Search

Background Neratinib has efficacy in central nervous system (CNS) metastases from HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We report outcomes among patients with CNS metastases at baseline from the phase III NALA trial of neratinib plus capecitabine (N + C) versus lapatinib plus capecitabine (L + C). Materials and Methods NALA was a randomized, active‐controlled trial in patients who received two or more previous HER2‐directed regimens for HER2‐positive MBC. Patients with asymptomatic/stable brain metastases (treated or untreated) were eligible. Patients were assigned to N + C (neratinib 240 mg per day, capecitabine 750 mg/m2 twice daily) or L + C (lapatinib 1,250 mg per day, capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily) orally. Independently adjudicated progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and CNS endpoints were considered. Results Of 621 patients enrolled, 101 (16.3%) had known CNS metastases at baseline (N + C, n = 51; L + C, n = 50); 81 had received prior CNS‐directed radiotherapy and/or surgery. In the CNS subgroup, mean PFS through 24 months was 7.8 months with N + C versus 5.5 months with L + C (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41–1.05), and mean OS through 48 months was 16.4 versus 15.4 months (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.59–1.38). At 12 months, cumulative incidence of interventions for CNS disease was 25.5% for N + C versus 36.0% for L + C, and cumulative incidence of progressive CNS disease was 26.2% versus 41.6%, respectively. In patients with target CNS lesions at baseline (n = 32), confirmed intracranial objective response rates were 26.3% and 15.4%, respectively. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusion These analyses suggest improved PFS and CNS outcomes with N + C versus L + C in patients with CNS metastases from HER2‐positive MBC. Implications for Practice In a subgroup of patients with central nervous system (CNS) metastases from HER2‐positive breast cancer after two or more previous HER2‐directed regimens, the combination of neratinib plus capecitabine was associated with improved progression‐free survival and CNS outcomes compared with lapatinib plus capecitabine. These findings build on previous phase II and III studies describing efficacy of neratinib in the prevention and treatment of CNS metastases, and support a role for neratinib as a systemic treatment option in the management of patients with HER2‐positive brain metastases following antibody‐based HER2‐directed therapies., This article reports outcomes among HER2‐positive breast cancer patients with central nervous system metastases at baseline from the phase III NALA trial of neratinib plus capecitabine versus lapatinib plus capecitabine.

Health-related quality of life; Metastatic breast cancer; Neratinib Calidad de vida relacionada con la salud; Cáncer de mama metastásico; Neratinib Qualitat de vida relacionada amb la salut; Càncer de mama metastàtic; Neratinib Purpose To characterize health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) from the NALA phase 3 study. Methods In NALA (NCT01808573), patients were randomized 1:1 to neratinib + capecitabine (N + C) or lapatinib + capecitabine (L + C). HRQoL was assessed using seven prespecified scores from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality Of Life Questionnaire core module (QLQ-C30) and breast cancer-specific questionnaire (QLQ-BR23) at baseline and every 6 weeks. Descriptive statistics summarized scores over time, mixed models evaluated differences between treatment arms, and Kaplan–Meier methods were used to assess time to deterioration in HRQoL scores of ≥ 10 points. Results Of the 621 patients randomized in NALA, patients were included in the HRQoL analysis if they completed baseline and at least one follow-up questionnaire. The summary, global health status, physical functioning, fatigue, constipation, and systemic therapy side effects scores were stable over time with no persistent differences between treatment groups. There were no differences in time to deterioration (TTD) for the QLQ-C30 summary score between treatment arms; the hazard ratio (HR) for N + C vs. L + C was 0.94 (95% CI 0.63–1.40). Only the diarrhea score worsened significantly more in the N + C arm as compared to the L + C arm, and this remained over time (HR for TTD for N + C vs. L + C was 1.71 [95% CI 1.32–2.23]). Conclusion In NALA, patients treated with N + C maintained their global HRQoL over time, despite a worsening of the diarrhea-related scores. These results may help guide optimal treatment selection for HER2-positive MBC. This work was supported by Puma Biotechnology Inc., Los Angeles, CA, USA [no grant number is applicable]. Puma Biotechnology Inc. funded the provision of editorial support provided by CMD Consulting and Miller Medical Communications.

PURPOSE NALA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01808573 ) is a randomized, active-controlled, phase III trial comparing neratinib, an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), plus capecitabine (N+C) against lapatinib, a reversible dual TKI, plus capecitabine (L+C) in patients with centrally confirmed HER2-positive, metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with ≥ 2 previous HER2-directed MBC regimens. METHODS Patients, including those with stable, asymptomatic CNS disease, were randomly assigned 1:1 to neratinib (240 mg once every day) plus capecitabine (750 mg/m2 twice a day 14 d/21 d) with loperamide prophylaxis, or to lapatinib (1,250 mg once every day) plus capecitabine (1,000 mg/m2 twice a day 14 d/21 d). Coprimary end points were centrally confirmed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). NALA was considered positive if either primary end point was met (α split between end points). Secondary end points were time to CNS disease intervention, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), clinical benefit rate, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS A total of 621 patients from 28 countries were randomly assigned (N+C, n = 307; L+C, n = 314). Centrally reviewed PFS was improved with N+C (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.93; stratified log-rank P = .0059). The OS HR was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.07; P = .2098). Fewer interventions for CNS disease occurred with N+C versus L+C (cumulative incidence, 22.8% v 29.2%; P = .043). ORRs were N+C 32.8% (95% CI, 27.1 to 38.9) and L+C 26.7% (95% CI, 21.5 to 32.4; P = .1201); median DoR was 8.5 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74; P = .0004). The most common all-grade adverse events were diarrhea (N+C 83% v L+C 66%) and nausea (53% v 42%). Discontinuation rates and HRQoL were similar between groups. CONCLUSION N+C significantly improved PFS and time to intervention for CNS disease versus L+C. No new N+C safety signals were observed.

Purpose: While FGFR1 amplification has been described in breast cancer, the optimal treatment approach for FGFR1-amplified (FGFR1+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains undefined. Experimental Design: We evaluated clinical response to endocrine and targeted therapies in a cohort of patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2− MBC and validated the functional role of FGFR1-amplification in mediating response/resistance to hormone therapy in vitro. Results: In the clinical cohort (N = 110), we identified that patients with FGFR1+ tumors were more likely to have progesterone receptor (PR)-negative disease (47% vs. 20%; P = 0.005), coexisting TP53 mutations (41% vs. 21%; P = 0.05), and exhibited shorter time to progression with endocrine therapy alone and in combination with CDK4/6 inhibitor, but not with a mTOR inhibitor (everolimus), adjusting for key prognostic variables in multivariate analysis. Furthermore, mTOR-based therapy resulted in a sustained radiological and molecular response in an index case of FGFR1+ HR+/HER2− MBC. In preclinical models, estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/FGFR1-amplified CAMA1 human breast cancer cells were only partially sensitive to fulvestrant, palbociclib, and alpelisib, but highly sensitive to everolimus. In addition, transduction of an FGFR1 expression vector into ER+ T47D cells induced resistance to fulvestrant that could be overcome by added TORC1 inhibition, but not PI3K or CDK4/6 inhibition. Conclusions: Collectively, these findings suggest that while FGFR1 amplification confers broad resistance to ER, PI3K, and CDK4/6 inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors might have a unique therapeutic role in the treatment of patients with ER+/FGFR1+ MBC.