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.Final overall survival (OS) in SOPHIA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02492711), a study of margetuximab versus trastuzumab, both with chemotherapy, in patients with previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced breast cancer, is reported with updated safety. Overall, 536 patients in the intention-to-treat population were randomly assigned to margetuximab (15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks; n = 266) plus chemotherapy or trastuzumab (6 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks after a loading dose of 8 mg/kg; n = 270) plus chemotherapy. Primary end points were progression-free survival, previously reported, and OS. Final OS analysis was triggered by 385 prespecified events. The median OS was 21.6 months (95% CI, 18.89 to 25.07) with margetuximab versus 21.9 months (95% CI, 18.69 to 24.18) with trastuzumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.17; P = .620). Preplanned, exploratory analysis of CD16A genotyping suggested a possible improvement in OS for margetuximab in CD16A-158FF patients versus trastuzumab (median OS, 23.6 v 19.2 months; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.00) and a possible improvement in OS for trastuzumab in CD16A-158VV patients versus margetuximab (median OS, 31.1 v 22.0 months; HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.01 to 3.12). Margetuximab safety was comparable with trastuzumab. Final overall OS analysis did not demonstrate margetuximab advantage over trastuzumab. Margetuximab studies in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer with different CD16A allelic variants are warranted.

PURPOSE: To assess the long-term (20-year) endocrine therapy benefit in premenopausal patients with breast cancer. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the Stockholm trial (STO-5, 1990-1997) randomly assigning 924 premenopausal patients to 2 years of goserelin (3.6 mg subcutaneously once every 28 days), tamoxifen (40 mg orally once daily), combined goserelin and tamoxifen, or no adjuvant endocrine therapy (control) is performed. Random assignment was stratified by lymph node status; lymph node-positive patients (n = 459) were allocated to standard chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil). Primary tumor immunohistochemistry (n = 731) and gene expression profiling (n = 586) were conducted in 2020. The 70-gene signature identified genomic low-risk and high-risk patients. Kaplan-Meier analysis, multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression, and multivariable time-varying flexible parametric modeling assessed the long-term distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI). Swedish high-quality registries allowed a complete follow-up of 20 years. RESULTS: In estrogen receptor-positive patients (n = 584, median age 47 years), goserelin, tamoxifen, and the combination significantly improved long-term distant recurrence-free interval compared with control (multivariable hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.75, HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.87, and HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.94, respectively). Significant goserelin-tamoxifen interaction was observed (P = .016). Genomic low-risk patients (n = 305) significantly benefitted from tamoxifen (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.60), and genomic high-risk patients (n = 158) from goserelin (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.54). Increased risk from the addition of tamoxifen to goserelin was seen in genomic high-risk patients (HR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.39 to 8.07). Moreover, long-lasting 20-year tamoxifen benefit was seen in genomic low-risk patients, whereas genomic high-risk patients had early goserelin benefit. CONCLUSION: This study shows 20-year benefit from 2 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy in estrogen receptor-positive premenopausal patients and suggests differential treatment benefit on the basis of tumor genomic characteristics. Combined goserelin and tamoxifen therapy showed no benefit over single treatment. Long-term follow-up to assess treatment benefit is critical.

PURPOSE: To develop guideline recommendations concerning optimal neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of the literature on neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer and provide recommended care options. RESULTS: A total of 41 articles met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy should be managed by a multidisciplinary care team. Appropriate candidates for neoadjuvant therapy include patients with inflammatory breast cancer and those in whom residual disease may prompt a change in therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy can also be used to reduce the extent of local therapy or reduce delays in initiating therapy. Although tumor histology, grade, stage, and estrogen, progesterone, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression should routinely be used to guide clinical decisions, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of other markers or genomic profiles. Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have clinically node-positive and/or at least T1c disease should be offered an anthracycline- and taxane-containing regimen; those with cT1a or cT1bN0 TNBC should not routinely be offered neoadjuvant therapy. Carboplatin may be offered to patients with TNBC to increase pathologic complete response. There is currently insufficient evidence to support adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to standard chemotherapy. In patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive (HR-positive), HER2-negative tumors, neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be used when a treatment decision can be made without surgical information. Among postmenopausal patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative disease, hormone therapy can be used to downstage disease. Patients with node-positive or high-risk node-negative, HER2-positive disease should be offered neoadjuvant therapy in combination with anti-HER2-positive therapy. Patients with T1aN0 and T1bN0, HER2-positive disease should not be routinely offered neoadjuvant therapy.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Purpose This two-part, first-in-human study was initiated in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring genetic alterations in fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFRs) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and the schedule, safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of oral BGJ398, a selective FGFR1-3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Patients and Methods Adult patients were treated with escalating dosages of BGJ398 5 to 150 mg once daily or 50 mg twice daily continuously in 28-day cycles. During expansion at the MTD, patients with FGFR1-amplified squamous cell non-small-cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC; arm 1) or other solid tumors with FGFR genetic alterations (mutations/amplifications/fusions) received BGJ398 daily on a continuous schedule (arm 2), or on a 3-weeks-on/1-week-off schedule (arm 3). Results Data in 132 patients from the escalation and expansion arms are reported (May 15, 2015, cutoff). The MTD, 125 mg daily, was determined on the basis of dose-limiting toxicities in four patients (100 mg, grade 3 aminotransferase elevations [n = 1]; 125 mg, hyperphosphatemia [n = 1]; 150 mg, grade 1 corneal toxicity [n = 1] and grade 3 aminotransferase elevations [n = 1]). Common adverse events in patients treated at the MTD (n = 57) included hyperphosphatemia (82.5%), constipation (50.9%), decreased appetite (45.6%), and stomatitis (45.6%). A similar safety profile was observed using the 3-weeks-on/1-week-off schedule (RP2D). However, adverse event-related dose adjustments/interruptions were less frequent with the 3-weeks-on/1-week-off (50.0%) versus the continuous (73.7%) schedule. Antitumor activity (seven partial responses [six confirmed]) was demonstrated with BGJ398 doses ≥ 100 mg in patients with FGFR1-amplified sqNSCLC and FGFR3-mutant bladder/urothelial cancer. Conclusion BGJ398 at the MTD/RP2D had a tolerable and manageable safety profile and showed antitumor activity in several tumor types, including FGFR1-amplified sqNSCLC and FGFR3-mutant bladder/urothelial cancers.

PurposeTo explore the genetic landscape of tumors from patients enrolled on the BOLERO-2 trial to identify potential correlations between genetic alterations and efficacy of everolimus treatment. The BOLERO-2 trial has previously demonstrated that the addition of everolimus to exemestane prolonged progression-free survival by more than twofold in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, advanced breast cancer previously treated with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors.Patients and methodsNext-generation sequencing was used to analyze genetic status of cancer-related genes in 302 archival tumor specimens from patients representative of the BOLERO-2 study population. Correlations between the most common somatic alterations and degree of chromosomal instability, and treatment effect of everolimus were investigated.ResultsProgression-free survival benefit with everolimus was maintained regardless of alteration status of PIK3CA, FGFR1, and CCND1 or the pathways of which they are components. However, quantitative differences in everolimus benefit were observed between patient subgroups defined by the exon-specific mutations in PIK3CA (exon 20 v 9) or by different degrees of chromosomal instability in the tumor tissues.ConclusionThe data from this exploratory analysis suggest that the efficacy of everolimus was largely independent of the most commonly altered genes or pathways in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer. The potential impact of chromosomal instabilities and low-frequency genetic alterations on everolimus efficacy warrants further investigation.

PurposeWe 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 methodsEligible 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionIn 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.