Search

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The APHINITY trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01358877) previously demonstrated that pertuzumab added to adjuvant trastuzumab and chemotherapy improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) for patients with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC). Here, we report the preplanned third interim analysis of overall survival (OS) and a descriptive updated iDFS analysis with 8.4 years of median follow-up of 4,804 patients in the intent-to-treat population. The 8-year OS was 92.7% in the pertuzumab versus 92.0% in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.02]; P = .078, above the 0.006 significance threshold). The HR was 0.80 [95% CI 0.63 to 1.00] in the node-positive cohort and 0.99 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.55] in the node-negative cohort. Updated results of 8-year iDFS in the node-positive cohort showed an absolute improvement of 4.9% favoring pertuzumab (86.1% v 81.2%; HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.87]). The node-negative cohort did well without adding pertuzumab (8-year iDFS and OS in the placebo group were 93.3% and 96.4%, respectively). The iDFS benefit was seen in the hormone receptor-negative (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.06]) and HR+ cohorts (HR of 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92]). Despite improvement in overall iDFS, the addition of pertuzumab did not improve OS at this third interim analysis.

Background: The TROPiCS-02 study (NCT03901339) demonstrated that sacituzumab govitecan (SG) has superior clinical outcomes over treatment of physician's choice (TPC) chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2 receptor-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Here, we present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) patient-reported outcome (PRO) findings from this study., Patients and Methods: Eligible adults with HR+/HER2- mBC who previously received a taxane, endocrine-based therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and 2-4 lines of chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to receive SG or TPC until progression or unacceptable toxicity. PROs were assessed at baseline and on day 1 of each cycle, using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), EQ-5D-5L, and PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)., Results: Compared to TPC, overall least square mean change from baseline was significantly better for SG for physical functioning and dyspnea, but worse for diarrhea. Time to first clinically meaningful worsening or death was significantly longer for SG in global health status/quality of life, physical functioning, fatigue, emotional functioning, dyspnea, insomnia, and financial difficulties of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EQ-VAS, but longer for TPC in diarrhea. Few patients in both arms reported experiencing any worsening to level 3 or 4 treatment-related symptomatic events during treatment, as assessed by 16 PRO-CTCAE items, except for diarrhea frequency and amount of hair loss, which favored TPC., Conclusions: SG was associated with an HRQoL benefit in most symptoms and functioning, compared with TPC. This supports the favorable profile of SG as a treatment option for patients with pretreated HR+/HER2- mBC., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: CAPItello-291 is an ongoing phase 3 trial in which capivasertib-fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo-fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after aromatase inhibitor treatment, in both the overall population and in patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. This study further explored patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functioning, symptoms, and symptom tolerability in CAPItello-291., Methods: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which was conducted across 193 hospitals and cancer centres in 19 countries, enrolled women with any menopausal status or men, aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Japan), with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or 6 inhibitor therapy. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 and could have received up to two previous lines of endocrine therapy and up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (stratified according to the presence or absence of liver metastases, previous use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor [yes vs no], and geographical region) to receive oral capivasertib 400 mg (twice daily for 4 days, followed by 3 days off) plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (every 14 days for the first three injections, then every 28 days) or placebo with matching fulvestrant dosing. The dual primary endpoint of the trial was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module (QLQ-C30) and breast module (QLQ-BR23), Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Tolerability (PGI-TT) questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 were secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints, and these endpoints are the subject of analysis in this Article. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified timepoints. Patient-reported outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients with an evaluable baseline assessment and at least one evaluable post-baseline assessment. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed model with repeated measures for EORTC QLQ-C30 and summarised for QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle. Patient-reported outcomes were not prospectively powered for statistical comparison. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04305496., Findings: Between June 2, 2020, and Oct 13, 2021, 901 patients were enrolled, of whom 708 patients were randomly assigned to receive capivasertib-fulvestrant (n=355) or placebo-fulvestrant (n=353). The median age of the patients was 59 years (IQR 51-67) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 58 years (IQR 49-66) in the placebo-fulvestrant group. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2022), the median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival in censored patients was 13·0 months (IQR 9·1-16·7) for capivasertib-fulvestrant and 12·7 months (IQR 2·0-16·4) for placebo-fulvestrant in the overall population. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) scores were maintained from baseline and were similar between treatment groups throughout the study period (difference in mean change from baseline of -2·5 [95% CI -4·5 to -0·6] with capivasertib-fulvestrant vs -5·6 [-7·9 to -3·4] with placebo-fulvestrant; treatment difference 3·1 [95% CI 0·2 to 6·0]). Median time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL was 24·9 months (95% CI 13·8 to not reached) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 12·0 months (10·2 to 15·7) in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·53 to 0·92). Time to deterioration HRs for all EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 subscale scores showed little difference between the treatment groups, except for diarrhoea, which was worse in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group (HR 2·75, 95% CI 2·01-3·81). In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting loose and watery stools "frequently" or "almost constantly" was 29% higher at cycle 1, day 15 in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group, decreasing at subsequent cycles. Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, itchy skin, and numbness or tingling in hands or feet) were absent or mild in most patients in both groups throughout treatment. According to the PGI-TT, most patients in both groups reported "not at all" or "a little bit" of bother from treatment side-effects., Interpretation: Patient-reported outcomes from CAPItello-291 demonstrated that capivasertib-fulvestrant delayed time to deterioration of GHS/QOL and maintained other dimensions of HRQOL (except symptoms of diarrhoea) similarly to fulvestrant. With the clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these exploratory results further support the positive benefit-risk profile of capivasertib-fulvestrant in this population., Funding: AstraZeneca., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MOl has received honoraria from Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Libbs, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, AstraZeneca Taiwan, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Seagen, Zenith Epigenetics, Gilead Sciences, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, and Genentech; has received travel grants from Eisai and Gilead Sciences; has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, ITeos Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Relay Therapeutics, Roche, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; and serves as the head on the board of directors for the SOLTI Breast Cancer Research Group. HSR has served as a consultant or advisor for Napo Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Mylan, Eisai, and Daiichi Sankyo, and has received research funding from OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Astellas Pharma, Taiho Oncology, Veru, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, and Stemline Therapeutics. SJH has received institutional grants from Eli Lilly; has served as a consultant for Pfizer; has received payments to their institution per patient from AstraZeneca (study sponsor); has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Eli Lilly; has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZeneca; and has received support for attending meetings and travel from Novartis. FD has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and AstraZeneca and has received travel grants from Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Gilead Sciences, and Pfizer. JC has served as a consultant or advisor for Celgene, Cellestia Biotech, AstraZeneca, Roche, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, ERYTECH Pharma, Polyphor, Athenex Oncology, Eli Lilly, SERVIER, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Leuko, Clovis Oncology, Bioasis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, HiberCell, Bioinvent, GEMoaB Monoclonals, Gilead Sciences, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Bridgebio, and BioNTech; has received travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Stemline Therapeutics; holds stock in Leuko and MAJ3 Capital; holds two patents, WO 2014/199294 A and US 2019/ 0338368 A1; has received honoraria from Novartis, Eisai, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, and Stemline Therapeutics; and has received research funding from ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta, Bayer, Eisai, Guardant Health, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Queen Mary University of London, Roche, and Piqur. HLG has served as a consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca; has received research funding from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and has served on speakers’ bureaus for Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Technofarma, and Novartis. MT has served on advisory boards for Athenex Oncology, Bertis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Kansai Medical Net, and Terumo; has received compensation as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Bertis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Devicore Medical Japan, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Science, Kyowa-Kirin, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nippon-Kayaku, Novartis, Pfizer, Shimadzu, Sysmex, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult; has received research funding from AFI Technology, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GL Science, Kansai Medical Net, Luxonus, Pfizer, Sanwa Shurui, Shimadzu, Takeda, The Japan Breast Cancer Research Group association, The Kyoto Breast Cancer Research Network association, and Yakult; has served on steering committees for AstraZeneca, Chugai, and Daiichi Sankyo; and serves as a member of the board of directors for the Organisation for Oncology and Translational Research, The Japan Breast Cancer Research Group association, The Japanese Onco-Cardiology Society, The Kyoto Breast Cancer Research Network association, and The Japanese Breast Cancer Society. KJ has served on advisory boards for Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Jounce Therapeutics, Synthon, Intellisphere, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BluePrint Medicines, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Biotheranostics, Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company, Taiho Oncology, Sanofi, Gilead Sciences, and Scorpion Therapeutics; has received research funding from Novartis, Genentech, Debiopharm Group, ADC Therapeutics, Pfizer, Novita Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Zymeworks, Immunomedics, Puma Biotechnology, VelosBio/Merck, AstraZeneca, Context Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapeutics, and Blueprint Medicines; and has received travel grants from Taiho Pharmaceutical, Jounce Therapeutics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Intellisphere, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and Genentech/Roche. SL has served as a consult or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, EirGenix, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Olema, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Relay Therapeutics, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and AGO (German Gynecological Oncology Group) Kommission Mamma; has served as an invited speaker at AstraZeneca, DSI, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Stemline-Menarini, and Medscape; is a full or part-time employee at GBG Forschungs GmbH; has received licensing or royalties from VMscope GmbH, and research funding from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Greenwich Life Sciences, Immunomedics/Gilead Sciences, Molecular Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and has served as a principal investigator at PI Aphinity. YHP has received research funding from MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gencurix, and Genome Insight; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, MSD, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Gilead Sciences; has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Eisai, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Menarini, Everest, and Novartis; has received travel grants from Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Menarini, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; and has received equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Dong-A ST, Sanofi, Roche, and Pfizer. JHS has received research funding from MSD, Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Seagen, Qurient, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Eikon Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Celcuity, Bristol Myers Squibb, HLB Pharmaceutical, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Olema Oncology, Hanmi, Ildong Pharmaceutical, and Samyang Holdings. ET has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Chugai. NCT has served on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Repare Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Inivata, Guardant Health, and Exact Sciences and received research funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, MSD, Invitae, Inivata, Personalis, and Natera. CD’C, HA, MF, and IW are employees of AstraZeneca, and may hold AstraZeneca stocks or shares. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Current guidelines recommend that patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receive sequentially two antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs): Sacituzumab Govitecan (SG) and Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (T-DXd), despite a similar payload. However, the effectiveness of one after another is unknown., Methods: ADC-Low is a multicentre, retrospective study evaluating the efficacy of SG and T-DXd, one after another, with or without intermediary lines of chemotherapy, in patients with HER2-low MBC., Results: One hundred and seventy-nine patients were included: the majority with HR-negative tumours received SG first (ADC1) (n = 100/108) while most with HR-positive tumours received T-DXd first (n = 56/71). Median progression-free survival 2 was short: 2.7 months (95% CI: 2.4-3.3) in the whole population, respectively, 3.1 (95% CI: 2.6-3.6) and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.9-2.7) for patients receiving T-DXd or SG second (ADC2). Intermediary lines of chemotherapy between ADC1 and ADC2 had no impact. Primary resistance to ADC2 occurred in 54.4% of patients. Certain patients showed initial response to ADC2., Conclusions: Clinical benefit of sequentially administered SG and T-DXd is limited for most patients. Nevertheless, a subset of patients might benefit-on the short term-from a second ADC. Additional studies are needed to identify patients who could benefit from two ADCs with similar payloads., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: The capsule formulation of CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib has reduced solubility at gastric pH > 4.5 and may have decreased activity when used with proton-pump inhibitors (PPI). Herein, we report the effect of PPI on palbociclib capsule activity and safety in the PARSIFAL study., Methods: First-line endocrine-sensitive, hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients received palbociclib capsules plus fulvestrant or letrozole. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). This post-hoc analysis compared PPI use. Patients were PPI-naïve (N-PPI) if not on PPI during the study, and either early (E-PPI) or long-term PPI (LT-PPI) if on PPI at study entry or for at least ≥⅔ of treatment, respectively. PPI groups were not mutually exclusive., Results: Among 486 patients, 66.9 % were N-PPI, 13.2 % E-PPI, 18.7 % LT-PPI, and 11.5 % of the PPI users were defined as neither. Median PFS (mPFS) was 29.6 months in the study population, 28.7 months in N-PPI, 23.0 months in E-PPI (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.5; 95%Confidence Interval [CI] 1.1-2.2; p = 0.024), and 23.0 months in LT-PPI (HR 1.4; 95%CI 1.0-1.9; p = 0.035). By landmark analysis, PPI use was associated with poorer mPFS at 3 and 12 months. Grade ≥3 hematological adverse events occurred in 71.7 % of N-PPI, 57.8 % of E-PPI (p = 0.021), and 54.9 % of LT-PPI (p = 0.003). Dose reductions and dosing delays due to hematological toxicity occurred in 70.8 % of N-PPI, 56.3 % of E-PPI (p = 0.018), and 52.7 % of LT-PPI (p = 0.002)., Conclusions: PPI use may reduce palbociclib capsule toxicity, dose modifications, and clinical activity in HR+/HER2- ABC., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest SDC reports consulting for MEDSIR and IQVIA and honoraria from Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. JMPG reports consulting for Roche, Eiasi, Daichii Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, MSD and Seagen and travel expenses from Roche. MB reports consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Steamline-Menarini; honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly; and trave support from Pfizer. FD reports travel grants for Daichii, Novartis, and Pfizer, and participation in monitor/advisory boards for Daiichi, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead, Lilly, and MSD. MGG reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZeneca, travel grants from Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Pfizer, and participation in monitoring/advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Gilead. MRB reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZenca, and Daiichi Sankyo. JG reports consulting fees from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca; honoraria from Novartis; and travel support from Roche and AstraZeneca. EAO reports consulting for AstraZeneca, Daichii, Gilead, MSD, and Seagen; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daichii, Lilly, MSD, and Seagen; travel support from Daichii, Lilly, Gilead, and AstraZeneca; and participation in monitor/advisory boards for Gilead, AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Dachii. PS reports honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim; a consulting role for Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, and Puma; and institutional grants from Roche, Genentech, Oncogenex, and Novartis. FM reports grants from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, Clovis, Vaccibody, Gilead Sciences, and Esai; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Roche; honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, GSK, Clovis, Myriad, Daiich Sankyo, Seagen, Pierre-Fabre, and Agendia; travel support from AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, and Roche; and participation in advisory boards for Palleos and Amgen. JG reports grant/research support from Roche, Eiasi, and Exact Science; honoraria or consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Eisai, Exact Science, Evapharm, GE Healthcare, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Sothema and participation in company sponsored speaker's bureaus for Exact Science, Lilly, and Novartis. AS reports grants from Celgene, Roche, Abbvie; travel grants from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, GSK, Bayer, Amgen, Pierre Fabre. JA reports trial funding from MEDSIR and consulting for Pfizer, Lilly, and Novartis. PZ reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Pierre Fabre; and travel support from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Lilly. DW reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca and travel grants from Roche, and Novartis. JC reports consulting for Roche, Celgene, Cellestia, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech, Athenex, Polyphor, Lilly, Merck Sharp&Dohme, GSK, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, Hibercell, BioInvent, Gemoab, Gilead, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies; honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Lilly, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo.; research funding to the Institution from Roche, Ariad pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta GMBH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Eisai, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Guardanth health, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Pfizer, Piqur Therapeutics, Puma C, Queen Mary University of London; stock shares for MEDSIR, Nektar Pharmaceuticals, Leuko (relative); Travel, accommodation, expenses from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Astrazeneca, Gilead; and Patents: Pharmaceutical Combinations of A Pi3k Inhibitor And A Microtubule Destabilizing Agent. Javier Cortés Castán, Alejandro Piris Giménez, Violeta Serra Elizalde. WO 2014/199294 A. ISSUED Her2 as a predictor of response to dual HER2 blockade in the absence of cytotoxic therapy. Aleix Prat, Antonio Llombart, Javier Cortés. US 2019/0338368 A1. LICENSED. ALC reports research support from Roche, Agendia, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Gilead, and Daichii-Sanyo; consulting for Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; participation in speakers' bureaus for Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme; travel support from Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca; and stock or other ownership in MEDSIR and Initia-Research. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The PHERGain trial investigated the potential of metabolic imaging to identify candidates for chemotherapy deescalation in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, invasive, operable breast cancer with at least 1 breast lesion evaluable by [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT. [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT responders were defined as patients with an SUV max reduction (ΔSUV max ) of at least 40% in all of their target lesions after 2 cycles of trastuzumab and pertuzumab (HP) (with or without endocrine therapy). In total, 227 of 285 patients (80%) included in the HP arm showed a predefined metabolic response and received a total of 8 cycles of HP (with or without endocrine therapy). Pathologic complete response (pCR), defined as ypT0/isN0, was achieved in 37.9% of the patients. Here, we describe the secondary preplanned analysis of the best cutoff of ΔSUV max for pCR prediction. Methods: Receiver-operating-characteristic analysis was applied to look for the most appropriate ΔSUV max cutoff in HER2-positive early breast cancer patients treated exclusively with neoadjuvant HP (with or without endocrine therapy). Results: The ΔSUV max capability of predicting pCR in terms of the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve was 72.1% (95% CI, 65.1-79.2%). The optimal ΔSUV max cutoff was found to be 77.0%, with a 51.2% sensitivity and a 78.7% specificity. With this cutoff, 74 of 285 patients (26%) would be classified as metabolic responders, increasing the pCR rate from 37.9% (cutoff ≥ 40%) to 59.5% (44/74 patients) ( P < 0.01). With this optimized cutoff, 44 of 285 patients (15.4%) would avoid chemotherapy in either the neoadjuvant or the adjuvant setting compared with 86 of 285 patients (30.2%) using the original cutoff ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: In the PHERGain trial, an increased SUV max cutoff (≥77%) after 2 cycles of exclusive HP (with or without endocrine therapy) achieves a pCR in the range of the control arm with chemotherapy plus HP (59.5% vs. 57.7%, respectively), further identifying a subgroup of patients with HER2-addicted tumors. However, the original cutoff (≥40%) maximizes the number of patients who could avoid chemotherapy., (© 2024 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the multigene EndoPredict test in prospectively collected data of patients screened for the randomized, double-blind, phase III UNIRAD trial, which evaluated the addition of everolimus to adjuvant endocrine therapy in high-risk, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients were classified into low or high risk according to the EPclin score, consisting of a 12-gene molecular score combined with tumor size and nodal status. Association of the EPclin score with disease-free survival (DFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. The independent prognostic added value of EPclin score was tested in a multivariate Cox model after adjusting on tumor characteristics., Results: EndoPredict test results were available for 768 patients: 663 patients classified as EPclin high risk (EPCH) and 105 patients as EPclin low risk (EPCL). Median follow-up was 70 months (range 1-172 months). For the 429 EPCH randomized patients, there was no significant difference in DFS between treatment arms. The 60-month relapse rate for patients in the EPCL and EPCH groups was 0% and 7%, respectively. Hazard ratio (HR) supposing continuous EPclin score was 1.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-2.5, P < 0.0001]. This prognostic effect remained significant when assessed in a Cox model adjusting on tumor size, number of positive nodes and tumor grade (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.09-2.13, P = 0.0141). The 60-month DMFS for patients in the EPCL and EPCH groups was 100% and 94%, respectively (adjusted HR 8.10, 95% CI 1.1-59.1, P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: The results confirm the value of EPclin score as an independent prognostic parameter in node-positive, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer patients receiving standard adjuvant treatment. EPclin score can be used to identify patients at higher risk of recurrence who may warrant additional systemic treatments., Competing Interests: Disclosure FPL: advisor for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Genomic Health, GILEAD, GSK, Lilly, Menarini/Stemline, MSD, Myriad, Nanostring, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche; funding: MSD, Myriad, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; travel/expenses: AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer. FD: advisor for Daichi, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead, Lilly, MSD; travel/expenses: Daichi, Novartis, Pfizer. PC: advisor for Pfizer, Lilly; travel/expenses: Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, BMS. JG: advisor for Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer; travel/expenses: Eisai Europe. MC: advisor for Novartis, Sandoz, Accord, Sanofi, Lilly, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo; consulting fees: Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Novartis, Servier, Daiichi Sankyo; travel//expenses: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche. ACHB: advisor for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Clovis Onco, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, MSD. SG: advisor for Eisai, Lilly; funding: Merck, AstraZeneca; travel/expenses: Lilly. PB: advisor for Ipsen, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Merck KGaA, Astellas, Novartis, Gilead, Bayer; travel/expenses: BMS, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, Astellas, MSD, Ipsen, Merck. AM: advisor for Pfizer; travel/expenses: AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Lilly. MS: travel/expenses: Eisai Europe. MLT: consulting fees: Myriad Genetics. JB: funding: AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Puma Biotech, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Clovis Onco; travel/expenses: Pfizer. FA: stock and other ownership interests: PEGASCY; funding: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Roche, Daiichi; travel/expenses: Novartis, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca. TB: advisor for Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, MSD; funding: Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer; travel/expenses: Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: PHERGain was designed to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a chemotherapy-free treatment based on a dual human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC). It used an 18 fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET-based, pathological complete response (pCR)-adapted strategy., Methods: PHERGain was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial that took place in 45 hospitals in seven European countries. It randomly allocated patients in a 1:4 ratio with centrally confirmed, HER2-positive, stage I-IIIA invasive, operable breast cancer with at least one PET-evaluable lesion to either group A, where patients received docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 , intravenous), carboplatin (area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min, intravenous), trastuzumab (600 mg fixed dose, subcutaneous), and pertuzumab (840 mg loading dose followed by 420 mg maintenance doses, intravenous; TCHP), or group B, where patients received trastuzumab and pertuzumab with or without endocrine therapy, every 3 weeks. Random allocation was stratified by hormone receptor status. Centrally reviewed PET was conducted at baseline and after two treatment cycles. Patients in group B were treated according to on-treatment PET results. Patients in group B who were PET-responders continued with trastuzumab and pertuzumab with or without endocrine therapy for six cycles, while PET-non-responders were switched to receive six cycles of TCHP. After surgery, patients in group B who were PET-responders who did not achieve a pCR received six cycles of TCHP, and all patients completed up to 18 cycles of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. The primary endpoints were pCR in patients who were group B PET-responders after two treatment cycles (the results for which have been reported previously) and 3-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in patients in group B. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03161353) and is ongoing., Findings: Between June 26, 2017, and April 24, 2019, a total of 356 patients were randomly allocated (71 patients in group A and 285 patients in group B), and 63 (89%) and 267 (94%) patients proceeded to surgery in groups A and B, respectively. At this second analysis (data cutoff: Nov 4, 2022), the median duration of follow-up was 43·3 months (range 0·0-63·0). In group B, the 3-year iDFS rate was 94·8% (95% CI 91·4-97·1; p=0·001), meeting the primary endpoint. No new safety signals were identified. Treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs) were numerically higher in patients allocated to group A than to group B (grade ≥3 62% vs 33%; SAEs 28% vs 14%). Group B PET-responders with pCR presented the lowest incidence of treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (1%) without any SAEs., Interpretation: Among HER2-positive EBC patients, a PET-based, pCR-adapted strategy was associated with an excellent 3-year iDFS. This strategy identified about a third of patients who had HER2-positive EBC who could safely omit chemotherapy., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JMP-G reports consulting roles for Roche, Lilly, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, MSD, and Seattle Genetics and travel expenses from Roche. JC reports consulting roles for Roche, Celgene, Cellestia, AstraZeneca, Biothera Phgroupaceutical, Merus, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech, Athenex, Polyphor, Lilly, Servier, MSD, GSK, Leuko, Bioasis, and Clovis Oncology; honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Lilly, MSD, and Daiichi Sankyo; research funding to their institution from Roche, Ariad pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta GMBH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Eisai, F Hoffman-La Roche, Guardanth health, MSD, Pfizer, Piqur Therapeutics, Puma C, and Queen Mary University of London; and intellectual property for Medica Scientia Innovation Research (MEDSIR). MR-B reports membership of a speaker bureau and advisory board for Novartis. MC reports a research grant to their institution from Roche and the role of co-chair of the scientific committee of the International Breast Cancer Study Group. AS reports consulting roles for Roche, AstraZeneca, Seagen, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim; to be part of a speaker bureau for Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, and Novartis; and travel expenses from Pfizer, Novartis, and Eisai. BB reports receiving fees for medical education in a consulting or advisory role with MSD, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Seagen; participating in a speakers bureau for Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Palex, Eisai, Daichii Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Seagen. SE-d-R reports consulting roles for Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; to be part of a speaker bureau for Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen; to have received research funding from Roche, Synthon, Byondis, MEDSIR, SOLTI, Zymeworks, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca; and travel, accommodation, or expenses from Pfizer, Kern Pharma, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca. NR reports research funding from Pfizer; and to be part of speaker bureau for Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca. FM reports grants from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, Clovis, Vaccibody, Gilead Sciences, and Esai; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Roche; honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, GSK, Clovis, Myriad, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Pierre Fabre, and Agendia; travel support from AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, and Roche; and participation in advisory boards for Palleos and Amgen. AC reports consulting or advisory roles for Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; being part of a speakers bureau for Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and Seagen; institutional research funding from Roche, Synthon, Byondis, MEDSIR, SOLTI, Zymeworks, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca; and expert testimony and travel or accommodations expenses from Pfizer, Kern Pharma, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca. AP reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, and Amgen; to have consulting roles for Roche, AstraZeneca, Peptomyc, Novartis, and Daiichi Sankyo; research funding to their institution from Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Reveal Genomics; to have intellectual property (ERBB2 and HER2DX patents); travel expenses from Daiichi Sankyo; and a share in ownership at Reveal Genomics. PS reports honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim; a consulting role in Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, and Puma; and grants to their institution from Roche, Genentech, Oncogenex, and Novartis. SB reports a consulting or advisory board role at Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche; speaker or conference fees from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche; and travel fees from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche. SDC reports receiving fees for medical education from Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and IQVIA; institutional grant IG 20774 of Fondazione AIRC per la Ricerca sul Cancro; Cancer Can.Heal European EU4 Health Programme 101080009–European Commission; and serving as an ad hoc medical advisor for MEDSIR. MG reports honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Gilead, and AstraZeneca; travel grants and accommodation from Roche, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; and an advisory role at Gilead. GA reports honoraria from MEDSIR. AL-C reports leadership roles at Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, and MSD; intellectual property for MEDSIR and Initia Research; to have consulting roles for Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, GenomicHealth, and GSK; to be part of a speakers bureau for Lilly, AstraZeneca, and MSD; research funding from Roche, Foundation Medicine, Pierre Fabre, and Agendia; and travel expenses from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. CP, ES, DA-L, PG, JR-M, LM, and MS-C are employees of MEDSIR. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC), combining trastuzumab and pertuzumab with taxane-based chemotherapy is the first line of standard care. Given that trastuzumab plus pertuzumab was proven effective in ERBB2-positive MBC, even without chemotherapy, whether the optimal first-line strategy could be trastuzumab plus pertuzumab alone instead of with chemotherapy is unresolved., Objective: To assess overall survival (OS) at 2 years and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients randomly assigned to receive first-line pertuzumab plus trastuzumab alone or with chemotherapy followed by trastuzumab and emtansine at progression; PFS of second-line trastuzumab and emtansine treatment following trastuzumab plus pertuzumab; and OS and PFS in the ERBB2-enriched and ERBB2-nonenriched subtypes., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter, open-label, phase 2 randomized clinical trial conducted at 27 sites in France, 20 sites in Switzerland, 9 sites in the Netherlands, and 1 site in Germany. Overall, 210 patients with centrally confirmed ERBB2-positive MBC were randomized between May 3, 2013, and January 4, 2016, with termination of the trial May 26, 2020. Data were analyzed from December 18, 2020, to May 10, 2022., Interventions: Patients randomly received pertuzumab (840 mg intravenously [IV], then 420 mg IV every 3 weeks) plus trastuzumab (8 mg/kg IV, then 6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks) without chemotherapy (group A) or pertuzumab plus trastuzumab (same doses) with either paclitaxel (90 mg/m2 for days 1, 8, and 15, then every 4 weeks for ≥4 months) or vinorelbine tartrate (25 mg/m2 for first administration followed by 30 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and every 3 weeks for ≥4 months) followed by pertuzumab plus trastuzumab maintenance after chemotherapy discontinuation (group B)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival at 24 months by treatment group, PFS for first-line treatment, PFS for second-line treatment, and patient-reported quality of life (QOL)., Results: A total of 210 patients were included in the analysis, with a median age of 58 (range, 26-85) years. For group A, 24-month OS was 79.0% (90% CI, 71.4%-85.4%); for group B, 78.1% (90% CI, 70.4%-84.5%). Median PFS with first-line treatment was 8.4 (95% CI, 7.9-12.0) months in group A and 23.3 (95% CI, 18.9-33.1) months in group B. Unlike expectations, OS and PFS did not markedly differ between populations with ERBB2-enriched and ERBB2-nonenriched cancer. Adverse events were less common without chemotherapy, with small QOL improvements from baseline in group A and stable QOL in group B., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial suggest that the chemotherapy-free anti-ERBB2 strategy is feasible without being detrimental in terms of OS. The 50-gene prediction analysis of microarray signature could not help to identify the most appropriate patient population for this approach., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01835236.

Background: Treatment strategies for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have made great strides over the past 10 years. Real-world data allow us to evaluate the actual benefit of new treatments. ESME (Epidemio-Strategy-Medico-Economical)-MBC, a nationwide observational cohort (NCT03275311), gathers data of all consecutive MBC patients who initiated their treatment in 18 French Cancer Centres since 2008., Patients and Methods: We evaluated overall survival (OS) in the whole cohort (N = 20 446) and among subtypes: hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-; N = 13 590), HER2+ (N = 3919), and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC; N = 2937). We performed multivariable analyses including year of MBC diagnosis as one of the covariates, to assess the potential OS improvement over time, and we described exposure to newly released drugs at any time during MBC history by year of diagnosis (YOD)., Results: The median follow-up of the whole cohort was 65.5 months (95% CI 64.6-66.7). Year of metastatic diagnosis appears as a strong independent prognostic factor for OS [Year 2016 HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.97); P = 0.009, using 2008 as reference]. This effect is driven by the HER2+ subcohort, where it is dramatic [Year 2016 HR 0.52 (95% CI 0.42-0.66); P < 0.001, using 2008 as reference]. YOD had, however, no sustained impact on OS among patients with TNBC [Year 2016 HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.77-1.11); P = 0.41, using 2008 as reference] nor among those with HR+/HER2- MBC [Year 2016 HR 1.02 (95% CI 0.91-1.13); P = 0.41, using 2008 as reference]. While exposure to newly released anti-HER2 therapies appeared very high (e.g. >70% of patients received pertuzumab from 2016 onwards), use of everolimus or eribulin was recorded in less than one-third of HR+/HER2- and TNBC cohorts, respectively, whatever YOD., Conclusion: OS has dramatically improved among HER2+ MBC patients, probably in association with the release of several major HER2-directed therapies, whose penetrance was high. This trend was not observed in the other subtypes, but the impact of CDK4/6 inhibitors cannot yet be assessed., Competing Interests: Disclosure AG reports nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. WJ reports grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Astra Zeneca; personal fees and nonfinancial support from Eisai, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Chugai; personal fees from MSD and BMS, outside the submitted work. P-HC reports grants and nonfinancial support from Roche and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. FC reports grants and personal fees from Merck Serono and BMS; nonfinancial support from Lilly; personal fees and nonfinancial support from Roche; and grants from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. ED reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Novartis and Pfizer; and nonfinancial support from Lilly, outside the submitted work. TB reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Roche and AstraZeneca; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Novartis and Pfizer; and personal fees from Seattle Genetics, outside the submitted work. DP reports personal fees from Laboratoire Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Ipsen, MSD; personal fees and nonfinancial support from Laboratoire AstraZeneca; grants from Laboratoire MDS Avenir outside the submitted work and Laboratoire Roche (ESME program). SD reports grants and nonfinancial support from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Roche Genentech; grants from Novartis, Lilly, Puma, Myriad, Orion, Amgen, Sanofi, Genomic Health, GE, Servier, MSD, BMS, and Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Trebananib, a peptide-Fc fusion protein, blocks angiogenesis by inhibiting binding of angiopoietin-1/2 to the receptor tyrosine kinase Tie2. Trebananib plus trastuzumab and paclitaxel was evaluated in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer in an open-label phase 1b clinical study., Patients and Methods: Women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer received weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m 2 ), trastuzumab (8 mg/m 2 then 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks), and intravenous trebananib (10 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg weekly) beginning week 2. The primary end point was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities. Secondary end points included incidence of adverse events (AEs), pharmacokinetics, and tumor response (objective response and duration of response)., Results: Forty women were enrolled; 2 experienced dose-limiting toxicities (grade 3 ocular transient ischemic attack [10 mg/kg cohort] and grade 3 elevation in γ-glutamyl transferase [30 mg/kg cohort]). The most common treatment-emergent AEs were peripheral edema (n = 28), diarrhea (n = 27), alopecia (n = 26), fatigue (n = 24), and nausea (n = 24). Maximum observed concentration and area under the concentration-time curve increased proportionally with the trebananib dose. Objective response was confirmed in 31 patients. In the 10 mg/kg cohort, 16 patients (80%) experienced partial response, and none experienced complete response. In the 30 mg/kg cohort, 12 patients (71%) experienced partial response and 3 (18%) experienced complete response. Median (95% confidence interval) duration of response in the 10 and 30 mg/kg cohorts was 12.6 (4.3-20.2) and 16.6 (8.2-not estimable) months, respectively., Conclusion: This phase 1b study showed that trebananib was tolerated with manageable AEs at a dose up to 30 mg/kg weekly. Trebananib demonstrated anticancer activity, as indicated by objective response and duration of response., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Few data are currently available regarding the efficacy and safety of T-DM1 in breast cancer (BC) patients with unselected brain metastases (BM), since most clinical trials have excluded BM patients or have only included highly selected patients. HER2 + BC patients with BM treated with T-DM1 in 5 French centers were included in this retrospective study. Clinical management was performed according to the product guidelines. Efficacy was evaluated recording tumor response rates, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival, treatment compliance, and safety. Thirty nine patients received T-DM1, among whom 82 % presented with concomitant extra-cerebral disease. Median number of previous metastatic chemotherapy and HER2-directed targeted therapy regimens was 2 (range 0-8) and 1 (0-7), respectively. Thirty six patients had received BM loco-regional treatment (72 % whole-brain radiation therapy). After a median follow-up of 8.1 months (1.4-39.6), 24 patients had progressed (first site of progression: brain 14; meningeal 2; outside of the central nervous system 5; both intra- and extra-cerebral 3), 12 patients had died (disease progression), and 27 patients were still alive. Median number of T-DM1 cycles was 8 (1-43). There were 17 partial responses (44 %) and 6 patients achieved disease stabilization (59 % clinical benefit rate). Median PFS was 6.1 months (95 %CI 5.2-18.3), with one- and two-year PFS rates of 33 and 17 %, respectively. Treatment was well tolerated, without unexpected toxicities, treatment delay, or dose reduction. In this retrospective study, T-DM1 appeared to be an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option in unselected HER2 + BC patients with BM. These findings require a prospective validation.

Background: Addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer improves progression-free survival and the proportion of patients achieving pathological complete response. In the BEVERLY-1 (UCBG-0802) trial we aimed to assess the addition of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with HER2-negative inflammatory breast cancer., Methods: We did this phase 2, single-arm trial at 20 hospitals in France. We enrolled women aged 18 years or older who had non-metastatic HER2-negative inflammatory breast cancer. Patients underwent 3-week treatment cycles, receiving neoadjuvant intravenous fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2)), epirubicin (100 mg/m(2)), cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m(2)), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) during cycles 1-4, then docetaxel (100 mg/m(2)) and bevacizumab during cycles 5-8. 2-4 weeks after surgery, patients received adjuvant radiotherapy, hormone therapy (if they had a hormone receptor-positive tumour), and adjuvant intravenous bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response in breast and axillary lymph nodes after neoadjuvant treatment, determined after centralised review in accordance with Sataloff classification and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Our analysis of toxic effects included all patients who received at least one dose of bevacizumab. The trial is complete and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00820547., Findings: Between Jan 16, 2009, and Sept 8, 2010, we enrolled 101 patients, one of whom withdrew consent before treatment, leaving 100 patients in the primary endpoint analysis. After neoadjuvant therapy, 19 (19% [95% CI 12-28]; p=0·16) of 100 patients achieved a pathological complete response according to centralised review. The most frequent grade 3-4 events during the neoadjuvant phase were neutropenia (89 [89%] of 100 patients), febrile neutropenia (37 [37%]), and mucositis (23 [23%]) and during the adjuvant phase the most frequent grade 3-4 adverse event was proteinuria (5 [7%] of 75 patients). One (1%) patient died of thrombotic microangiopathy after cycle 1, which was thought to be related to bevacizumab. Two patients (3%) developed transitory heart failure. 48 (48%) patients had serious adverse events, the most frequent of which was febrile neutropenia (28 [28%])., Interpretation: Our results suggest that the addition of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy does not provide clinical benefit to patients with non-metastatic HER2-negative inflammatory breast cancer. Longer follow-up and correlative studies to identify patients who might benefit from bevacizumab are needed., Funding: Roche, La Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer, UNICANCER, and Chugai Pharma., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Decrease of circulating tumor cells (CTC) during treatment is an independent prognostic factor in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We specifically evaluated the impact of CTC on brain metastasis outcome., Methods: HER2-positive MBC with brain metastasis not previously treated with whole-brain radiotherapy received first-line combination of lapatinib and capecitabine in a phase II study. CTC were detected at baseline and day 21 (CellSearch)., Results: Median follow-up of the 44 analyzed patients was 21.2 months. The central nervous system objective response (CNS-OR) rate was 66%. At baseline, 20 of 41 assessable patients for CTC (49%) had ≥1 CTC (range 1-301, median 3) and 9 (22%) had ≥5 CTC. At day 21, 7 of 38 patients (18%) had ≥1 CTC (P = 0.006, versus baseline), and CTC had disappeared in 11 patients. CNS-OR rate was significantly higher in patients with no CTC at day 21 [25 of 31 (80%) versus 2 of 7 (29%), P = 0.01]. The 1-year overall survival rate was 83.9% in patients with no CTC at day 21 versus 42.9% in patients with ≥1 CTC (P = 0.02)., Conclusions: This is the first report showing a correlation between CNS metastasis response, outcome and early CTC clearance under targeted treatment of HER2+ MBC., Clinical Trials Number: NCT00967031.

Increased activation of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway is a common factor in putative mechanisms of trastuzumab resistance, resulting in dysregulation of cell migration, growth, proliferation, and survival. Data from preclinical and phase 1/2 clinical studies suggest that adding everolimus (an oral mTOR inhibitor) to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy may enhance the efficacy of, and restore sensitivity to, trastuzumab-based therapy. In this phase 2 multicenter study, adult patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer resistant to trastuzumab and pretreated with a taxane received everolimus 10 mg/day in combination with paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) and trastuzumab (4 mg/kg loading dose followed by 2 mg/kg weekly), administered in 28-day cycles. Endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Fifty-five patients were enrolled; one remained on study treatment at the time of data cutoff. The median number of prior chemotherapy lines for advanced disease was 3.5 (range 1-11). The ORR was 21.8 %, the clinical benefit rate was 36.4 %, the median PFS estimate was 5.5 months (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 4.99-7.69 months), and the median OS estimate was 18.1 months (95 % CI: 12.85-24.11 months). Hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) included neutropenia (25.5 % grade 3, 3.6 % grade 4), anemia (7.3 % grade 3), and thrombocytopenia (5.5 % grade 3, 1.8 % grade 4). Nonhematologic grade 3/4 AEs included stomatitis (20.0 %), diarrhea (5.5 %), vomiting (5.5 %), fatigue (5.5 %), and pneumonia (5.5 %), all grade 3. These findings suggest that the combination of everolimus plus trastuzumab and paclitaxel is feasible, with promising activity in patients with highly resistant HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. This combination is currently under investigation in the BOLERO-1 phase 3 trial.

Background: To determine the recommended doses of lapatinib (LPT) combined with vinorelbine (VNR) in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing advanced breast cancer pretreated with trastuzumab., Methods: In this phase I study, women were treated with oral daily LPT and i.v. VNR infused on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. Dose levels (DL) of LPT (mg)/VNR (mg m(-2)) ranged from 750/20 to 1250/30. The primary end point was feasibility based on maximal tolerated dose (MTD) and maximum administered dose (MAD). Pharmacokinetic interactions were investigated., Results: Of 33 patients included, 29 were evaluable. Two DLT occurred at DL4 (1000/25) meeting the MAD criteria. Despite an additional intermediate DL3' (1250/22.5), MTD was reached at DL3 (1000/22.5). Grade 3-4 neutropenia was the most common toxicity (34% and 38% of patients, respectively). Other significant toxicities included grade 3-4 diarrhoea (3% each), and grade 3 asthenia (10%). Although not statistically significant, LPT (at 1000 or 1250 mg) decreased the VNR clearance by 30-40% compared with DL1., Conclusion: The MTD LPT 1000 mg/VNR 22.5 mg m(-2) (DL3) is recommended for additional development. Pharmacokinetic interactions might increase the exposure to VNR and consequently alter the hematological tolerance.

Elucidating how cancer cells respond to antagonists of HER receptor family members is critical to understanding mechanisms of therapeutic resistance that arise in patients. In large part, resistance to such agents appears to arise from deregulation of the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt/mTOR pathway. mTOR-dependent phosphorylation of the translation repressor 4E-BP1 leads to its dissociation from eIF4E, thereby causing an increase in the formation of the eIF4F complex, which also comprises eIF4G and eIF4A. In this study, we show that trastuzumab, cetuximab, and erlotinib all decrease the formation of the eIF4F complex in breast, colon, and head and neck cancer cells, respectively. Ectopic expression of eIF4E restores the trastuzumab-dependent defect in eIF4F formation, renders cells resistant to the trastuzumab-mediated decrease in cell proliferation, and rescues breast cancer xenografts from inhibition by trastuzumab. In breast tumor specimens, the level of eIF4E expression is associated with the therapeutic response to a trastuzumab-based regimen. Together, our findings suggest that formation of the eIF4F complex may be a critical determinant of the response to anticancer drugs that target HER2 and epidermal growth factor receptor.