciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen Judith M. BlissResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline/Novartis (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Janssen-Cilag (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer Ingrid A. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, MacroGenics, Pfizer, AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Cyclacel, Blueprint Medicines, SanofiResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst) Christian SingerHonoraria: Novartis, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbHConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Sanofi/Aventis, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Novartis, AstraZeneca/MedImmuneResearch Funding: Novartis, Sanofi, Myriad Genetics, Roche, AstraZeneca/MedImmuneTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Novartis Zbigniew NoweckiTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech Olwen HahnLeadership: Via OncologyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Teleflex MedicalHonoraria: Cardinal Health (I)Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, hmpglobal.comTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Cardinal Health (I) Jacqui ThomsonHonoraria: MSD Oncology, Roche/Genentech Norman WolmarkOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/159597 Hope S. RugoHonoraria: Puma Biotechnology, MylanConsulting or Advisory Role: SamsungResearch Funding: MacroGenics (Inst), OBI Pharma (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Merck (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Odonate Therapeutics (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Sermonix Pharmaceuticals (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Novartis, Mylan, AstraZeneca Spain, MerckOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/summary Guenther G. StegerHonoraria: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Teva, Pfizer, Lilly, NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Teva Blanca Hernando Fernández de AránguizHonoraria: GlaxoSmithKline, PharmaMar, Clovis OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Roche Tufia C. HaddadResearch Funding: Takeda (Inst) Meritxell Bellet EzquerraConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Lilly, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis Hannes FohlerEmployment: Takeda (I)Research Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Otto MetzgerHonoraria: Grupo Oncoclinicas, RocheResearch Funding: Susan G. Komen for the Cure (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Cascadian Therapeutics (Inst), AbbVie (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Grupo Oncoclinicas Anita Jallitsch-HalperResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Kadine SolomonEmployment: Alliance Foundation TrialsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer, Merck, Moderna Therapeutics Céline SchurmansResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Servier (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Sanofi (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: My organization receives royalties from Agendia Kathy P. TheallEmployment: PfizerStock and Other Ownership Interests: PfizerHonoraria: PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer Dongrui R. LuEmployment: PfizerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer Kathleen TennerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Merck Christian FeslResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Angela DeMicheleResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Calithera Biosciences (Inst), Novartis (Inst) Erica L. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and residual invasive disease (RD) after completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have a high-risk for recurrence, which is reduced by adjuvant capecitabine. Preclinical models support the use of platinum agents in the TNBC basal subtype. The EA1131 trial hypothesized that invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) would not be inferior but improved in patients with basal subtype TNBC treated with adjuvant platinum compared with capecitabine., Patients and Methods: Patients with clinical stage II or III TNBC with ≥ 1 cm RD in the breast post-NAC were randomly assigned to receive platinum (carboplatin or cisplatin) once every 3 weeks for four cycles or capecitabine 14 out of 21 days every 3 weeks for six cycles. TNBC subtype (basal v nonbasal) was determined by PAM50 in the residual disease. A noninferiority design with superiority alternative was chosen, assuming a 4-year iDFS of 67% with capecitabine., Results: Four hundred ten of planned 775 participants were randomly assigned to platinum or capecitabine between 2015 and 2021. After median follow-up of 20 months and 120 iDFS events (61% of full information) in the 308 (78%) patients with basal subtype TNBC, the 3-year iDFS for platinum was 42% (95% CI, 30 to 53) versus 49% (95% CI, 39 to 59) for capecitabine. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were more common with platinum agents. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended stopping the trial as it was unlikely that further follow-up would show noninferiority or superiority of platinum., Conclusion: Platinum agents do not improve outcomes in patients with basal subtype TNBC RD post-NAC and are associated with more severe toxicity when compared with capecitabine. Participants had a lower than expected 3-year iDFS regardless of study treatment, highlighting the need for better therapies in this high-risk population., Competing Interests: Ingrid A. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Macrogenics, Pfizer, AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Cyclacel, Blueprint MedicinesResearch Funding: Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech Carlos L. ArteagaLeadership: American Association for Cancer ResearchStock and Other Ownership Interests: Provista Diagnostics, Y-Trap IncConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Lilly, Sanofi, Radius Health, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Puma Biotechnology, Merck, H3 Biomedicine, Symphogen, Origimed, Petra Pharma, Third Rock Ventures, Immunomedics, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, G1 Therapeutics, Clovis OncologyResearch Funding: Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer, Lilly, Radius Health, Takeda, BayerOther Relationship: Susan G. Komen for the Cure William F. SymmansStock and Other Ownership Interests: ISIS Pharmaceuticals, Nuvera Biosciences, Delphi Diagnostics, Eiger BioPharmaceuticalsConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Almac DiagnosticsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property (expired)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Luminex, MerckUncompensated Relationships: Delphi Diagnostics Ben H. ParkLeadership: LoxoStock and Other Ownership Interests: Loxo, CelcuityHonoraria: AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Horizon Discovery, Foundation Medicine, Loxo, Casdin Capital, H3 Biomedicine, Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Lilly, Celcuity, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, PathovaxResearch Funding: AbbVie, Pfizer, GE Healthcare, LillyPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties paid through inventions at Johns Hopkins University by Horizon Discovery LtdTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Lilly, LoxoUncompensated Relationships: Tempus Amye J. TevaarwerkOther Relationship: Epic Systems Karen L. SmithStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVie, Abbott LaboratoriesHonoraria: ASiM CMEResearch Funding: Pfizer Margaret BlockConsulting or Advisory Role: Theranostics Health Bernard TawfikOther Relationship: Ipsen Lisa E. FlaumConsulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Seattle Genetics, Novartis, AstraZeneca Erica L. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Eisai, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Pfizer William M. SikovHonoraria: UpToDateSpeakers' Bureau: Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Seagen Lynne I. WagnerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Gilead SciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, AthenexTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Celgene Angela M. DeMicheleResearch Funding: Pfizer, Genentech, Calithera Biosciences, Novartis Joseph A. SparanoStock and Other Ownership Interests: MetastatConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Lilly, Celldex, Pfizer, Prescient Therapeutics, Juno Therapeutics, Merrimack, Adgero Biopharmaceuticals, Cardinal Health, GlaxoSmithKline, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Epic Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, BMSiSpeakers' Bureau: Eisai, CertaraResearch Funding: Prescient Therapeutics, Deciphera, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, Merrimack, Radius Health, Olema PharmaceuticalsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Roche/Genentech, Adgero Biopharmaceuticals, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Rhenium Medical Antonio C. WolffConsulting or Advisory Role: Ionis PharmaceuticalsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Antonio Wolff has been named as inventor on one or more issued patents or pending patent applications relating to methylation in breast cancer, and has assigned his rights to JHU, and participates in a royalty sharing agreement with JHUOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/357301/summary Kathy D. MillerConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Athenex, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/CelgeneResearch Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Astex Pharmaceuticals, British Biotech, CytomX TherapeuticsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Preclinical studies support the JAK2-STAT3 signaling pathway as a key driver in CD44+ CD24- "stem-cell-like" breast cancer cells. Ruxolitinib is an orally bioavailable JAK1/2 inhibitor. We aimed to identify the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ruxolitinib in combination with paclitaxel in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Methods: Eligible patients had HER2-negative MBC and had received ≤ 3 chemotherapy regimens for advanced disease. Patients received oral ruxolitinib (10-25 mg bid) in a 3 + 3 dose escalation design in combination with weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 in a 3-week cycle. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the RP2D., Results: Nineteen patients received protocol therapy (mean age 52 years). Eight (42%) had triple-negative breast cancer and 11 (58%) had hormone receptor-positive disease; 12 (63%) had visceral disease. Ten (53%) patients had not received prior treatment for advanced disease. Patients received a median number of 5 cycles of combination therapy (range 1-12) and five patients continued single-agent ruxolitinib. The MTD of ruxolitinib was 25 mg bid when combined with paclitaxel, and the RP2D for the combination was 15 mg bid. Thirteen (68%) patients required dose reductions or holds. Most frequent toxicities reported of any grade were neutropenia (50%) and anemia (33%). There were no grade 4/5 toxicities attributed to study drug. Four (21%) patients had PR, 12 (63%) had SD and three (16%) had PD as their best response., Conclusion: The combination of ruxolitinib and weekly paclitaxel was well tolerated with evidence of clinical activity. Further analysis of this combination is ongoing (NCT02041429)., Trial Registration: NCT02041429. Date of registration: January 22, 2014.

Background: Palbociclib added to endocrine therapy improves progression-free survival in hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer. The PALLAS trial aimed to investigate whether the addition of 2 years of palbociclib to adjuvant endocrine therapy improves invasive disease-free survival over endocrine therapy alone in patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer., Methods: PALLAS is an ongoing multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study that enrolled patients at 406 cancer centres in 21 countries worldwide with stage II-III histologically confirmed hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, within 12 months of initial diagnosis. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) in permuted blocks of random size (4 or 6), stratified by anatomic stage, previous chemotherapy, age, and geographical region, by use of central telephone-based and web-based interactive response technology, to receive either 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with ongoing standard provider or patient-choice adjuvant endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor, with or without concurrent luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist), or endocrine therapy alone, without masking. The primary endpoint of the study was invasive disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who started palbociclib or endocrine therapy. This report presents results from the second pre-planned interim analysis triggered on Jan 9, 2020, when 67% of the total number of expected invasive disease-free survival events had been observed. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02513394) and EudraCT (2014-005181-30)., Findings: Between Sept 1, 2015, and Nov 30, 2018, 5760 patients were randomly assigned to receive palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (n=2883) or endocrine therapy alone (n=2877). At the time of the planned second interim analysis, at a median follow-up of 23·7 months (IQR 16·9-29·2), 170 of 2883 patients assigned to palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and 181 of 2877 assigned to endocrine therapy alone had invasive disease-free survival events. 3-year invasive disease-free survival was 88·2% (95% CI 85·2-90·6) for palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and 88·5% (85·8-90·7) for endocrine therapy alone (hazard ratio 0·93 [95% CI 0·76-1·15]; log-rank p=0·51). As the test statistic comparing invasive disease-free survival between groups crossed the prespecified futility boundary, the independent data monitoring committee recommended discontinuation of palbociclib in patients still receiving palbociclib and endocrine therapy. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (1742 [61·3%] of 2840 patients on palbociclib and endocrine therapy vs 11 [0·3%] of 2903 on endocrine therapy alone), leucopenia (857 [30·2%] vs three [0·1%]), and fatigue (60 [2·1%] vs ten [0·3%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 351 (12·4%) of 2840 patients on palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus 220 (7·6%) of 2903 patients on endocrine therapy alone. There were no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: At the planned second interim analysis, addition of 2 years of adjuvant palbociclib to adjuvant endocrine therapy did not improve invasive disease-free survival compared with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. On the basis of these findings, this regimen cannot be recommended in the adjuvant setting. Long-term follow-up of the PALLAS population and correlative studies are ongoing., Funding: Pfizer., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Platinum compounds have activity in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in germline BRCA mutation carriers ( BRCA carriers). Limited data exist for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (+) breast cancer among BRCA carriers. INFORM is a randomized, multicenter, phase II trial comparing pathologic complete response (pCR) rates (ypT0/is, N0) after neoadjuvant single-agent cisplatin (CDDP) versus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) in BRCA carriers with stage I-III human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. Secondary objectives included residual cancer burden scores (RCB) of 0 or 1 (combined) and toxicity. The goal was to determine whether pCR was ≥ 20% higher with CDDP than AC., Patients and Methods: BRCA carriers with cT1-3 (≥ 1.5 cm), cN0-3 HER2-negative breast cancer were randomly assigned to preoperative CDDP (75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks × 4 doses) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m 2 ; cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m 2 every 2-3 weeks × 4 doses) followed by surgery. Pathologic responses were confirmed by central review., Results: A total of 118 patients were randomly assigned; 117 were included in outcome analyses. Mean age was 42 years (range, 24-73 years); 69% were BRCA1 +, 30% were BRCA2 +, and 2% had both mutations. Clinical stage was I for 19%, II for 63%, and III for 18%; 45% had nodal involvement at baseline. Seventy percent had TNBC. Clinical and tumor characteristics were well matched between treatment arms. The pCR rate was 18% with CDDP and 26% with AC, yielding a risk ratio (RR) of 0.70 (90% CI, 0.39 to 1.2). The risk of RCB 0 or 1 (RCB 0/1) was 33% with CDDP and 46% with AC (RR, 0.73; 90% CI, 0.50 to 1.1). Both regimens were generally well tolerated without unexpected toxicities., Conclusion: pCR or RCB 0/1 is not significantly higher with CDDP than with AC in BRCA carriers with stage I-III HER2-negative breast cancer for both TNBC and ER+/HER2-negative disease.

Purpose: Preclinical data demonstrating androgen receptor (AR)-positive (AR + ) triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells are sensitive to AR antagonists, and PI3K inhibition catalyzed an investigator-initiated, multi-institutional phase Ib/II study TBCRC032. The trial investigated the safety and efficacy of the AR-antagonist enzalutamide alone or in combination with the PI3K inhibitor taselisib in patients with metastatic AR + (≥10%) breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Phase Ib patients [estrogen receptor positive (ER + ) or TNBC] with AR + breast cancer received 160 mg enzalutamide in combination with taselisib to determine dose-limiting toxicities and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Phase II TNBC patients were randomized to receive either enzalutamide alone or in combination with 4 mg taselisib until disease progression. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 16 weeks., Results: The combination was tolerated, and the MTD was not reached. The adverse events were hyperglycemia and skin rash. Overall, CBR for evaluable patients receiving the combination was 35.7%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.4 months. Luminal AR (LAR) TNBC subtype patients trended toward better response compared with non-LAR (75.0% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.06), and increased PFS (4.6 vs. 2.0 months, P = 0.082). Genomic analyses revealed subtype-specific treatment response, and novel FGFR2 fusions and AR splice variants., Conclusions: The combination of enzalutamide and taselisib increased CBR in TNBC patients with AR + tumors. Correlative analyses suggest AR protein expression alone is insufficient for identifying patients with AR-dependent tumors and knowledge of tumor LAR subtype and AR splice variants may identify patients more or less likely to benefit from AR antagonists., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Signaling through the cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) pathway can mediate therapeutic resistance in HER2-positive breast cancer. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that CDK4/6 inhibitors can resensitize resistant HER2-positive breast cancer to anti-HER2 therapies., Patients and Methods: We conducted a phase 1b/2 study of ribociclib (400 mg per day on a continuous schedule) plus trastuzumab (6 mg/kg every 3 weeks) in patients with advanced HER2-positive breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and trastuzumab emtansine. There were no restrictions on the number of prior therapy lines. Primary objective was clinical benefit rate at 24 weeks, and secondary objectives included safety, objective response, rate and progression-free survival. The study was enrolled at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02657343., Results: From March 2016 to March 2017, 13 patients were enrolled. One patient was found to have HER2-negative disease and did not receive treatment. Median number of prior lines in the metastatic setting was 5 (range, 0-14); 67% had hormone receptor-positive disease. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed during the safety run-in phase, and ribociclib was thus dosed at 400 mg per day continuously for the expansion cohort. Grade 3 adverse events were observed in 4 patients (33.3%) and included neutropenia (n = 2) as well as fatigue and pain in 1 patient each. No grade 4/5 adverse events or QTc prolongation were observed. One patient (8.3%) experienced stable disease > 24 weeks; no objective responses were observed, and median progression-free survival was 1.33 months (95% confidence interval, 0.92-2.57)., Conclusion: Continuous low-dose ribociclib (400 mg) plus trastuzumab is safe, with no new safety concerns. The limited activity observed in this study suggests that further study of CDK4/6 inhibitor/anti-HER2 combinations should focus on a less pretreated population., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Based on preclinical work, we found that combination of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors with drugs that inhibit the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway (such as PI3K inhibitors) might sensitise HRR-proficient epithelial ovarian cancers to PARP inhibitors. We aimed to assess the safety and identify the recommended phase 2 dose of the PARP inhibitor olaparib in combination with the PI3K inhibitor alpelisib in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and in patients with breast cancer., Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial following a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with the following key eligibility criteria: confirmed diagnosis of either recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer of high-grade serous histology; confirmed diagnosis of either recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer of any histology with known germline BRCA mutations; confirmed diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer of triple-negative histology; or confirmed diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer of any histology with known germline BRCA mutations. Additional patients with epithelial ovarian cancer were enrolled in a dose-expansion cohort. Four dose levels were planned: the starting dose level of alpelisib 250 mg once a day plus olaparib 100 mg twice a day (dose level 0); alpelisib 250 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 1); alpelisib 300 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 2); and alpelisib 200 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 3). Both drugs were administered orally, in tablet formulation. The primary objective was to identify the maximum tolerated dose and the recommended phase 2 dose of the combination of alpelisib and olaparib for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and patients with breast cancer. Analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The trial is active, but closed to enrolment; follow-up for patients who completed treatment is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623349., Findings: Between Oct 3, 2014, and Dec 21, 2016, we enrolled 34 patients (28 in the dose-escalation cohort and six in the dose-expansion cohort); two in the dose-escalation cohort were ineligible at the day of scheduled study initiation. Maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose were identified as alpelisib 200 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 3). Considering all dose levels, the most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hyperglycaemia (five [16%] of 32 patients), nausea (three [9%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations (three [9%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Dose-limiting toxic effects included hyperglycaemia and fever with decreased neutrophil count. Of the 28 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, ten (36%) achieved a partial response and 14 (50%) had stable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1., Interpretation: Combining alpelisib and olaparib is feasible with no unexpected toxic effects. The observed activity provides preliminary clinical evidence of synergism between olaparib and alpelisib, particularly in epithelial ovarian cancer, and warrants further investigation., Funding: Ovarian Cancer Dream Team (Stand Up To Cancer, Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance, National Ovarian Cancer Coalition), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Novartis., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We compared nab-paclitaxel or ixabepilone once per week to paclitaxel with bevacizumab as first-line therapy for patients with advanced breast cancer (BC) to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) for nab-paclitaxel or ixabepilone versus paclitaxel., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were age ≥ 18 years with chemotherapy-naive advanced BC. Patients were randomly assigned to bevacizumab with paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) (arm A), nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) (arm B), or ixabepilone 16 mg/m(2) (arm C), once per week for 3 of 4 weeks. Planned enrollment was 900 patients, which would give 88% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.73., Results: In all, 799 patients were enrolled, and 783 received treatment (97% received bevacizumab). Arm C was closed for futility at the first interim analysis (n = 241), and arm A (n = 267) and arm B (n = 275) were closed for futility at the second interim analysis. Median PFS for paclitaxel was 11 months, ixabepilone was inferior to paclitaxel (PFS, 7.4 months; hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.93; P < .001), and nab-paclitaxel was not superior to paclitaxel (PFS, 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45; P = .054). Results were concordant with overall survival; time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in both experimental arms v paclitaxel. Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity, including peripheral neuropathy, was increased with nab-paclitaxel, with more frequent and earlier dose reductions., Conclusion: In patients with chemotherapy-naive advanced BC, ixabepilone once per week was inferior to paclitaxel, and nab-paclitaxel was not superior with a trend toward inferiority. Toxicity was increased in the experimental arms, particularly for nab-paclitaxel. Paclitaxel once per week remains the preferred palliative chemotherapy in this setting., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab is an established treatment for locally advanced HER2-positive breast cancer, providing favorable rates of clinical response and pCR. Minimal data describe long-term outcomes after neoadjuvant HER2-directed therapy. This study aimed to explore long-term efficacy and toxicity after neoadjuvant trastuzumab and chemotherapy for HER2-positive breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients participated in 1 of 2 single-arm phase II neoadjuvant trials, receiving either paclitaxel/trastuzumab (TH) or vinorelbine/trastuzumab (NH) for stage II-III HER2-positive disease. Postoperative chemotherapy, with or without trastuzumab, was offered. Charts were reviewed to identify recurrence, death, and treatment-related toxicities. Association of long-term outcomes with baseline characteristics and pathological response to primary therapy was explored., Results: Eighty patients were identified; 33 (41.3%) received TH and 47 (58.8%) received NH. Fourteen (17.5%) had pCR at surgery. Most (96.3%) received anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy; 78.7% of NH patients also received adjuvant trastuzumab. At a median follow-up of 8.8 years, 23 (28.8%) patients have experienced recurrence, with 16 breast cancer-related deaths. Four-year RFS in patients with pCR was 92.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.4%-100%) versus 72.4% without pCR (95% CI, 63.9%-82.1%). All initial symptomatic cardiotoxicity resolved during extended follow-up. New symptomatic cardiotoxicity in long-term follow-up was rare, primarily occurring in patients requiring retreatment with a cardiotoxic agent., Conclusion: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer resulted in favorable long-term survival with minimal late toxicity. Trends in this data set suggest an association between pCR and improved long-term RFS. Retreatment with cardiotoxic agents might increase risk of late cardiotoxicity., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a targetable receptor frequently overexpressed in basal-like breast cancer, which comprises most triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs), the only subtype without established targeted therapy., Patients and Methods: In this randomized phase II trial, patients with metastatic TNBC received anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) load then 250 mg/m(2) per week intravenously [IV]) alone, with carboplatin (area under the curve of 2, once per week IV) added after progression or as concomitant therapy from the beginning. Response rate (RR) was the primary end point; others included time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Embedded correlative studies included molecular subtyping on archival tissue. Fresh tumor tissue before and after 7 to 14 days of therapy was used for microarray analyses exploring EGFR pathway activity and inhibition., Results: In 102 patients with TNBC, RRs were 6% (two of 31) to cetuximab and 16% (four of 25) to cetuximab plus carboplatin after progression. RR to those treated from the beginning with cetuximab plus carboplatin was 17% (12 of 71); 31% of patients responded or had prolonged disease stabilization. The cetuximab plus carboplatin regimen was well tolerated, but both TTP and OS were short at 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 5.5 months) and 10.4 months (95% CI, 7.7 to 13.1 months), respectively. Of 73 patients with archival tissue for analysis, 74% had basal-like molecular subtype. Sixteen patients had tumor biopsies before and 1 week after therapy; genomic patterns of the EGFR pathway showed activation in 13 and inhibition by therapy in five., Conclusion: Despite strong preclinical data, combination cetuximab plus carboplatin in metastatic TNBC produced responses in fewer than 20% of patients. EGFR pathway analysis showed that most TNBCs involved activation. However, cetuximab blocked expression of the EGFR pathway in only a minority, suggesting that most had alternate mechanisms for pathway activation.

Src, a membrane-associated nonreceptor tyrosine kinase, plays a crucial role in the coordination and facilitation of cell-signaling pathways controlling a wide range of cellular functions, including growth, survival, invasion, adhesion, and migration. Deregulation and increased activity of Src has been observed in multiple human malignancies, prompting the development of specific inhibitors of Src. In preclinical studies, Src inhibitors show antitumor effects in multiple solid tumor types. Recently completed early-phase trials using the inhibitors dasatinib and bosutinib have suggested modest activity as monotherapy in breast and prostate cancer, with potentially greater activity in combination regimens. Given the interaction between Src and the estrogen receptor, ongoing trials are exploring combinations with endocrine therapy. The relationship between Src and the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor also justifies investigation of combinations with angiogenesis inhibitors. Future trials will continue to explore the contribution of Src inhibition with both chemotherapy and targeted agents., (Copyright 2010 AACR.)