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.Sacituzumab govitecan (SG), a first-in-class anti-trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2) antibody-drug conjugate, demonstrated superior efficacy over single-agent chemotherapy (treatment of physicians choice [TPC]) in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) in the international, multicenter, phase III ASCENT study.Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive SG or TPC until unacceptable toxicity/progression. Final efficacy secondary end point analyses and post hoc analyses of outcomes stratified by Trop-2 expression and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status are reported. Updated safety analyses are provided.In this final analysis, SG (n = 267) improved median progression-free survival (PFS; 4.8 v 1.7 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.41 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.52]) and median overall survival (OS; 11.8 v 6.9 months; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.63]) over TPC (n = 262). SG improved PFS over TPC in each Trop-2 expression quartile (n = 168); a trend was observed for improved OS across quartiles. Overall, SG had a manageable safety profile, with ≤5% of treatment-related discontinuations because of adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. The safety profile was consistent across all subgroups.These data confirm the clinical benefit of SG over chemotherapy, reinforcing SG as an effective treatment option in patients with mTNBC in the second line or later.

PurposeNeratinib plus capecitabine (N+C) demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in NALA (NCT01808573), a randomized phase III trial comparing N+C with lapatinib + capecitabine (L+C) in 621 patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had received ≥2 prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting. We evaluated correlations between exploratory biomarkers and PFS.Patients and methodsSomatic mutations were evaluated by next-generation sequencing on primary or metastatic samples. HER2 protein expression was evaluated by central IHC, H-score, and VeraTag/HERmark. p95 expression (truncated HER2) was measured by VeraTag. HRs were estimated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsFour hundred and twenty samples had successful sequencing: 34.0% had PIK3CA mutations and 5.5% had HER2 (ERBB2) mutations. In the combined patient populations, PIK3CA mutations trended toward shorter PFS [wild-type vs. mutant, HR = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-1.03], whereas HER2 mutations trended toward longer PFS [HR = 1.69 (95% CI, 0.97-3.29)]. Higher HER2 protein expression was associated with longer PFS [IHC 3+ vs. 2+, HR = 0.67 (0.54-0.82); H-score ≥240 versus

BackgroundNeratinib 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 methodsNALA 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionThese analyses suggest improved PFS and CNS outcomes with N + C versus L + C in patients with CNS metastases from HER2-positive MBC.Implications for practiceIn 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.

PurposeTo 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsOf 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]).ConclusionIn 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.

PurposeNALA (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.MethodsPatients, 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).ResultsA 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.ConclusionN+C significantly improved PFS and time to intervention for CNS disease versus L+C. No new N+C safety signals were observed.

PurposeIn the HER2CLIMB study, patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer with brain metastases (BMs) showed statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with tucatinib. We describe exploratory analyses of intracranial efficacy and survival in participants with BMs.Patients and methodsPatients were randomly assigned 2:1 to tucatinib or placebo, in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine. All patients underwent baseline brain magnetic resonance imaging; those with BMs were classified as active or stable. Efficacy analyses were performed by applying RECIST 1.1 criteria to CNS target lesions by investigator assessment. CNS-PFS (intracranial progression or death) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in all patients with BMs. Confirmed intracranial objective response rate (ORR-IC) was evaluated in patients with measurable intracranial disease.ResultsThere were 291 patients with BMs: 198 (48%) in the tucatinib arm and 93 (46%) in the control arm. The risk of intracranial progression or death was reduced by 68% in the tucatinib arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.48; P < .0001). Median CNS-PFS was 9.9 months in the tucatinib arm versus 4.2 months in the control arm. Risk of death was reduced by 42% in the tucatinib arm (OS HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.85; P = .005). Median OS was 18.1 versus 12.0 months. ORR-IC was higher in the tucatinib arm (47.3%; 95% CI, 33.7% to 61.2%) versus the control arm (20.0%; 95% CI, 5.7% to 43.7%; P = .03).ConclusionIn patients with HER2-positive breast cancer with BMs, the addition of tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine doubled ORR-IC, reduced risk of intracranial progression or death by two thirds, and reduced risk of death by nearly half. To our knowledge, this is the first regimen to demonstrate improved antitumor activity against BMs in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer in a randomized, controlled trial.

What is this summary about? This is a summary of the article discussing the results of the CAPItello-291 study. In the study, participants had advanced breast cancer that could not be completely removed with surgery, and that was diagnosed as a type of breast cancer where tumor cells had hormone receptors (HR-positive) but did not have HER2 receptors (HER2-negative). All participants were also required to have previously received treatment with a type of therapy called an aromatase inhibitor (with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor), but over time their cancer cells had still grown or spread. The CAPItello-291 study researchers wanted to find out if a treatment combination of the medications capivasertib plus fulvestrant worked better than placebo plus fulvestrant. Capivasertib is a drug that blocks the activity of a protein called AKT, which is found inside breast cancer cells. What are the key takeaways? The main finding was that participants who took capivasertib plus fulvestrant lived longer without their disease getting worse (progressing) compared with those treated with placebo plus fulvestrant. This is called progression-free survival. This result was seen across all participants (median progression-free survival of 7.2 months with capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs 3.6 months with placebo plus fulvestrant). It was also seen in participants whose tumors had detectable genetic alterations in genes called PIK3CA, AKT1, and/ or PTEN (median progression-free survival of 7.3 months with capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs 3.1 months with placebo plus fulvestrant). The most common side effects experienced by participants included diarrhea and different types of rash. These were as expected (given how capivasertib works). The CAPItello-291 study is still ongoing, and more results are expected to be released in the future. What were the main conclusions reported by the researchers? Results from the CAPItello-291 study showed that capivasertib plus fulvestrant compared with placebo plus fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in participants with HR-positive/ HER2-negative advanced breast cancer whose cancer had grown or spread despite hormone therapy (with/without a CDK4/6 inhibitor). Clinical Trial Registration:NCT04305496 (CAPItello-291) (ClinicalTrials.gov) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThe oral AKT inhibitor ipatasertib is being investigated in cancers with a high prevalence of PI3K/AKT pathway activation, including triple-negative breast cancer. The LOTUS trial investigated the addition of ipatasertib to paclitaxel as first-line therapy for triple-negative breast cancer.MethodsIn this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial, women aged 18 years or older with measurable, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer previously untreated with systemic therapy were recruited from 44 hospitals in South Korea, the USA, France, Spain, Taiwan, Singapore, Italy, and Belgium. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15) with either ipatasertib 400 mg or placebo once per day (days 1-21) every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was by stratified permuted blocks (block size of four) using an interactive web-response system with three stratification criteria: previous (neo)adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy-free interval, and tumour PTEN status. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population and progression-free survival in the PTEN-low (by immunohistochemistry) population. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02162719).FindingsBetween Sept 2, 2014, and Feb 4, 2016, 166 patients were assessed for eligibility and 124 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to paclitaxel plus ipatasertib (n=62) or paclitaxel plus placebo (n=62). Median follow-up was 10·4 months (IQR 6·5-14·1) in the ipatasertib group and 10·2 months (6·0-13·6) in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 6·2 months (95% CI 3·8-9·0) with ipatasertib versus 4·9 months (3·6-5·4) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·60, 95% CI 0·37-0·98; p=0·037) and in the 48 patients with PTEN-low tumours, median progression-free survival was 6·2 months (95% CI 3·6-9·1) with ipatasertib versus 3·7 months (1·9-7·3) with placebo (stratified HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·26-1·32, p=0·18). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were diarrhoea (14 [23%] of 61 ipatasertib-treated patients vs none of 62 placebo-treated patients), neutrophil count decreased (five [8%] vs four [6%]), and neutropenia (six [10%] vs one [2%]). No colitis, grade 4 diarrhoea, or treatment-related deaths were reported with ipatasertib. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 17 (28%) of 61 patients in the ipatasertib group and nine (15%) of 62 patients in the placebo group.InterpretationProgression-free survival was longer in patients who received ipatasertib than in those who received placebo. To our knowledge, these are the first results supporting AKT-targeted therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. Ipatasertib warrants further investigation for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer.FundingF Hoffmann-La Roche.

Copyright of Revista de Biologia Marina y Oceanografía (RBMO) is the property of Universidad de Valparaiso, Facultad de Ciencias del Mar and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: Background: There are few data on corticosteroids (CS)‐sparing strategies for checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)‐induced liver injury (ChILI). Aim: We aimed to assess the performance of a 2‐step algorithm for severe ChILI, based on ICI temporary discontinuation (step‐1) and, if lack of biochemical improvement, CS based on the degree of necroinflammation at biopsy (step‐2). Methods: Prospective study that included all subjects with grade 3/4 ChILI. Peripheral extended immunophenotyping was performed. Indication for CS: severe necroinflammation; mild or moderate necroinflammation with later biochemical worsening. Results: From 111 subjects with increased transaminases (January 2020 to August 2023), 44 were diagnosed with grade 3 (N = 35) or grade 4 (N = 9) ChILI. Main reason for exclusion was alternative diagnosis. Lung cancer (13) and melanoma (12) were the most common malignancies. ICI: 23(52.3%) anti‐PD1, 8(18.2%) anti‐PD‐L1, 3(6.8%) anti‐CTLA‐4, 10(22.7%) combined ICI. Liver injury pattern: hepatocellular (23,52.3%) mixed (12,27.3%) and cholestatic (9,20.5%). 14(32%) presented bilirubin >1.2 mg/dL. Overall, 30(68.2%) patients did not require CS: 22(50.0%) due to ICI discontinuation (step‐1) and 8/22 (36.4%) based on the degree of necroinflammation (step‐2). Biopsy mainly impacted on grade 3 ChILI, sparing CS in 8 out of 15 (53.3%) non‐improvement patients after ICI discontinuation. CD8+ HLA‐DR expression (p = 0.028), central memory (p = 0.046) were lower in CS‐free managed subjects, but effector‐memory cells (p = 0.002) were higher. Time to transaminases normalisation was shorter in those CS‐free managed (overall: p < 0.001, grade 3: p < 0.001). Considering our results, a strategy based on ICI discontinuation and biopsy for grade 3 ChILI is proposed. Conclusions: An algorithm based on temporary immunotherapy discontinuation and biopsy allows CS avoidance in two thirds of cases of severe ChILI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]