Search

Purpose: Long-term outcomes of patients with stage I human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) remain undefined, and prognostic predictors represent an unmet need., Methods: In the ATEMPT phase II trial, patients with stage I centrally confirmed HER2-positive breast cancer were randomly assigned 3:1 to adjuvant T-DM1 for 1 year or paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (TH). Coprimary objectives were to compare the incidence of clinically relevant toxicities between arms and to evaluate invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) with T-DM1. Correlative analyses included the HER2DX genomic tool, multiomic evaluations of HER2 heterogeneity, and predictors of thrombocytopenia., Results: After a median follow-up of 5.8 years, 11 iDFS events were observed in the T-DM1 arm, consistent with a 5-year iDFS of 97.0% (95% CI, 95.2 to 98.7). At 5 years, the recurrence-free interval (RFI) was 98.3% (95% CI, 97.0 to 99.7), the overall survival was 97.8% (95% CI, 96.3 to 99.3), and the breast cancer-specific survival was 99.4% (95% CI, 98.6 to 100). Comparable iDFS was observed with T-DM1 irrespective of tumor size, hormone receptor status, centrally determined HER2 immunohistochemical score, and receipt of T-DM1 for more or less than 6 months. Although ATEMPT was not powered for this end point, the 5-year iDFS in the TH arm was 91.1%. Among patients with sufficient tissue for HER2DX testing (n = 187), 5-year outcomes significantly differed according to HER2DX risk score, with better RFI (98.1% v 81.8%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.10, P = .01) and iDFS (96.3% v 81.8%, HR, 0.20, P = .047) among patients with HER2DX low-risk versus high-risk tumors, respectively., Conclusion: Adjuvant T-DM1 for 1 year leads to outstanding long-term outcomes for patients with stage I HER2-positive breast cancer. A high HER2DX risk score predicted a higher risk of recurrence in ATEMPT.

Purpose: The ATEMPT trial was designed to determine if treatment with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) caused less toxicity than paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (TH) and yielded clinically acceptable invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) among patients with stage I human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC)., Methods: Patients with stage I centrally confirmed HER2+ BC were randomly assigned 3:1 to T-DM1 or TH and received T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for 17 cycles or T 80 mg/m 2 IV with H once every week × 12 weeks (4 mg/kg load →2 mg/kg), followed by H × 39 weeks (6 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). The co-primary objectives were to compare the incidence of clinically relevant toxicities (CRTs) in patients treated with T-DM1 versus TH and to evaluate iDFS in patients receiving T-DM1., Results: The analysis population includes all 497 patients who initiated protocol therapy (383 T-DM1 and 114 TH). CRTs were experienced by 46% of patients on T-DM1 and 47% of patients on TH ( P = .83). The 3-year iDFS for T-DM1 was 97.8% (95% CI, 96.3 to 99.3), which rejected the null hypothesis ( P < .0001). Serially collected patient-reported outcomes indicated that patients treated with T-DM1 had less neuropathy and alopecia and better work productivity compared with patients on TH., Conclusion: Among patients with stage I HER2+ BC, one year of adjuvant T-DM1 was associated with excellent 3-year iDFS, but was not associated with fewer CRT compared with TH., Competing Interests: Sara TolaneyConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, NanoString Technologies, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Genentech, Eisai, Sanofi, Celldex, Bristol Myers Squibb, Paxman, Seattle Genetics, Odonate Therapeutics, AbbVie, Silverback Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, OncoPep, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Samsung Bioepis, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Immunomedics/Gilead, Mersana, CertaraResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, NanoString Technologies, Cyclacel, Nektar, Immunomedics, Odonate Therapeutics, Sanofi, Seattle GeneticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Immunomedics, Eisai, NanoString Technologies, Puma Biotechnology, Celldex Chau DangHonoraria: Puma Biotechnology, eviCore healthcareConsulting or Advisory Role: Puma Biotechnology, eviCore healthcareResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Puma Biotechnology Denise YardleyConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Biotheranostics, Bristol Myers Squibb, G1 Therapeutics, Athenex, Immunomedics, Sanofi/Aventis, R-Pharm, LillySpeakers' Bureau: Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Genentech/RocheResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, MedImmune, Lilly, Medivation, Pfizer, Tesaro, Macrogenics, AbbVie, Merck, Clovis Oncology, Amgen, Biomarin, Biothera, Dana Farber Cancer Hospital, Incyte, Innocrin Pharma, Nektar, NSABP Foundation, Odonate Therapeutics, PolyphorTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Genentech/Roche Steven IsakoffConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, OncoPep, Puma Biotechnology, Seattle Genetics, NovartisResearch Funding: Genentech, PharmaMar, AbbVie, OncoPep, Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Outcomes4Me Vicente ValeroHonoraria: Genentech/Roche, Merck, NovartisConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, MerckTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Genentech/Roche Therese MulveyConsulting or Advisory Role: Outcomes4Me Ron BoseConsulting or Advisory Role: GenentechResearch Funding: Puma Biotechnology Antonio WolffConsulting or Advisory Role: Ionis PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: Biomarin, CelldexPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Antonio Wolff has been named as inventor on one or more issued patents or pending patent applications related 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 Katherine Reeder-HayesResearch Funding: Pfizer Hope RugoHonoraria: Puma Biotechnology, MylanConsulting or Advisory Role: SamsungResearch Funding: Macrogenics, OBI Pharma, Eisai, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Genentech, Merck, Immunomedics, Odonate Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle Genetics, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Novartis, Macrogenics, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca Spain, MerckOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/summary Bhuvaneswari RamaswamyConsulting or Advisory Role: Eisai Lowell HartHonoraria: Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, G1 Therapeutics, Veracyte, Karyopharm TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Merck, Seattle GeneticsSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Pfizer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, NovartisResearch Funding: Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, G1 Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics Vijayakrishna GadiLeadership: SEngine Precision MedicineStock and Other Ownership Interests: Sengine precision medicine, Novilla, 3rdEyeBio, New Equilibrium BiosciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Novartis, SanofiSpeakers' Bureau: Seagen, bioTheranosticsResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, SignalOne Bio, AgendiaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: NovartisOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/2511 Bryan SchneiderHonoraria: Lilly, Research to Practice Paul MarcomConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, ImmunomedicsResearch Funding: Novartis, Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Verily, Glycomimetics, MillenniumOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/237508/summary Kathy AlbainConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Myriad Genetics, Genomic Health, Agendia, Genentech/RocheResearch Funding: Seattle GeneticsOther Relationship: Puma Biotechnology Nadine TungResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Rita NandaConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Macrogenics, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Aduro Biotech, ION Pharma, Seattle Genetics, ImmunomedicsResearch Funding: Corcept Therapeutics, Celgene, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Genentech/Roche, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, ImmunomedicsOther Relationship: G1 Therapeutics Rachel JankowitzHonoraria: EisaiConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Mothaffar RimawiConsulting or Advisory Role: Macrogenics, Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle Genetics, GenentechResearch Funding: Pfizer Vandana AbramsonEmployment: HCA HealthcareConsulting or Advisory Role: Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbvieResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Lilly Paula PohlmannLeadership: Immunonet BioSciencesStock and Other Ownership Interests: Immunonet BioSciencesHonoraria: Dava Oncology, OncLive/MJH Life Sciences, Frontiers—PublisherConsulting or Advisory Role: Personalized Cancer Therapy, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Immunonet BioSciences, Pfizer, HERON, Puma Biotechnology, Sirtex Medical, Caris Life Sciences, Juniper Pharmaceuticals, Bolt BiotherapeuticsSpeakers' Bureau: Genentech/RocheResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Fabre-Kramer, Advanced Cancer Therapeutics, Caris Centers of Excellence, Pfizer, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Cascadian Therapeutics, Bolt Biotherapeutics, Byondis, SeagenPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: United States Patent no. 8486413, United States Patent no. 8501417, United States Patent no. 9023362, United States Patent no. 9745377, Patent application Catherine Van PoznakResearch Funding: BayerPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UpToDate Andres Forero-TorresEmployment: Seattle GeneticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Seattle Genetics Minetta LiuResearch Funding: Eisai, Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, GRAIL, Merck, Tesaro, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Genomic HealthTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: GRAIL, Merck, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Pfizer, Genomic Health, AstraZeneca, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Kathryn RuddyPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: My husband is a co-inventor of technology licensed by Mayo Clinic to AliveCor (MountainView, CA), which makes a smartphone-enabled remote ECG monitoring system Richard GelberResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis Bill BarryEmployment: Rho Ann PartridgePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I receive small royalty payments for co-authoring the breast cancer survivorship section of UpToDateTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis Eric 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: GenentechOther Relationship: InfiniteMD Ian KropEmployment: AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Freeline TherapeuticsLeadership: AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Freeline TherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Freeline Therapeutics, VertexHonoraria: Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, CelltrionConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Macrogenics, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Context Therapeutics, Novartis, Merck, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Genentech, PfizerNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose The Letrozole (Femara) Versus Anastrozole Clinical Evaluation (FACE) study compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant letrozole versus anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR) -positive and node-positive early breast cancer (eBC). Methods Postmenopausal women with HR-positive and node-positive eBC were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant therapy with either letrozole (2.5 mg) or anastrozole (1 mg) once per day for 5 years or until recurrence of disease. Patients were stratified on the basis of the number of lymph nodes and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. The primary end point was 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), and the key secondary end points were overall survival and safety. Results A total of 4,136 patients were randomly assigned to receive either letrozole (n = 2,061) or anastrozole (n = 2,075). The final analysis was done at 709 DFS events (letrozole, 341 [16.5%]; anastrozole, 368 [17.7%]). The 5-year estimated DFS rate was 84.9% for letrozole versus 82.9% for anastrozole arm (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.07; P = .3150). Exploratory analysis showed similar DFS with letrozole and anastrozole in all evaluated subgroups. The 5-year estimated overall survival rate was 89.9% for letrozole versus 89.2% for anastrozole arm (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.17; P = .7916). Most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events (> 5% of patients) reported for letrozole versus anastrozole were arthralgia (3.9% v 3.3%, and 48.2% v 47.9% for all adverse events), hypertension (1.2% v 1.0%), hot flushes (0.8% v 0.4%), myalgia (0.8% v 0.7%), dyspnea (0.8% v 0.5%), and depression (0.8% v 0.6%). Conclusion Letrozole did not demonstrate significantly superior efficacy or safety compared with anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with HR-positive, node-positive eBC.

Purpose: Glycoprotein NMB (gpNMB), a novel transmembrane protein overexpressed in 40% to 60% of breast cancers, promotes metastases in animal models and is a prognostic marker of a poor outcome in patients. The antibody-drug conjugate glembatumumab vedotin consists of a fully human anti-gpNMB monoclonal antibody, conjugated via a cleavable linker to monomethyl auristatin E. Glembatumumab vedotin is generally well tolerated, with observed objective responses in advanced melanoma. This is, to our knowledge, the first study of glembatumumab vedotin in breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had advanced/metastatic breast cancer with at least two prior chemotherapy regimens, including taxane, anthracycline, and capecitabine. A standard 3+3 dose escalation was followed by a phase II expansion. Immunohistochemistry for gpNMB was performed retrospectively for patients with available tumor tissue., Results: Forty-two patients were enrolled. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) consisted of worsening neuropathy at 1.34 mg/kg. After excluding patients with baseline neuropathy more than grade 1, no DLT occurred through 1.88 mg/kg (the phase II dose). The phase II primary activity end point was met (12-week progression-free survival [PFS12] = 9 of 27 patients; 33%). Sixteen of 19 (84%) patients tested had gpNMB-positive tumors. At the phase II dose, median PFS was 9.1 weeks for all patients, 17.9 weeks for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), and 18.0 weeks for patients with gpNMB-positive tumors. Two patients had confirmed partial responses; both had gpNMB-positive tumors and one had TNBC., Conclusion: Glembatumumab vedotin has an acceptable safety profile. Preliminary evidence of activity in treatment-resistant metastatic breast cancer requires confirmation, such as the phase II randomized trial (EMERGE) that also examines the relationship between activity and gpNMB distribution/intensity., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: To determine overall response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), and duration of response (DOR) with twice-weekly/weekly bortezomib plus rituximab, and evaluate safety/tolerability, in patients with relapsed or refractory CD20(+) follicular lymphoma (FL) or marginal-zone lymphoma., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned (minimization method) to bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) twice weekly (days 1, 4, 8, and 11; 21-day cycle, five cycles; arm A) or bortezomib 1.6 mg/m(2) weekly (days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 35-day cycle, three cycles; arm B) plus rituximab 375 mg/m(2) weekly for 4 weeks (both arms). Response/progression was determined by International Workshop Response Criteria using oncologist/radiologist-adjudicated data from independent radiology review and investigator assessment., Results: Eighty-one patients (arm A, n = 41; arm B, n = 40) were enrolled. Dose-intensity was higher in arm A; mean total bortezomib received was similar between arms (18.5 and 17.1 mg/m(2)). In arm A, ORR was 49% (14% complete response [CR]/CR unconfirmed [CRu]), median TTP was 7.0 months, and median DOR was not reached. In arm B, ORR was 43% (10% CR/CRu), and median TTP/DOR were 10.0/9.3 months. The weekly combination regimen seemed better tolerated. Grade 3 or worse adverse events seemed more common in arm A (54%) versus arm B (35%), including thrombocytopenia (10% v 0%) and peripheral neuropathy (10% v 5%), but diarrhea seemed less frequent (7% v 15%). No grade 4 toxicities were reported in arm B., Conclusion: Both bortezomib plus rituximab regimens seem feasible in relapsed or refractory indolent lymphomas. The more convenient weekly combination regimen is being compared with single-agent rituximab in an ongoing phase III study in relapsed FL.

Purpose: Bevacizumab, a humanized anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody, and erlotinib, a reversible, orally available epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, have demonstrated evidence of a survival benefit in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A single-arm phase I and II study of bevacizumab plus erlotinib demonstrated encouraging efficacy, with a favorable safety profile., Patients and Methods: A multicenter, randomized phase II trial evaluated the safety of combining bevacizumab with either chemotherapy (docetaxel or pemetrexed) or erlotinib and preliminarily assessed these combinations versus chemotherapy alone, as measured by progression-free survival (PFS). All patients had histologically confirmed nonsquamous NSCLC that had progressed during or after one platinum-based regimen., Results: One hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned and treated. No unexpected adverse events were noted. Fewer patients (13%) in the bevacizumab-erlotinib arm discontinued treatment as a result of adverse events than in the chemotherapy alone (24%) or bevacizumab-chemotherapy (28%) arms. The incidence of grade 5 hemorrhage in patients receiving bevacizumab was 5.1%. Although not statistically significant, relative to chemotherapy alone, the risk of disease progression or death was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.38 to 1.16) among patients treated with bevacizumab-chemotherapy and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.23) among patients treated with bevacizumab-erlotinib. One-year survival rate was 57.4% for bevacizumab-erlotinib and 53.8% for bevacizumab-chemotherapy compared with 33.1% for chemotherapy alone., Conclusion: Results for PFS and overall survival favor combination of bevacizumab with either chemotherapy or erlotinib over chemotherapy alone in the second-line setting. No unexpected safety signals were noted. The rate of fatal pulmonary hemorrhage was consistent with previous bevacizumab trials. The toxicity profile of the bevacizumab-erlotinib combination is favorable compared with either chemotherapy-containing group.