Breast Cancer ICYMI

MUNICH – Men with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have a similar prognosis, compared with women, but gonadal suppression remains a topic of debate, according to recent trials and conference proceedings.

Male breast cancer is a rare, little-studied disease that was highlighted at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“This is a truly magnificent effort made by these authors,” said invited discussant Carolien Schroeder, MD, PhD, of the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, noting the challenges inherent to studies of niche cancer populations.

Previous studies have shown that men with MBC are usually hormone receptor positive (HR+) and older than women with MBC. Male patients also tend to present with more severe disease.

“[Male breast cancer patients] usually present with higher stages of disease; larger tumors, more nodal involvement, and more metastatic disease,” Dr. Schroeder said. “And 4%-16% may have genetic predisposition, usually due to a BRCA2 mutation.”

One retrospective study used data from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics Metastatic Breast Cancer (ESME MBC) platform to further knowledge of male patient characteristics, treatment types, and disease outcomes. ESME is a national database that stores patient information from 18 cancer centers in France.

“We have reported on one of the biggest series of men with metastatic disease, with comprehensive data on their management and outcome with different types of treatment,” said principal investigator Jean-Sébastien Frénel, MD, of the Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest in Nantes, France, in an interview.

The ESME study evaluated 16,701 patients with MBC: 16,552 women (99.11%) and 149 men (0.89%). Patients received at least one treatment between January 2008 and December 2014.

On average, male patients were older than females (mean: 68.1 years vs. 60.6 years), which lines up with existing data; in contrast, 78.4% of men were HR+, which is slightly lower than the widely described figure of 90%. Almost half of the HR+/human epidermal growth factor 2– (HER2–) male patients were given a frontline hormonal therapy (43%); of those, 44% received tamoxifen, 40% received an aromatase inhibitor (with or without a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog [GnRH]), and 16% received other therapies. Outcomes were relatively similar between men and women: median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.8 months for men, compared with 13.0 months for women. About one-quarter of HR+/HER2– men (27.6%) received frontline chemotherapy, resulting in a PFS of 6.9 months compared with 6.3 months for matched women. Overall survival was also slightly longer for men than matched women (41.8 months vs 34.9 months). In general, these statistics show that men and women received similar treatments and had similar outcomes.

“Most of the patients receiving hormonal therapy were treated with tamoxifen and the remainder received aromatase inhibitors,” Dr. Frénel said. “But few patients received aromatase inhibitors plus [GnRH] analogs despite some guidelines recommending that they should be given in combination.”

GnRH for men remains a topic of debate. Although aromatase inhibitors should be given with GnRH to avoid a negative feedback loop, gonadal suppression causes erectile dysfunction, thereby decreasing well-being. This dilemma is made worse by a lack of data on hormonal therapy for men with breast cancer.

To address this shortcoming, a prospective, randomized trial compared three different hormonal regimens for men. Male-GBG54 involved 55 men with breast cancer. For 6 months, patients received 1 of 3 treatment regimens: tamoxifen (20 mg/day), tamoxifen + GnRH (subcutaneous every 3 months), or exemestane (25 mg daily) + GnRH. Median estradiol levels were measured at 3 months and 6 months, and wellbeing was measured using questionnaires.

As expected, the results showed increased estradiol levels in the tamoxifen group and decreased levels in the GnRH group. Men were generally dissatisfied with GnRH therapy because of the erectile dysfunction it caused.

“Tamoxifen monotherapy should be kept as standard hormonal therapy for men with breast cancer. The side effects are moderate, hardly impairing sexual behavior. The combination with GnRH influenced patients’ well-being and erectile function profoundly,” lead author Mattea Reinisch, MD, of Klinikum Essen-Mitte (Germany), said in an interview.

Dr. Schroeder agreed that tamoxifen should remain the standard treatment but suggested that the benefits of gonadal suppression may outweigh the downsides. “We need efficacy data for gonadal suppression,” she said. “After all, we are advising our premenopausal breast cancer patients to undergo the gonadal suppression therapy on a daily basis because of the oncological superiority, despite the toxicity they are also experiencing.”

Dr. Schroeder again called for efficacy data and described shortcomings of Male-GBG54: “[Dr. Reinisch and her colleagues] have chosen a biological surrogate endpoint, but what we’d really like, of course, [are] the efficacy data. The quality of life data are not breast-cancer specific, and these are only data for 6 months, whereas, particularly in the metastatic setting, the compliance issue after 6 months is also relevant.”

Reflecting on the data from ESME and Male-GBG54, Dr. Schroeder said, “I think this field is maturing, and intervention trials have proven themselves to be possible in this niche population.”

Looking to the future, Dr. Schroeder suggested that male breast cancer can be studied either in separate trials from women (focusing on sex-specific targets), or in shared studies, as many disease characteristics are the same regardless of sex. She also said that worse disease in men is likely due to delayed presentation rather than biological differences between men and women.

“This leaves room for improvement,” Dr. Schroeder said. “We still need to work on the awareness of this disease.”

Discussant Dr. Schroeder disclosed financial relationships with Novartis, Roche, Genentech, and others. Male-GBG54 was funded by Claudia von Schilling Foundation.
 

SOURCES: Sirieix J et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract 294PD; Reinisch et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract 273PD.

MUNICH – Men with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have a similar prognosis, compared with women, but gonadal suppression remains a topic of debate, according to recent trials and conference proceedings.

Male breast cancer is a rare, little-studied disease that was highlighted at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“This is a truly magnificent effort made by these authors,” said invited discussant Carolien Schroeder, MD, PhD, of the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, noting the challenges inherent to studies of niche cancer populations.

Previous studies have shown that men with MBC are usually hormone receptor positive (HR+) and older than women with MBC. Male patients also tend to present with more severe disease.

“[Male breast cancer patients] usually present with higher stages of disease; larger tumors, more nodal involvement, and more metastatic disease,” Dr. Schroeder said. “And 4%-16% may have genetic predisposition, usually due to a BRCA2 mutation.”

One retrospective study used data from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics Metastatic Breast Cancer (ESME MBC) platform to further knowledge of male patient characteristics, treatment types, and disease outcomes. ESME is a national database that stores patient information from 18 cancer centers in France.

“We have reported on one of the biggest series of men with metastatic disease, with comprehensive data on their management and outcome with different types of treatment,” said principal investigator Jean-Sébastien Frénel, MD, of the Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest in Nantes, France, in an interview.

The ESME study evaluated 16,701 patients with MBC: 16,552 women (99.11%) and 149 men (0.89%). Patients received at least one treatment between January 2008 and December 2014.

On average, male patients were older than females (mean: 68.1 years vs. 60.6 years), which lines up with existing data; in contrast, 78.4% of men were HR+, which is slightly lower than the widely described figure of 90%. Almost half of the HR+/human epidermal growth factor 2– (HER2–) male patients were given a frontline hormonal therapy (43%); of those, 44% received tamoxifen, 40% received an aromatase inhibitor (with or without a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog [GnRH]), and 16% received other therapies. Outcomes were relatively similar between men and women: median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.8 months for men, compared with 13.0 months for women. About one-quarter of HR+/HER2– men (27.6%) received frontline chemotherapy, resulting in a PFS of 6.9 months compared with 6.3 months for matched women. Overall survival was also slightly longer for men than matched women (41.8 months vs 34.9 months). In general, these statistics show that men and women received similar treatments and had similar outcomes.

“Most of the patients receiving hormonal therapy were treated with tamoxifen and the remainder received aromatase inhibitors,” Dr. Frénel said. “But few patients received aromatase inhibitors plus [GnRH] analogs despite some guidelines recommending that they should be given in combination.”

GnRH for men remains a topic of debate. Although aromatase inhibitors should be given with GnRH to avoid a negative feedback loop, gonadal suppression causes erectile dysfunction, thereby decreasing well-being. This dilemma is made worse by a lack of data on hormonal therapy for men with breast cancer.

To address this shortcoming, a prospective, randomized trial compared three different hormonal regimens for men. Male-GBG54 involved 55 men with breast cancer. For 6 months, patients received 1 of 3 treatment regimens: tamoxifen (20 mg/day), tamoxifen + GnRH (subcutaneous every 3 months), or exemestane (25 mg daily) + GnRH. Median estradiol levels were measured at 3 months and 6 months, and wellbeing was measured using questionnaires.

As expected, the results showed increased estradiol levels in the tamoxifen group and decreased levels in the GnRH group. Men were generally dissatisfied with GnRH therapy because of the erectile dysfunction it caused.

“Tamoxifen monotherapy should be kept as standard hormonal therapy for men with breast cancer. The side effects are moderate, hardly impairing sexual behavior. The combination with GnRH influenced patients’ well-being and erectile function profoundly,” lead author Mattea Reinisch, MD, of Klinikum Essen-Mitte (Germany), said in an interview.

Dr. Schroeder agreed that tamoxifen should remain the standard treatment but suggested that the benefits of gonadal suppression may outweigh the downsides. “We need efficacy data for gonadal suppression,” she said. “After all, we are advising our premenopausal breast cancer patients to undergo the gonadal suppression therapy on a daily basis because of the oncological superiority, despite the toxicity they are also experiencing.”

Dr. Schroeder again called for efficacy data and described shortcomings of Male-GBG54: “[Dr. Reinisch and her colleagues] have chosen a biological surrogate endpoint, but what we’d really like, of course, [are] the efficacy data. The quality of life data are not breast-cancer specific, and these are only data for 6 months, whereas, particularly in the metastatic setting, the compliance issue after 6 months is also relevant.”

Reflecting on the data from ESME and Male-GBG54, Dr. Schroeder said, “I think this field is maturing, and intervention trials have proven themselves to be possible in this niche population.”

Looking to the future, Dr. Schroeder suggested that male breast cancer can be studied either in separate trials from women (focusing on sex-specific targets), or in shared studies, as many disease characteristics are the same regardless of sex. She also said that worse disease in men is likely due to delayed presentation rather than biological differences between men and women.

“This leaves room for improvement,” Dr. Schroeder said. “We still need to work on the awareness of this disease.”

Discussant Dr. Schroeder disclosed financial relationships with Novartis, Roche, Genentech, and others. Male-GBG54 was funded by Claudia von Schilling Foundation.
 

SOURCES: Sirieix J et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract 294PD; Reinisch et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract 273PD.

MUNICH – Men with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have a similar prognosis, compared with women, but gonadal suppression remains a topic of debate, according to recent trials and conference proceedings.

Male breast cancer is a rare, little-studied disease that was highlighted at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“This is a truly magnificent effort made by these authors,” said invited discussant Carolien Schroeder, MD, PhD, of the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, noting the challenges inherent to studies of niche cancer populations.

Previous studies have shown that men with MBC are usually hormone receptor positive (HR+) and older than women with MBC. Male patients also tend to present with more severe disease.

“[Male breast cancer patients] usually present with higher stages of disease; larger tumors, more nodal involvement, and more metastatic disease,” Dr. Schroeder said. “And 4%-16% may have genetic predisposition, usually due to a BRCA2 mutation.”

One retrospective study used data from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics Metastatic Breast Cancer (ESME MBC) platform to further knowledge of male patient characteristics, treatment types, and disease outcomes. ESME is a national database that stores patient information from 18 cancer centers in France.

“We have reported on one of the biggest series of men with metastatic disease, with comprehensive data on their management and outcome with different types of treatment,” said principal investigator Jean-Sébastien Frénel, MD, of the Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest in Nantes, France, in an interview.

The ESME study evaluated 16,701 patients with MBC: 16,552 women (99.11%) and 149 men (0.89%). Patients received at least one treatment between January 2008 and December 2014.

On average, male patients were older than females (mean: 68.1 years vs. 60.6 years), which lines up with existing data; in contrast, 78.4% of men were HR+, which is slightly lower than the widely described figure of 90%. Almost half of the HR+/human epidermal growth factor 2– (HER2–) male patients were given a frontline hormonal therapy (43%); of those, 44% received tamoxifen, 40% received an aromatase inhibitor (with or without a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog [GnRH]), and 16% received other therapies. Outcomes were relatively similar between men and women: median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.8 months for men, compared with 13.0 months for women. About one-quarter of HR+/HER2– men (27.6%) received frontline chemotherapy, resulting in a PFS of 6.9 months compared with 6.3 months for matched women. Overall survival was also slightly longer for men than matched women (41.8 months vs 34.9 months). In general, these statistics show that men and women received similar treatments and had similar outcomes.

“Most of the patients receiving hormonal therapy were treated with tamoxifen and the remainder received aromatase inhibitors,” Dr. Frénel said. “But few patients received aromatase inhibitors plus [GnRH] analogs despite some guidelines recommending that they should be given in combination.”

GnRH for men remains a topic of debate. Although aromatase inhibitors should be given with GnRH to avoid a negative feedback loop, gonadal suppression causes erectile dysfunction, thereby decreasing well-being. This dilemma is made worse by a lack of data on hormonal therapy for men with breast cancer.

To address this shortcoming, a prospective, randomized trial compared three different hormonal regimens for men. Male-GBG54 involved 55 men with breast cancer. For 6 months, patients received 1 of 3 treatment regimens: tamoxifen (20 mg/day), tamoxifen + GnRH (subcutaneous every 3 months), or exemestane (25 mg daily) + GnRH. Median estradiol levels were measured at 3 months and 6 months, and wellbeing was measured using questionnaires.

As expected, the results showed increased estradiol levels in the tamoxifen group and decreased levels in the GnRH group. Men were generally dissatisfied with GnRH therapy because of the erectile dysfunction it caused.

“Tamoxifen monotherapy should be kept as standard hormonal therapy for men with breast cancer. The side effects are moderate, hardly impairing sexual behavior. The combination with GnRH influenced patients’ well-being and erectile function profoundly,” lead author Mattea Reinisch, MD, of Klinikum Essen-Mitte (Germany), said in an interview.

Dr. Schroeder agreed that tamoxifen should remain the standard treatment but suggested that the benefits of gonadal suppression may outweigh the downsides. “We need efficacy data for gonadal suppression,” she said. “After all, we are advising our premenopausal breast cancer patients to undergo the gonadal suppression therapy on a daily basis because of the oncological superiority, despite the toxicity they are also experiencing.”

Dr. Schroeder again called for efficacy data and described shortcomings of Male-GBG54: “[Dr. Reinisch and her colleagues] have chosen a biological surrogate endpoint, but what we’d really like, of course, [are] the efficacy data. The quality of life data are not breast-cancer specific, and these are only data for 6 months, whereas, particularly in the metastatic setting, the compliance issue after 6 months is also relevant.”

Reflecting on the data from ESME and Male-GBG54, Dr. Schroeder said, “I think this field is maturing, and intervention trials have proven themselves to be possible in this niche population.”

Looking to the future, Dr. Schroeder suggested that male breast cancer can be studied either in separate trials from women (focusing on sex-specific targets), or in shared studies, as many disease characteristics are the same regardless of sex. She also said that worse disease in men is likely due to delayed presentation rather than biological differences between men and women.

“This leaves room for improvement,” Dr. Schroeder said. “We still need to work on the awareness of this disease.”

Discussant Dr. Schroeder disclosed financial relationships with Novartis, Roche, Genentech, and others. Male-GBG54 was funded by Claudia von Schilling Foundation.
 

SOURCES: Sirieix J et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract 294PD; Reinisch et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract 273PD.

MUNICH – A combination of the selective phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor alpelisib and fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with significantly better progression-free survival than placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with PIK3CA mutations, investigators in the SOLAR-1 trial reported.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The addition of alpelisib, an inhibitor of the alpha isoform of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), to fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor modifier, was associated with a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), reported Fabrice André, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

“Alpelisib plus fulvestrant is a potential new treatment option for patients with PIK3CA-mutant, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who have progressed on prior endocrine therapy, with or without a CDK 4/6 [cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6] inhibitor,” he said in a podium presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Unlike other PI3K inhibitors which have activity spanning the alpha, beta, gamma, and delta isoforms of PI3K, alpelisib is specific for only the alpha isoform, giving it a safety profile that compares favorably with other agents in its class, Dr. André said.

Results of other studies combining PI3K inhibition with endocrine therapy have not borne especially sweet fruit. For example, the SANDPIPER trial, a study of the combination of fulvestrant and the PI3K inhibitor idelalisib (Zydelig) presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, showed a benefit of 2 months more PFS, compared with fulvestrant alone, but at the cost of serious toxicities in half of all patients treated with the combination.

In the SOLAR-1 trial, investigators randomized 572 postmenopausal women, or men (sex of patients not shown), with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Of the 572 patients, 341 were determined to have PIK3CA mutations.

To be eligible for the study, patients had to have good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (1 or less) and have received one or more prior lines of endocrine therapy but no chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

Patients who had previously received fulvestrant, any PI3K inhibitor, Akt inhibitor, or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were excluded.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1 and 15 of treatment cycle 1 and then every 28 days, plus either oral alpelisib (300 mg daily) or placebo.

Locally assessed PFS in patients with PIK3CA mutations, the primary endpoint, favored alpelisib. At a median follow-up of 20 months, the median PFS with alpelisib was 11 months, versus 5.7 months for placebo. The hazard ratio for progression with alpelisib was 0.65 (P = .00065).

A blinded independent review committee assessment of 50% of patients in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort supported the investigator-assessed findings, with a median PFS of 11.1 months with alpelisib, versus 3.7 months with placebo.

In contrast, a proof-of-concept analysis of the 231 patients without PIK3CA mutations could not show a benefit for alpelisib over placebo.

In the PIK3CA-mutant cohort, the overall response rates among patients with measurable disease were 35.7% with alpelisib versus 16.2% with placebo (P = .0002). Respective response rates among all patients were 26.6% and 12.8% (P = .0006).

Adverse events in the entire trial population included hyperglycemia leading to discontinuation of alpelisib in 6.3% of patients and rash leading to discontinuation of the drug in 3.2% of patients. There were no discontinuations for either hyperglycemia or rash in the placebo arm.

The hyperglycemia can be managed with metformin, Dr. André said.

At a briefing prior to presentation of the SOLAR-1 data in a symposium, briefing discussant Nadia Harbeck, MD, of the University of Munich Medical Center said that the trial represents a significant advance.

“We have numerous talks, also phase 3 trials, with PI3-kinase inhibitors where we saw marginal benefit, and the drugs weren’t usable in clinical practice because the tolerability was so bad. So this is now the first phase 3 data proving that if you have a targeted drug and the tumor has the target, you can actually almost double progression-free survival, and I think this will change the way we practice,” she said.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Rebecca Dent, MD, a senior consultant at the National Cancer Centre Singapore, the invited discussant at the symposium, complimented the SOLAR-1 investigators for conducting a “clinically homogeneous, biomarker-driven clinical trial reflecting new pathways to registration.”

She suggested that the significant clinical toxicities seen with PI3K inhibitors might be ameliorated with different dosing schedules, pharmacodynamic endpoints such as hyperglycemia, or potential prophylaxis.

The trial demonstrated a clinically meaningful absolute PFS benefit, the best in class, but updated data, including overall survival data, are still needed, Dr. Dent said. “We also need to see the quality-of-life data; this is what’s important for our patients. Is this improving progression-free survival, is it improving quality of life, and is it improving overall survival? Only the future will tell.”

SOLAR-1 was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. André disclosed research grants from Novartis and others. Dr. Dent disclosed advisory board, honoraria, or travel support from Novartis and others. Dr. Harbeck disclosed honoraria for consulting and lecturing for Pfizer and others.

SOURCE: Andre F et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract LBA3_PR.

MUNICH – A combination of the selective phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor alpelisib and fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with significantly better progression-free survival than placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with PIK3CA mutations, investigators in the SOLAR-1 trial reported.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The addition of alpelisib, an inhibitor of the alpha isoform of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), to fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor modifier, was associated with a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), reported Fabrice André, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

“Alpelisib plus fulvestrant is a potential new treatment option for patients with PIK3CA-mutant, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who have progressed on prior endocrine therapy, with or without a CDK 4/6 [cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6] inhibitor,” he said in a podium presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Unlike other PI3K inhibitors which have activity spanning the alpha, beta, gamma, and delta isoforms of PI3K, alpelisib is specific for only the alpha isoform, giving it a safety profile that compares favorably with other agents in its class, Dr. André said.

Results of other studies combining PI3K inhibition with endocrine therapy have not borne especially sweet fruit. For example, the SANDPIPER trial, a study of the combination of fulvestrant and the PI3K inhibitor idelalisib (Zydelig) presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, showed a benefit of 2 months more PFS, compared with fulvestrant alone, but at the cost of serious toxicities in half of all patients treated with the combination.

In the SOLAR-1 trial, investigators randomized 572 postmenopausal women, or men (sex of patients not shown), with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Of the 572 patients, 341 were determined to have PIK3CA mutations.

To be eligible for the study, patients had to have good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (1 or less) and have received one or more prior lines of endocrine therapy but no chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

Patients who had previously received fulvestrant, any PI3K inhibitor, Akt inhibitor, or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were excluded.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1 and 15 of treatment cycle 1 and then every 28 days, plus either oral alpelisib (300 mg daily) or placebo.

Locally assessed PFS in patients with PIK3CA mutations, the primary endpoint, favored alpelisib. At a median follow-up of 20 months, the median PFS with alpelisib was 11 months, versus 5.7 months for placebo. The hazard ratio for progression with alpelisib was 0.65 (P = .00065).

A blinded independent review committee assessment of 50% of patients in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort supported the investigator-assessed findings, with a median PFS of 11.1 months with alpelisib, versus 3.7 months with placebo.

In contrast, a proof-of-concept analysis of the 231 patients without PIK3CA mutations could not show a benefit for alpelisib over placebo.

In the PIK3CA-mutant cohort, the overall response rates among patients with measurable disease were 35.7% with alpelisib versus 16.2% with placebo (P = .0002). Respective response rates among all patients were 26.6% and 12.8% (P = .0006).

Adverse events in the entire trial population included hyperglycemia leading to discontinuation of alpelisib in 6.3% of patients and rash leading to discontinuation of the drug in 3.2% of patients. There were no discontinuations for either hyperglycemia or rash in the placebo arm.

The hyperglycemia can be managed with metformin, Dr. André said.

At a briefing prior to presentation of the SOLAR-1 data in a symposium, briefing discussant Nadia Harbeck, MD, of the University of Munich Medical Center said that the trial represents a significant advance.

“We have numerous talks, also phase 3 trials, with PI3-kinase inhibitors where we saw marginal benefit, and the drugs weren’t usable in clinical practice because the tolerability was so bad. So this is now the first phase 3 data proving that if you have a targeted drug and the tumor has the target, you can actually almost double progression-free survival, and I think this will change the way we practice,” she said.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Rebecca Dent, MD, a senior consultant at the National Cancer Centre Singapore, the invited discussant at the symposium, complimented the SOLAR-1 investigators for conducting a “clinically homogeneous, biomarker-driven clinical trial reflecting new pathways to registration.”

She suggested that the significant clinical toxicities seen with PI3K inhibitors might be ameliorated with different dosing schedules, pharmacodynamic endpoints such as hyperglycemia, or potential prophylaxis.

The trial demonstrated a clinically meaningful absolute PFS benefit, the best in class, but updated data, including overall survival data, are still needed, Dr. Dent said. “We also need to see the quality-of-life data; this is what’s important for our patients. Is this improving progression-free survival, is it improving quality of life, and is it improving overall survival? Only the future will tell.”

SOLAR-1 was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. André disclosed research grants from Novartis and others. Dr. Dent disclosed advisory board, honoraria, or travel support from Novartis and others. Dr. Harbeck disclosed honoraria for consulting and lecturing for Pfizer and others.

SOURCE: Andre F et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract LBA3_PR.

MUNICH – A combination of the selective phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor alpelisib and fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with significantly better progression-free survival than placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with PIK3CA mutations, investigators in the SOLAR-1 trial reported.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The addition of alpelisib, an inhibitor of the alpha isoform of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), to fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor modifier, was associated with a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), reported Fabrice André, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

“Alpelisib plus fulvestrant is a potential new treatment option for patients with PIK3CA-mutant, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who have progressed on prior endocrine therapy, with or without a CDK 4/6 [cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6] inhibitor,” he said in a podium presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Unlike other PI3K inhibitors which have activity spanning the alpha, beta, gamma, and delta isoforms of PI3K, alpelisib is specific for only the alpha isoform, giving it a safety profile that compares favorably with other agents in its class, Dr. André said.

Results of other studies combining PI3K inhibition with endocrine therapy have not borne especially sweet fruit. For example, the SANDPIPER trial, a study of the combination of fulvestrant and the PI3K inhibitor idelalisib (Zydelig) presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, showed a benefit of 2 months more PFS, compared with fulvestrant alone, but at the cost of serious toxicities in half of all patients treated with the combination.

In the SOLAR-1 trial, investigators randomized 572 postmenopausal women, or men (sex of patients not shown), with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Of the 572 patients, 341 were determined to have PIK3CA mutations.

To be eligible for the study, patients had to have good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (1 or less) and have received one or more prior lines of endocrine therapy but no chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

Patients who had previously received fulvestrant, any PI3K inhibitor, Akt inhibitor, or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were excluded.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1 and 15 of treatment cycle 1 and then every 28 days, plus either oral alpelisib (300 mg daily) or placebo.

Locally assessed PFS in patients with PIK3CA mutations, the primary endpoint, favored alpelisib. At a median follow-up of 20 months, the median PFS with alpelisib was 11 months, versus 5.7 months for placebo. The hazard ratio for progression with alpelisib was 0.65 (P = .00065).

A blinded independent review committee assessment of 50% of patients in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort supported the investigator-assessed findings, with a median PFS of 11.1 months with alpelisib, versus 3.7 months with placebo.

In contrast, a proof-of-concept analysis of the 231 patients without PIK3CA mutations could not show a benefit for alpelisib over placebo.

In the PIK3CA-mutant cohort, the overall response rates among patients with measurable disease were 35.7% with alpelisib versus 16.2% with placebo (P = .0002). Respective response rates among all patients were 26.6% and 12.8% (P = .0006).

Adverse events in the entire trial population included hyperglycemia leading to discontinuation of alpelisib in 6.3% of patients and rash leading to discontinuation of the drug in 3.2% of patients. There were no discontinuations for either hyperglycemia or rash in the placebo arm.

The hyperglycemia can be managed with metformin, Dr. André said.

At a briefing prior to presentation of the SOLAR-1 data in a symposium, briefing discussant Nadia Harbeck, MD, of the University of Munich Medical Center said that the trial represents a significant advance.

“We have numerous talks, also phase 3 trials, with PI3-kinase inhibitors where we saw marginal benefit, and the drugs weren’t usable in clinical practice because the tolerability was so bad. So this is now the first phase 3 data proving that if you have a targeted drug and the tumor has the target, you can actually almost double progression-free survival, and I think this will change the way we practice,” she said.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Rebecca Dent, MD, a senior consultant at the National Cancer Centre Singapore, the invited discussant at the symposium, complimented the SOLAR-1 investigators for conducting a “clinically homogeneous, biomarker-driven clinical trial reflecting new pathways to registration.”

She suggested that the significant clinical toxicities seen with PI3K inhibitors might be ameliorated with different dosing schedules, pharmacodynamic endpoints such as hyperglycemia, or potential prophylaxis.

The trial demonstrated a clinically meaningful absolute PFS benefit, the best in class, but updated data, including overall survival data, are still needed, Dr. Dent said. “We also need to see the quality-of-life data; this is what’s important for our patients. Is this improving progression-free survival, is it improving quality of life, and is it improving overall survival? Only the future will tell.”

SOLAR-1 was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. André disclosed research grants from Novartis and others. Dr. Dent disclosed advisory board, honoraria, or travel support from Novartis and others. Dr. Harbeck disclosed honoraria for consulting and lecturing for Pfizer and others.

SOURCE: Andre F et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract LBA3_PR.

BERLIN – Retinal thinning related to ganglion loss may be independent of optic neuritis attacks in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders who have anti–aquaporin-4 antibodies.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

These eyes exhibited an annual retinal volume loss of about 0.6 micrometers – 80 times higher than that of normal controls – even though they did not have a history of optic neuritis (ON), Frederike C. Oertel said at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“The most likely explanation for this seems to be a disease-related primary retinopathy due to the high density of astrocytic cells in the retina and the afferent visual system,” said Ms. Oertel, a doctoral student at NeuroCure Clinical Research Center, Berlin.

The study appeared in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry (J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Jun 19. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-318382).

A previous cross-sectional study by her group found retinal thinning and an alteration of foveal shape in anti–aquaporin-4 (anti-AQP4) positive patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) independent of whether they had experienced a clinical attack of optic neuritis (Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2017 May;4[3]:e334). In these patients, the fovea changed shape from a characteristic steeply angled “V” to a broader, flatter “U” shape, she said.

In that 2017 paper, Ms. Oertel and her colleagues theorized that the relationship between the water-channel regulator AQP4 and astrocytes could be the root cause of these microstructural alterations.

“The parafoveal area is characterized by a high density of retinal astrocytic Müller cells, which express AQP4 and may thus serve as retinal targets in NMOSD,” they wrote. “Müller cells regulate the retinal water balance and have a relevant role in neurotransmitter and photopigment recycling, as well as in energy and lipid metabolism. Müller cell dysfunction or degeneration could thus lead to impaired retinal function including changes in water homeostasis. Of interest, both the initial cohort and the confirmatory cohort showed a mild increase of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, which could indicate tissue swelling. These findings are supported by animal studies showing retraction of astrocytic end feet in some and astrocyte death in other cases, suggesting a primary astrocytoma in NMOSD also outside acute lesions.”

The study Ms. Oertel presented at ECTRIMS looked at full retinal thickness using the same imaging tool, optical coherence tomography (OCT). The longitudinal cohort comprised 94 eyes in 51 anti–AQP4-IgG seropositive patients who had NMOSD; 60 of these eyes had experienced an optic neuritis attack and 34 had not. Most of the patients were female; the mean age was 47 years. They were compared against 28 age- and sex-matched healthy controls.


OCT measured combined ganglion cell and inner plexiform layer (GCIP), the peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL), fovea thickness (FT), inner nuclear layer (INL), and total macular volume (TMV).

At baseline, ON eyes already displayed reduced GCIP, FT, and TMV, compared with healthy controls – but so had eyes that had not had ON. Over the follow-up period, eyes without ON continued to show thinning, even in the absence of a clinical attack. Although visual acuity didn’t change over time, the retinas continued to thin, losing an average of 0.6 micrometers each year, a rate 80 times greater than that seen in the control group.

“We saw this significant loss of the ganglion cell layer volume independent of ON, suggesting that retinal neurodegeneration is not dependent on ON in these patients,” Ms. Oertel said.

The results fit well into the group’s prior theory of astrocytic involvement. However, she added, “We still have to think about an alternative theory of drug-induced neuroaxonal damage and retrograde neuroaxonal degeneration.”

The project was supported with grants from the German Ministry for Education and Research. Ms. Oertel had no financial disclosures relevant to the work, but many coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Oertel FC et al. ECTRIMS 2018, Abstract 212.

BERLIN – Retinal thinning related to ganglion loss may be independent of optic neuritis attacks in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders who have anti–aquaporin-4 antibodies.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

These eyes exhibited an annual retinal volume loss of about 0.6 micrometers – 80 times higher than that of normal controls – even though they did not have a history of optic neuritis (ON), Frederike C. Oertel said at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“The most likely explanation for this seems to be a disease-related primary retinopathy due to the high density of astrocytic cells in the retina and the afferent visual system,” said Ms. Oertel, a doctoral student at NeuroCure Clinical Research Center, Berlin.

The study appeared in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry (J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Jun 19. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-318382).

A previous cross-sectional study by her group found retinal thinning and an alteration of foveal shape in anti–aquaporin-4 (anti-AQP4) positive patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) independent of whether they had experienced a clinical attack of optic neuritis (Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2017 May;4[3]:e334). In these patients, the fovea changed shape from a characteristic steeply angled “V” to a broader, flatter “U” shape, she said.

In that 2017 paper, Ms. Oertel and her colleagues theorized that the relationship between the water-channel regulator AQP4 and astrocytes could be the root cause of these microstructural alterations.

“The parafoveal area is characterized by a high density of retinal astrocytic Müller cells, which express AQP4 and may thus serve as retinal targets in NMOSD,” they wrote. “Müller cells regulate the retinal water balance and have a relevant role in neurotransmitter and photopigment recycling, as well as in energy and lipid metabolism. Müller cell dysfunction or degeneration could thus lead to impaired retinal function including changes in water homeostasis. Of interest, both the initial cohort and the confirmatory cohort showed a mild increase of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, which could indicate tissue swelling. These findings are supported by animal studies showing retraction of astrocytic end feet in some and astrocyte death in other cases, suggesting a primary astrocytoma in NMOSD also outside acute lesions.”

The study Ms. Oertel presented at ECTRIMS looked at full retinal thickness using the same imaging tool, optical coherence tomography (OCT). The longitudinal cohort comprised 94 eyes in 51 anti–AQP4-IgG seropositive patients who had NMOSD; 60 of these eyes had experienced an optic neuritis attack and 34 had not. Most of the patients were female; the mean age was 47 years. They were compared against 28 age- and sex-matched healthy controls.


OCT measured combined ganglion cell and inner plexiform layer (GCIP), the peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL), fovea thickness (FT), inner nuclear layer (INL), and total macular volume (TMV).

At baseline, ON eyes already displayed reduced GCIP, FT, and TMV, compared with healthy controls – but so had eyes that had not had ON. Over the follow-up period, eyes without ON continued to show thinning, even in the absence of a clinical attack. Although visual acuity didn’t change over time, the retinas continued to thin, losing an average of 0.6 micrometers each year, a rate 80 times greater than that seen in the control group.

“We saw this significant loss of the ganglion cell layer volume independent of ON, suggesting that retinal neurodegeneration is not dependent on ON in these patients,” Ms. Oertel said.

The results fit well into the group’s prior theory of astrocytic involvement. However, she added, “We still have to think about an alternative theory of drug-induced neuroaxonal damage and retrograde neuroaxonal degeneration.”

The project was supported with grants from the German Ministry for Education and Research. Ms. Oertel had no financial disclosures relevant to the work, but many coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Oertel FC et al. ECTRIMS 2018, Abstract 212.

BERLIN – Retinal thinning related to ganglion loss may be independent of optic neuritis attacks in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders who have anti–aquaporin-4 antibodies.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

These eyes exhibited an annual retinal volume loss of about 0.6 micrometers – 80 times higher than that of normal controls – even though they did not have a history of optic neuritis (ON), Frederike C. Oertel said at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“The most likely explanation for this seems to be a disease-related primary retinopathy due to the high density of astrocytic cells in the retina and the afferent visual system,” said Ms. Oertel, a doctoral student at NeuroCure Clinical Research Center, Berlin.

The study appeared in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry (J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Jun 19. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-318382).

A previous cross-sectional study by her group found retinal thinning and an alteration of foveal shape in anti–aquaporin-4 (anti-AQP4) positive patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) independent of whether they had experienced a clinical attack of optic neuritis (Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2017 May;4[3]:e334). In these patients, the fovea changed shape from a characteristic steeply angled “V” to a broader, flatter “U” shape, she said.

In that 2017 paper, Ms. Oertel and her colleagues theorized that the relationship between the water-channel regulator AQP4 and astrocytes could be the root cause of these microstructural alterations.

“The parafoveal area is characterized by a high density of retinal astrocytic Müller cells, which express AQP4 and may thus serve as retinal targets in NMOSD,” they wrote. “Müller cells regulate the retinal water balance and have a relevant role in neurotransmitter and photopigment recycling, as well as in energy and lipid metabolism. Müller cell dysfunction or degeneration could thus lead to impaired retinal function including changes in water homeostasis. Of interest, both the initial cohort and the confirmatory cohort showed a mild increase of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, which could indicate tissue swelling. These findings are supported by animal studies showing retraction of astrocytic end feet in some and astrocyte death in other cases, suggesting a primary astrocytoma in NMOSD also outside acute lesions.”

The study Ms. Oertel presented at ECTRIMS looked at full retinal thickness using the same imaging tool, optical coherence tomography (OCT). The longitudinal cohort comprised 94 eyes in 51 anti–AQP4-IgG seropositive patients who had NMOSD; 60 of these eyes had experienced an optic neuritis attack and 34 had not. Most of the patients were female; the mean age was 47 years. They were compared against 28 age- and sex-matched healthy controls.


OCT measured combined ganglion cell and inner plexiform layer (GCIP), the peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL), fovea thickness (FT), inner nuclear layer (INL), and total macular volume (TMV).

At baseline, ON eyes already displayed reduced GCIP, FT, and TMV, compared with healthy controls – but so had eyes that had not had ON. Over the follow-up period, eyes without ON continued to show thinning, even in the absence of a clinical attack. Although visual acuity didn’t change over time, the retinas continued to thin, losing an average of 0.6 micrometers each year, a rate 80 times greater than that seen in the control group.

“We saw this significant loss of the ganglion cell layer volume independent of ON, suggesting that retinal neurodegeneration is not dependent on ON in these patients,” Ms. Oertel said.

The results fit well into the group’s prior theory of astrocytic involvement. However, she added, “We still have to think about an alternative theory of drug-induced neuroaxonal damage and retrograde neuroaxonal degeneration.”

The project was supported with grants from the German Ministry for Education and Research. Ms. Oertel had no financial disclosures relevant to the work, but many coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Oertel FC et al. ECTRIMS 2018, Abstract 212.

After a group of community obstetrics and gynecology practices underwent training in hereditary cancer screening, genetic testing rates increased by four times over the immediate preintervention rate and by eight times over the year prior to intervention, according to results of a prospective process intervention study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2018 Oct 5. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002916).

We covered this story before it was published in the journal. Find our conference coverage at the link below.

lfranki@mdedge.com

After a group of community obstetrics and gynecology practices underwent training in hereditary cancer screening, genetic testing rates increased by four times over the immediate preintervention rate and by eight times over the year prior to intervention, according to results of a prospective process intervention study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2018 Oct 5. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002916).

We covered this story before it was published in the journal. Find our conference coverage at the link below.

lfranki@mdedge.com

After a group of community obstetrics and gynecology practices underwent training in hereditary cancer screening, genetic testing rates increased by four times over the immediate preintervention rate and by eight times over the year prior to intervention, according to results of a prospective process intervention study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2018 Oct 5. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002916).

We covered this story before it was published in the journal. Find our conference coverage at the link below.

lfranki@mdedge.com

MUNICH – For patients with HR-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–advanced breast cancer who have progressed after endocrine therapy, a combination of the oral histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor chidamide and exemestane appears safe and more effective than exemestane alone, according to results from the phase 3 ACE trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“This is the first phase 3 trial to demonstrate that an HDAC inhibitor plus endocrine blockade improves progression-free survival, compared to endocrine blockade alone in hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer patients who have progressed after prior endocrine therapy,” said lead author, Zefei Jiang, MD, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

HDAC inhibitors have historically been used for psychiatric and neurologic applications, but interest in their antineoplastic potential has increased over the past decade. Chidamide is approved for T-cell lymphoma in China, but not in the United States, where three other HDAC inhibitors are labeled for T-cell lymphoma, and a fourth is approved for multiple myeloma.

Although no HDAC inhibitors are clinically available for breast cancer, the future may tell a different story. The HDAC inhibitor entinostat received a breakthrough therapy designation by the Food and Drug Administration after the phase 2 ENCORE 301 trial showed clinical benefit (also with exemestane for advanced breast cancer). Ongoing studies are also evaluating the potential for HDAC inhibitors in combination with immunotherapy.

“Histone modulation by HDACs is a very important mechanism for epigenetic regulation,” said Dr. Jiang, of the 307th Hospital of Chinese People’s Liberation Army in Beijing, highlighting associations with breast cancer drug resistance. HDAC inhibition may be able to overcome this obstacle by resensitizing tumors to estrogen modulator therapy.

ACE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 362 patients with HR+/HER2–advanced breast cancer who failed endocrine therapy. Patients had previously received no more than one round of chemotherapy for advanced disease, and no more than four therapies total. The treatment group received either chidamide 30 mg twice weekly with exemestane 25 mg daily (n = 241) or exemestane with placebo (n = 121). Tumor assessments were performed every 8 weeks, and the primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).

The addition of chidamide nearly doubled PFS (7.4 months vs. 3.8 months) and provided a hazard ratio of .75 (P = .0336). Objective response and clinical benefit rates also were increased. At the time of presentation, data were too immature for an overall survival rate.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were hematologic: neutropenia (50.8%), thrombocytopenia (27.5%), and leukopenia (18.8%), all considerably higher than 2.5% for each in the placebo group.

These tolerability issues were expected, however, based on previous chidamide findings.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“Not surprisingly ... 33% of patients had their dose reduced, 50% their dose interrupted, and this is despite the biweekly schedule,” said invited discussant Rebecca Dent, MD, of the National Cancer Centre in Singapore. Despite these issues, Dr. Dent concluded that chidamide otherwise “appears to be quite well tolerated,” and showed meaningful results.

“We now have a second trial demonstrating ... clinical benefit from the addition of HDAC inhibitors to endocrine therapy in [HR+] advanced breast cancer,” Dr. Dent said. “HDAC inhibitors clearly warrant further investigation in earlier settings of [HR+] advanced breast cancer and ... yet to be defined ... subgroups, and obviously we anxiously await the phase 3 results of entinostat.”

In consideration of the future, Dr. Dent suggested that more studies are needed to develop subgroup-targeted therapies and optimize sequencing. “We’ve really underestimated the selective pressure of these treatments and how they impact our subsequent therapies,” she said.

Dr. Dent noted how these factors limit predictive relevance of study findings in clinical practice, in which patients with different treatment histories may have completely different responses to the same agent.

To overcome these obstacles, Dr. Dent encouraged development of biomarker-driven strategies that can identify unique patterns of drug resistance and sensitivity. “This will allow us to ... identify which patients, which drug, and at which time.”

The ACE trial was funded by Chipscreen Biosciences.

SOURCE: Jiang Z et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract 283O.

MUNICH – For patients with HR-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–advanced breast cancer who have progressed after endocrine therapy, a combination of the oral histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor chidamide and exemestane appears safe and more effective than exemestane alone, according to results from the phase 3 ACE trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“This is the first phase 3 trial to demonstrate that an HDAC inhibitor plus endocrine blockade improves progression-free survival, compared to endocrine blockade alone in hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer patients who have progressed after prior endocrine therapy,” said lead author, Zefei Jiang, MD, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

HDAC inhibitors have historically been used for psychiatric and neurologic applications, but interest in their antineoplastic potential has increased over the past decade. Chidamide is approved for T-cell lymphoma in China, but not in the United States, where three other HDAC inhibitors are labeled for T-cell lymphoma, and a fourth is approved for multiple myeloma.

Although no HDAC inhibitors are clinically available for breast cancer, the future may tell a different story. The HDAC inhibitor entinostat received a breakthrough therapy designation by the Food and Drug Administration after the phase 2 ENCORE 301 trial showed clinical benefit (also with exemestane for advanced breast cancer). Ongoing studies are also evaluating the potential for HDAC inhibitors in combination with immunotherapy.

“Histone modulation by HDACs is a very important mechanism for epigenetic regulation,” said Dr. Jiang, of the 307th Hospital of Chinese People’s Liberation Army in Beijing, highlighting associations with breast cancer drug resistance. HDAC inhibition may be able to overcome this obstacle by resensitizing tumors to estrogen modulator therapy.

ACE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 362 patients with HR+/HER2–advanced breast cancer who failed endocrine therapy. Patients had previously received no more than one round of chemotherapy for advanced disease, and no more than four therapies total. The treatment group received either chidamide 30 mg twice weekly with exemestane 25 mg daily (n = 241) or exemestane with placebo (n = 121). Tumor assessments were performed every 8 weeks, and the primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).

The addition of chidamide nearly doubled PFS (7.4 months vs. 3.8 months) and provided a hazard ratio of .75 (P = .0336). Objective response and clinical benefit rates also were increased. At the time of presentation, data were too immature for an overall survival rate.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were hematologic: neutropenia (50.8%), thrombocytopenia (27.5%), and leukopenia (18.8%), all considerably higher than 2.5% for each in the placebo group.

These tolerability issues were expected, however, based on previous chidamide findings.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“Not surprisingly ... 33% of patients had their dose reduced, 50% their dose interrupted, and this is despite the biweekly schedule,” said invited discussant Rebecca Dent, MD, of the National Cancer Centre in Singapore. Despite these issues, Dr. Dent concluded that chidamide otherwise “appears to be quite well tolerated,” and showed meaningful results.

“We now have a second trial demonstrating ... clinical benefit from the addition of HDAC inhibitors to endocrine therapy in [HR+] advanced breast cancer,” Dr. Dent said. “HDAC inhibitors clearly warrant further investigation in earlier settings of [HR+] advanced breast cancer and ... yet to be defined ... subgroups, and obviously we anxiously await the phase 3 results of entinostat.”

In consideration of the future, Dr. Dent suggested that more studies are needed to develop subgroup-targeted therapies and optimize sequencing. “We’ve really underestimated the selective pressure of these treatments and how they impact our subsequent therapies,” she said.

Dr. Dent noted how these factors limit predictive relevance of study findings in clinical practice, in which patients with different treatment histories may have completely different responses to the same agent.

To overcome these obstacles, Dr. Dent encouraged development of biomarker-driven strategies that can identify unique patterns of drug resistance and sensitivity. “This will allow us to ... identify which patients, which drug, and at which time.”

The ACE trial was funded by Chipscreen Biosciences.

SOURCE: Jiang Z et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract 283O.

MUNICH – For patients with HR-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–advanced breast cancer who have progressed after endocrine therapy, a combination of the oral histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor chidamide and exemestane appears safe and more effective than exemestane alone, according to results from the phase 3 ACE trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“This is the first phase 3 trial to demonstrate that an HDAC inhibitor plus endocrine blockade improves progression-free survival, compared to endocrine blockade alone in hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer patients who have progressed after prior endocrine therapy,” said lead author, Zefei Jiang, MD, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

HDAC inhibitors have historically been used for psychiatric and neurologic applications, but interest in their antineoplastic potential has increased over the past decade. Chidamide is approved for T-cell lymphoma in China, but not in the United States, where three other HDAC inhibitors are labeled for T-cell lymphoma, and a fourth is approved for multiple myeloma.

Although no HDAC inhibitors are clinically available for breast cancer, the future may tell a different story. The HDAC inhibitor entinostat received a breakthrough therapy designation by the Food and Drug Administration after the phase 2 ENCORE 301 trial showed clinical benefit (also with exemestane for advanced breast cancer). Ongoing studies are also evaluating the potential for HDAC inhibitors in combination with immunotherapy.

“Histone modulation by HDACs is a very important mechanism for epigenetic regulation,” said Dr. Jiang, of the 307th Hospital of Chinese People’s Liberation Army in Beijing, highlighting associations with breast cancer drug resistance. HDAC inhibition may be able to overcome this obstacle by resensitizing tumors to estrogen modulator therapy.

ACE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 362 patients with HR+/HER2–advanced breast cancer who failed endocrine therapy. Patients had previously received no more than one round of chemotherapy for advanced disease, and no more than four therapies total. The treatment group received either chidamide 30 mg twice weekly with exemestane 25 mg daily (n = 241) or exemestane with placebo (n = 121). Tumor assessments were performed every 8 weeks, and the primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).

The addition of chidamide nearly doubled PFS (7.4 months vs. 3.8 months) and provided a hazard ratio of .75 (P = .0336). Objective response and clinical benefit rates also were increased. At the time of presentation, data were too immature for an overall survival rate.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were hematologic: neutropenia (50.8%), thrombocytopenia (27.5%), and leukopenia (18.8%), all considerably higher than 2.5% for each in the placebo group.

These tolerability issues were expected, however, based on previous chidamide findings.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“Not surprisingly ... 33% of patients had their dose reduced, 50% their dose interrupted, and this is despite the biweekly schedule,” said invited discussant Rebecca Dent, MD, of the National Cancer Centre in Singapore. Despite these issues, Dr. Dent concluded that chidamide otherwise “appears to be quite well tolerated,” and showed meaningful results.

“We now have a second trial demonstrating ... clinical benefit from the addition of HDAC inhibitors to endocrine therapy in [HR+] advanced breast cancer,” Dr. Dent said. “HDAC inhibitors clearly warrant further investigation in earlier settings of [HR+] advanced breast cancer and ... yet to be defined ... subgroups, and obviously we anxiously await the phase 3 results of entinostat.”

In consideration of the future, Dr. Dent suggested that more studies are needed to develop subgroup-targeted therapies and optimize sequencing. “We’ve really underestimated the selective pressure of these treatments and how they impact our subsequent therapies,” she said.

Dr. Dent noted how these factors limit predictive relevance of study findings in clinical practice, in which patients with different treatment histories may have completely different responses to the same agent.

To overcome these obstacles, Dr. Dent encouraged development of biomarker-driven strategies that can identify unique patterns of drug resistance and sensitivity. “This will allow us to ... identify which patients, which drug, and at which time.”

The ACE trial was funded by Chipscreen Biosciences.

SOURCE: Jiang Z et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract 283O.

MUNICH – The combination of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance) and fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with longer overall survival of women with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer in the PALOMA-3 trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

But the benefit seemed to be almost entirely limited to women with sensitivity to previous endocrine therapy; differences in overall survival among the entire cohort were not statistically significant, reported Massimo Cristofanilli, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, and his colleagues.

“These findings confirm that the use of palbociclib plus fulvestrant is a standard for care in patients with previously treated hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, he said in a briefing held prior to his presentation of the data at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The results were published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Briefing discussant Nadia Harbeck, MD, is a breast cancer specialist with the University of Munich Medical Center, who is a coinvestigator of PALOMA-3, noted that there are currently three marketed cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and that all three have been shown to be associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS).

Yet, “there’s still a lot of uncertainty out there in the community whether to give these drugs, when to give these drugs, and also from the payers’ perspective, because there’s no overall survival, and I think this is now going to change,” she said.

“Ten months overall survival benefit in a CDK 4/6 inhibitor study in the second-line setting I think is unprecedented, and I think will change people’s hearts who weren’t quite sure, and I think we can now confidently say to our patients that this is the drug to take,” she added.

Dr. Cristofanilli discussed results of a prespecified analysis of overall survival from the previously reported trial.

Investigators enrolled 521 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had progression or relapse during previous endocrine therapy, and randomly assigned them to fulvestrant plus palbociclib or placebo.

In addition to looking at overall survival, the analysis included evaluation of the effects of palbociclib in women both with and without sensitivity to endocrine therapy, the presence or absence of visceral metastatic disease, and menopausal status. In addition, the analysis looked at the efficacy of therapies after disease progression, and safety of the respective regimens.

The median overall survival at a median follow-up of 44.8 months was 34.9 months with palbociclib/fulvestrant vs. 28 months for placebo/fulvestrant, translating into a stratified hazard ratio (HR) for death in the palbociclib arm of 0.81, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .09). The unstratified HR was 0.79 (P = .05; the prespecified significance threshold was a two-sided P value of .047).

When they looked at the 410 patients with documented sensitivity to previous endocrine therapy, however, the investigators found a median OS of 39.7 months with palbociclib vs. 29.7 months with placebo. The HR for death with palbociclib in this subgroup was 0.72, with a 95% confidence interval indicating statistical significance.

In contrast, among 111 patients with documented intrinsic endocrine resistance, the median OS with palbociclib was actually lower than in the placebo group, albeit not significantly, at 20.2 vs. 26.2 months, respectively (HR, 1.14; P = .012 for interaction).

The median time to starting chemotherapy was 17.6 months in the palbociclib/fulvestrant group vs. 8.8 months in the placebo/fulvestrant group (HR, 0.58; P less than .001).

The safety profile of the combination was similar to that seen in the primary analysis of PALOMA-3. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 70% of patients on palbociclib vs. none of the patients on placebo. Other grade 3 or 4 events included anemia in 4% vs. 2%, thrombocytopenia in 3% vs. none, and febrile neutropenia in 1% vs. none.

Other grade 3 or greater events occurring with palbociclib in more than 2% of patients were infections, fatigue, and elevated aspartate aminotransferase levels.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the breast unit of the Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, commented that PALOMA-3 was adequately powered for the primary endpoint of PFS, but not for a secondary overall survival endpoint.

She also raised questions that still need to be answered about the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors with endocrine therapy in this population, including how to better identify which patients might benefit from the combination, whether the combination should be used in the first line or in subsequent lines of therapy, and whether it should be used in patients with or without prior endocrine therapy exposure.

Another unanswered question is whether disease progression accelerates after CDK 4/6 inhibitors are stopped.

“We need to confirm if this problem of post progression is true or not, and there may be a rationale to explore continuing beyond progression. This was a paradigm that changed in the HER2-positive population, and we now know that we need to continue to block the HER2 pathway, because if we don’t, the progression is faster. Will that apply here as well?,” she asked.

Hope S. Rugo, MD, a clinical professor of medicine and director of the Breast Oncology Clinical Trials Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, commented that patients in PALOMA-3 were allowed to have had chemotherapy, and there is evidence to suggest that prior chemotherapy is a risk factor for resistance to other therapies as well.

“So looking at patients with hormone-sensitive disease who have done their chemotherapy, seeing a survival benefit in any subset of patients with hormone receptor–positive disease getting a targeted agent is already pretty exciting,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Rugo was not involved in PALOMA-3.

PALOMA-3 was supported by Pfizer. Dr. Cristofanilli disclosed personal fees from Pfizer, Novartis, and Merus. Dr. Harbeck disclosed honoraria for consulting and lecturing for Pfizer and others. Dr. Cardoso has disclosed consulting fees and institutional support from Pfizer and others. Dr. Rugo has received fees/honoraria and other support for activities for Pfizer and others.

SOURCE: Turner NC et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1810527.

MUNICH – The combination of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance) and fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with longer overall survival of women with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer in the PALOMA-3 trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

But the benefit seemed to be almost entirely limited to women with sensitivity to previous endocrine therapy; differences in overall survival among the entire cohort were not statistically significant, reported Massimo Cristofanilli, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, and his colleagues.

“These findings confirm that the use of palbociclib plus fulvestrant is a standard for care in patients with previously treated hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, he said in a briefing held prior to his presentation of the data at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The results were published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Briefing discussant Nadia Harbeck, MD, is a breast cancer specialist with the University of Munich Medical Center, who is a coinvestigator of PALOMA-3, noted that there are currently three marketed cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and that all three have been shown to be associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS).

Yet, “there’s still a lot of uncertainty out there in the community whether to give these drugs, when to give these drugs, and also from the payers’ perspective, because there’s no overall survival, and I think this is now going to change,” she said.

“Ten months overall survival benefit in a CDK 4/6 inhibitor study in the second-line setting I think is unprecedented, and I think will change people’s hearts who weren’t quite sure, and I think we can now confidently say to our patients that this is the drug to take,” she added.

Dr. Cristofanilli discussed results of a prespecified analysis of overall survival from the previously reported trial.

Investigators enrolled 521 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had progression or relapse during previous endocrine therapy, and randomly assigned them to fulvestrant plus palbociclib or placebo.

In addition to looking at overall survival, the analysis included evaluation of the effects of palbociclib in women both with and without sensitivity to endocrine therapy, the presence or absence of visceral metastatic disease, and menopausal status. In addition, the analysis looked at the efficacy of therapies after disease progression, and safety of the respective regimens.

The median overall survival at a median follow-up of 44.8 months was 34.9 months with palbociclib/fulvestrant vs. 28 months for placebo/fulvestrant, translating into a stratified hazard ratio (HR) for death in the palbociclib arm of 0.81, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .09). The unstratified HR was 0.79 (P = .05; the prespecified significance threshold was a two-sided P value of .047).

When they looked at the 410 patients with documented sensitivity to previous endocrine therapy, however, the investigators found a median OS of 39.7 months with palbociclib vs. 29.7 months with placebo. The HR for death with palbociclib in this subgroup was 0.72, with a 95% confidence interval indicating statistical significance.

In contrast, among 111 patients with documented intrinsic endocrine resistance, the median OS with palbociclib was actually lower than in the placebo group, albeit not significantly, at 20.2 vs. 26.2 months, respectively (HR, 1.14; P = .012 for interaction).

The median time to starting chemotherapy was 17.6 months in the palbociclib/fulvestrant group vs. 8.8 months in the placebo/fulvestrant group (HR, 0.58; P less than .001).

The safety profile of the combination was similar to that seen in the primary analysis of PALOMA-3. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 70% of patients on palbociclib vs. none of the patients on placebo. Other grade 3 or 4 events included anemia in 4% vs. 2%, thrombocytopenia in 3% vs. none, and febrile neutropenia in 1% vs. none.

Other grade 3 or greater events occurring with palbociclib in more than 2% of patients were infections, fatigue, and elevated aspartate aminotransferase levels.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the breast unit of the Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, commented that PALOMA-3 was adequately powered for the primary endpoint of PFS, but not for a secondary overall survival endpoint.

She also raised questions that still need to be answered about the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors with endocrine therapy in this population, including how to better identify which patients might benefit from the combination, whether the combination should be used in the first line or in subsequent lines of therapy, and whether it should be used in patients with or without prior endocrine therapy exposure.

Another unanswered question is whether disease progression accelerates after CDK 4/6 inhibitors are stopped.

“We need to confirm if this problem of post progression is true or not, and there may be a rationale to explore continuing beyond progression. This was a paradigm that changed in the HER2-positive population, and we now know that we need to continue to block the HER2 pathway, because if we don’t, the progression is faster. Will that apply here as well?,” she asked.

Hope S. Rugo, MD, a clinical professor of medicine and director of the Breast Oncology Clinical Trials Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, commented that patients in PALOMA-3 were allowed to have had chemotherapy, and there is evidence to suggest that prior chemotherapy is a risk factor for resistance to other therapies as well.

“So looking at patients with hormone-sensitive disease who have done their chemotherapy, seeing a survival benefit in any subset of patients with hormone receptor–positive disease getting a targeted agent is already pretty exciting,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Rugo was not involved in PALOMA-3.

PALOMA-3 was supported by Pfizer. Dr. Cristofanilli disclosed personal fees from Pfizer, Novartis, and Merus. Dr. Harbeck disclosed honoraria for consulting and lecturing for Pfizer and others. Dr. Cardoso has disclosed consulting fees and institutional support from Pfizer and others. Dr. Rugo has received fees/honoraria and other support for activities for Pfizer and others.

SOURCE: Turner NC et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1810527.

MUNICH – The combination of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance) and fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with longer overall survival of women with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer in the PALOMA-3 trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

But the benefit seemed to be almost entirely limited to women with sensitivity to previous endocrine therapy; differences in overall survival among the entire cohort were not statistically significant, reported Massimo Cristofanilli, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, and his colleagues.

“These findings confirm that the use of palbociclib plus fulvestrant is a standard for care in patients with previously treated hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, he said in a briefing held prior to his presentation of the data at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The results were published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Briefing discussant Nadia Harbeck, MD, is a breast cancer specialist with the University of Munich Medical Center, who is a coinvestigator of PALOMA-3, noted that there are currently three marketed cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and that all three have been shown to be associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS).

Yet, “there’s still a lot of uncertainty out there in the community whether to give these drugs, when to give these drugs, and also from the payers’ perspective, because there’s no overall survival, and I think this is now going to change,” she said.

“Ten months overall survival benefit in a CDK 4/6 inhibitor study in the second-line setting I think is unprecedented, and I think will change people’s hearts who weren’t quite sure, and I think we can now confidently say to our patients that this is the drug to take,” she added.

Dr. Cristofanilli discussed results of a prespecified analysis of overall survival from the previously reported trial.

Investigators enrolled 521 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had progression or relapse during previous endocrine therapy, and randomly assigned them to fulvestrant plus palbociclib or placebo.

In addition to looking at overall survival, the analysis included evaluation of the effects of palbociclib in women both with and without sensitivity to endocrine therapy, the presence or absence of visceral metastatic disease, and menopausal status. In addition, the analysis looked at the efficacy of therapies after disease progression, and safety of the respective regimens.

The median overall survival at a median follow-up of 44.8 months was 34.9 months with palbociclib/fulvestrant vs. 28 months for placebo/fulvestrant, translating into a stratified hazard ratio (HR) for death in the palbociclib arm of 0.81, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .09). The unstratified HR was 0.79 (P = .05; the prespecified significance threshold was a two-sided P value of .047).

When they looked at the 410 patients with documented sensitivity to previous endocrine therapy, however, the investigators found a median OS of 39.7 months with palbociclib vs. 29.7 months with placebo. The HR for death with palbociclib in this subgroup was 0.72, with a 95% confidence interval indicating statistical significance.

In contrast, among 111 patients with documented intrinsic endocrine resistance, the median OS with palbociclib was actually lower than in the placebo group, albeit not significantly, at 20.2 vs. 26.2 months, respectively (HR, 1.14; P = .012 for interaction).

The median time to starting chemotherapy was 17.6 months in the palbociclib/fulvestrant group vs. 8.8 months in the placebo/fulvestrant group (HR, 0.58; P less than .001).

The safety profile of the combination was similar to that seen in the primary analysis of PALOMA-3. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 70% of patients on palbociclib vs. none of the patients on placebo. Other grade 3 or 4 events included anemia in 4% vs. 2%, thrombocytopenia in 3% vs. none, and febrile neutropenia in 1% vs. none.

Other grade 3 or greater events occurring with palbociclib in more than 2% of patients were infections, fatigue, and elevated aspartate aminotransferase levels.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the breast unit of the Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, commented that PALOMA-3 was adequately powered for the primary endpoint of PFS, but not for a secondary overall survival endpoint.

She also raised questions that still need to be answered about the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors with endocrine therapy in this population, including how to better identify which patients might benefit from the combination, whether the combination should be used in the first line or in subsequent lines of therapy, and whether it should be used in patients with or without prior endocrine therapy exposure.

Another unanswered question is whether disease progression accelerates after CDK 4/6 inhibitors are stopped.

“We need to confirm if this problem of post progression is true or not, and there may be a rationale to explore continuing beyond progression. This was a paradigm that changed in the HER2-positive population, and we now know that we need to continue to block the HER2 pathway, because if we don’t, the progression is faster. Will that apply here as well?,” she asked.

Hope S. Rugo, MD, a clinical professor of medicine and director of the Breast Oncology Clinical Trials Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, commented that patients in PALOMA-3 were allowed to have had chemotherapy, and there is evidence to suggest that prior chemotherapy is a risk factor for resistance to other therapies as well.

“So looking at patients with hormone-sensitive disease who have done their chemotherapy, seeing a survival benefit in any subset of patients with hormone receptor–positive disease getting a targeted agent is already pretty exciting,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Rugo was not involved in PALOMA-3.

PALOMA-3 was supported by Pfizer. Dr. Cristofanilli disclosed personal fees from Pfizer, Novartis, and Merus. Dr. Harbeck disclosed honoraria for consulting and lecturing for Pfizer and others. Dr. Cardoso has disclosed consulting fees and institutional support from Pfizer and others. Dr. Rugo has received fees/honoraria and other support for activities for Pfizer and others.

SOURCE: Turner NC et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1810527.

MUNICH – For the first time, a combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor and a taxane has shown significant clinical benefit in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in a phase 3 trial, but the benefit was seen only in patients positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), investigators reported.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 902 patients with untreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) randomly assigned to receive the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel or placebo plus nab-paclitaxel, atezolizumab was associated with a 38% improvement in median overall survival among patients with PD-L1–positive disease in an interim analysis of the IMpassion 130 trial.

However, although there was a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with atezolizumab in an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis that included patients with PD-L1 negative tumors, there was no significant difference in median overall survival (OS) when all patients were considered together, said Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London.

“For patients with PD-L1–positive tumors, these data establish atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel as a new standard of care,” he said at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation of the data.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

At a briefing prior to presentation of the data in a symposium, discussant Nadia Harbeck, MD, of the University of Munich Medical Center, a breast cancer specialist, confessed to being of envious of her colleagues in other oncology specialties in which immunotherapy has made great inroads.

“We have a lot of patients out there right now in clinical trials with immune therapy, but so far in breast cancer, we have not seen the tremendous effects we have seen in melanoma or lung cancer, so this is the first time we have a phase 3 trial proving that immune therapy in triple-negative breast cancer improves survival, and I think this is something that will change the way we practice in triple-negative breast cancer,” she said.

The rationale for using a PD-L1 inhibitor comes from the discovery that PD-L1 expression occurs primarily on tumor-infiltrating cells in TNBC rather than on tumor cells, which can inhibit immune responses directed against tumors.

The investigators enrolled 902 patients with previously untreated mTNBC and randomly assigned them to receive nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m² intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle, plus either atezolizumab 804 mg intravenously or placebo on days 1 and 15 of each cycle.

Patients were stratified according to whether they received neoadjuvant or adjuvant taxane therapy, the presence of liver metastases at baseline, and PD-L1 expression at baseline.

Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The primary endpoints were PFS and OS in both the ITT and PD-L1–positive population.

In the ITT analysis, 1-year PFS rate was significantly improved in the atezolizumab arm, at 24% vs. 18% in the placebo arm. This translated into a stratified hazard ratio of 0.80 (P = .0025).

In the analysis restricted to the PD-L1-positive population (369 patients), the 1-year PFS rates were 29% for atezolizumab vs. 16% for placebo, translating into to an HR of 0.62 (P less than .0001).

As noted before, the interim OS analysis in the PD-L1 population showed a clinical benefit with atezolizumab, with a 2-year OS rate of 54% vs. 37%, respectively. The median OS in this analysis was 25 months with atezolizumab, vs. 15.5 months with placebo. The stratified HR favoring the PD-L1 inhibitor was 0.62, but because of the hierarchical statistical analysis design of the trial, formal testing of OS was not performed for the interim analysis.

Adverse events of any kind occurred in 99.3% of patients assigned to atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel and 97.9% of those assigned to placebo/nab-paclitaxel.

Grade 1 or 2 immune-related hypothyroidism occurred more frequently with atezolizumab (17.3% vs. 4.3%), but none led to discontinuation of the drug regimen.

Six patients assigned to atezolizumab and three assigned to placebo died. Four of the deaths were deemed by investigators to be related to the trial regimen, include three deaths in the atezolizumab arm (from autoimmune hepatitis, mucosal inflammation, and septic shock), and one death in the placebo arm (from hepatic failure).

“A benefit with atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel in patients with PD-L1–positive tumors that was shown in our trial provides evidence of the efficacy of immunotherapy in at least a subset of patients. It is important for patients’ PD-L1 expression status on tumor-infiltrating immune cells to be taken into consideration to inform treatment choices for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Schmid and his colleagues wrote in the study’s conclusion.

“I really do think that these results are going to make a very big difference,” said coinvestigator Hope S. Rugo, MD, a clinical professor of medicine and director of the Breast Oncology Clinical Trials Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“We believed from the phase 1 data and the less-than-exciting phase 2 data that there was clearly some role for immunotherapy in breast cancer but were really struggling as to what that role was. We knew for example that if they had a response, patients lived longer and really dramatically longer,” she said in an interview.

But unlike the clinical revolution brought about by the introduction of trastuzumab, in which clinicians had a biomarker and a large number of patients benefited, “here we have no biomarker and a small number of patients benefited, but the benefit is huge,” she said.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, from the University of Milan and European Cancer Institute, Italy, the invited discussant at the symposium, agreed that the study “brings breast cancer into the immunotherapy era.”

Dr. Curigliano added, however, that the study was missing an arm – atezolizumab alone, which might be a good option for a subset of patients.

He also questioned whether nab-paclitaxel was the best partner for atezolizumab, vs. other drugs with known immunogenic effects, such as doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, other taxanes, gemcitabine, or platinum salts.

The study was supported by F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech. Dr. Schmid reported grant and nonfinancial support from Roche. Multiple coauthors reported financial relationships with Roche/Genentech and others. Dr. Harbeck has disclosed honoraria from and serving as a consultant for Roche and others. Dr. Rugo disclosed grants and nonfinancial support from F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Curigliano disclosed consulting/advising, speakers bureau participation, and travel/accommodations from Roche/Genentech.

SOURCE: Schmid P et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1809615.

MUNICH – For the first time, a combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor and a taxane has shown significant clinical benefit in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in a phase 3 trial, but the benefit was seen only in patients positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), investigators reported.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 902 patients with untreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) randomly assigned to receive the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel or placebo plus nab-paclitaxel, atezolizumab was associated with a 38% improvement in median overall survival among patients with PD-L1–positive disease in an interim analysis of the IMpassion 130 trial.

However, although there was a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with atezolizumab in an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis that included patients with PD-L1 negative tumors, there was no significant difference in median overall survival (OS) when all patients were considered together, said Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London.

“For patients with PD-L1–positive tumors, these data establish atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel as a new standard of care,” he said at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation of the data.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

At a briefing prior to presentation of the data in a symposium, discussant Nadia Harbeck, MD, of the University of Munich Medical Center, a breast cancer specialist, confessed to being of envious of her colleagues in other oncology specialties in which immunotherapy has made great inroads.

“We have a lot of patients out there right now in clinical trials with immune therapy, but so far in breast cancer, we have not seen the tremendous effects we have seen in melanoma or lung cancer, so this is the first time we have a phase 3 trial proving that immune therapy in triple-negative breast cancer improves survival, and I think this is something that will change the way we practice in triple-negative breast cancer,” she said.

The rationale for using a PD-L1 inhibitor comes from the discovery that PD-L1 expression occurs primarily on tumor-infiltrating cells in TNBC rather than on tumor cells, which can inhibit immune responses directed against tumors.

The investigators enrolled 902 patients with previously untreated mTNBC and randomly assigned them to receive nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m² intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle, plus either atezolizumab 804 mg intravenously or placebo on days 1 and 15 of each cycle.

Patients were stratified according to whether they received neoadjuvant or adjuvant taxane therapy, the presence of liver metastases at baseline, and PD-L1 expression at baseline.

Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The primary endpoints were PFS and OS in both the ITT and PD-L1–positive population.

In the ITT analysis, 1-year PFS rate was significantly improved in the atezolizumab arm, at 24% vs. 18% in the placebo arm. This translated into a stratified hazard ratio of 0.80 (P = .0025).

In the analysis restricted to the PD-L1-positive population (369 patients), the 1-year PFS rates were 29% for atezolizumab vs. 16% for placebo, translating into to an HR of 0.62 (P less than .0001).

As noted before, the interim OS analysis in the PD-L1 population showed a clinical benefit with atezolizumab, with a 2-year OS rate of 54% vs. 37%, respectively. The median OS in this analysis was 25 months with atezolizumab, vs. 15.5 months with placebo. The stratified HR favoring the PD-L1 inhibitor was 0.62, but because of the hierarchical statistical analysis design of the trial, formal testing of OS was not performed for the interim analysis.

Adverse events of any kind occurred in 99.3% of patients assigned to atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel and 97.9% of those assigned to placebo/nab-paclitaxel.

Grade 1 or 2 immune-related hypothyroidism occurred more frequently with atezolizumab (17.3% vs. 4.3%), but none led to discontinuation of the drug regimen.

Six patients assigned to atezolizumab and three assigned to placebo died. Four of the deaths were deemed by investigators to be related to the trial regimen, include three deaths in the atezolizumab arm (from autoimmune hepatitis, mucosal inflammation, and septic shock), and one death in the placebo arm (from hepatic failure).

“A benefit with atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel in patients with PD-L1–positive tumors that was shown in our trial provides evidence of the efficacy of immunotherapy in at least a subset of patients. It is important for patients’ PD-L1 expression status on tumor-infiltrating immune cells to be taken into consideration to inform treatment choices for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Schmid and his colleagues wrote in the study’s conclusion.

“I really do think that these results are going to make a very big difference,” said coinvestigator Hope S. Rugo, MD, a clinical professor of medicine and director of the Breast Oncology Clinical Trials Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“We believed from the phase 1 data and the less-than-exciting phase 2 data that there was clearly some role for immunotherapy in breast cancer but were really struggling as to what that role was. We knew for example that if they had a response, patients lived longer and really dramatically longer,” she said in an interview.

But unlike the clinical revolution brought about by the introduction of trastuzumab, in which clinicians had a biomarker and a large number of patients benefited, “here we have no biomarker and a small number of patients benefited, but the benefit is huge,” she said.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, from the University of Milan and European Cancer Institute, Italy, the invited discussant at the symposium, agreed that the study “brings breast cancer into the immunotherapy era.”

Dr. Curigliano added, however, that the study was missing an arm – atezolizumab alone, which might be a good option for a subset of patients.

He also questioned whether nab-paclitaxel was the best partner for atezolizumab, vs. other drugs with known immunogenic effects, such as doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, other taxanes, gemcitabine, or platinum salts.

The study was supported by F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech. Dr. Schmid reported grant and nonfinancial support from Roche. Multiple coauthors reported financial relationships with Roche/Genentech and others. Dr. Harbeck has disclosed honoraria from and serving as a consultant for Roche and others. Dr. Rugo disclosed grants and nonfinancial support from F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Curigliano disclosed consulting/advising, speakers bureau participation, and travel/accommodations from Roche/Genentech.

SOURCE: Schmid P et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1809615.

MUNICH – For the first time, a combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor and a taxane has shown significant clinical benefit in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in a phase 3 trial, but the benefit was seen only in patients positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), investigators reported.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 902 patients with untreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) randomly assigned to receive the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel or placebo plus nab-paclitaxel, atezolizumab was associated with a 38% improvement in median overall survival among patients with PD-L1–positive disease in an interim analysis of the IMpassion 130 trial.

However, although there was a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with atezolizumab in an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis that included patients with PD-L1 negative tumors, there was no significant difference in median overall survival (OS) when all patients were considered together, said Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London.

“For patients with PD-L1–positive tumors, these data establish atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel as a new standard of care,” he said at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation of the data.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

At a briefing prior to presentation of the data in a symposium, discussant Nadia Harbeck, MD, of the University of Munich Medical Center, a breast cancer specialist, confessed to being of envious of her colleagues in other oncology specialties in which immunotherapy has made great inroads.

“We have a lot of patients out there right now in clinical trials with immune therapy, but so far in breast cancer, we have not seen the tremendous effects we have seen in melanoma or lung cancer, so this is the first time we have a phase 3 trial proving that immune therapy in triple-negative breast cancer improves survival, and I think this is something that will change the way we practice in triple-negative breast cancer,” she said.

The rationale for using a PD-L1 inhibitor comes from the discovery that PD-L1 expression occurs primarily on tumor-infiltrating cells in TNBC rather than on tumor cells, which can inhibit immune responses directed against tumors.

The investigators enrolled 902 patients with previously untreated mTNBC and randomly assigned them to receive nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m² intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle, plus either atezolizumab 804 mg intravenously or placebo on days 1 and 15 of each cycle.

Patients were stratified according to whether they received neoadjuvant or adjuvant taxane therapy, the presence of liver metastases at baseline, and PD-L1 expression at baseline.

Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The primary endpoints were PFS and OS in both the ITT and PD-L1–positive population.

In the ITT analysis, 1-year PFS rate was significantly improved in the atezolizumab arm, at 24% vs. 18% in the placebo arm. This translated into a stratified hazard ratio of 0.80 (P = .0025).

In the analysis restricted to the PD-L1-positive population (369 patients), the 1-year PFS rates were 29% for atezolizumab vs. 16% for placebo, translating into to an HR of 0.62 (P less than .0001).

As noted before, the interim OS analysis in the PD-L1 population showed a clinical benefit with atezolizumab, with a 2-year OS rate of 54% vs. 37%, respectively. The median OS in this analysis was 25 months with atezolizumab, vs. 15.5 months with placebo. The stratified HR favoring the PD-L1 inhibitor was 0.62, but because of the hierarchical statistical analysis design of the trial, formal testing of OS was not performed for the interim analysis.

Adverse events of any kind occurred in 99.3% of patients assigned to atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel and 97.9% of those assigned to placebo/nab-paclitaxel.

Grade 1 or 2 immune-related hypothyroidism occurred more frequently with atezolizumab (17.3% vs. 4.3%), but none led to discontinuation of the drug regimen.

Six patients assigned to atezolizumab and three assigned to placebo died. Four of the deaths were deemed by investigators to be related to the trial regimen, include three deaths in the atezolizumab arm (from autoimmune hepatitis, mucosal inflammation, and septic shock), and one death in the placebo arm (from hepatic failure).

“A benefit with atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel in patients with PD-L1–positive tumors that was shown in our trial provides evidence of the efficacy of immunotherapy in at least a subset of patients. It is important for patients’ PD-L1 expression status on tumor-infiltrating immune cells to be taken into consideration to inform treatment choices for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Schmid and his colleagues wrote in the study’s conclusion.

“I really do think that these results are going to make a very big difference,” said coinvestigator Hope S. Rugo, MD, a clinical professor of medicine and director of the Breast Oncology Clinical Trials Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“We believed from the phase 1 data and the less-than-exciting phase 2 data that there was clearly some role for immunotherapy in breast cancer but were really struggling as to what that role was. We knew for example that if they had a response, patients lived longer and really dramatically longer,” she said in an interview.

But unlike the clinical revolution brought about by the introduction of trastuzumab, in which clinicians had a biomarker and a large number of patients benefited, “here we have no biomarker and a small number of patients benefited, but the benefit is huge,” she said.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, from the University of Milan and European Cancer Institute, Italy, the invited discussant at the symposium, agreed that the study “brings breast cancer into the immunotherapy era.”

Dr. Curigliano added, however, that the study was missing an arm – atezolizumab alone, which might be a good option for a subset of patients.

He also questioned whether nab-paclitaxel was the best partner for atezolizumab, vs. other drugs with known immunogenic effects, such as doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, other taxanes, gemcitabine, or platinum salts.

The study was supported by F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech. Dr. Schmid reported grant and nonfinancial support from Roche. Multiple coauthors reported financial relationships with Roche/Genentech and others. Dr. Harbeck has disclosed honoraria from and serving as a consultant for Roche and others. Dr. Rugo disclosed grants and nonfinancial support from F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Curigliano disclosed consulting/advising, speakers bureau participation, and travel/accommodations from Roche/Genentech.

SOURCE: Schmid P et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1809615.

MUNICH – Pretreatment genotyping of patients for a key metabolizing enzyme prior to therapy with a fluoropyrimidine agent can be performed in routine clinical practice and can significantly improve safety of the drugs, investigators reported.

Among 1,103 patients scheduled for fluoropyrimidine-based therapy with either fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine alone or in combination with other therapies, toxicities were highest among patients with two common variant alleles of DPYD, the gene encoding for the metabolizing enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). The risk for toxicity was “markedly reduced” when doses were reduced by 50% in patients carrying the alleles, reported Linda Henricks, PharmD, from the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, and her colleagues.

“Our study was done in a daily clinical care setting in regional general hospitals and a few academic centers, showing the feasibility of implementation of upfront DPYD screening. To make DPYD-guided dosing feasible in all hospitals, the turnaround time for DPYD genotyping must be short to prevent a delay in the start of treatment,” they wrote in a study published in The Lancet Oncology prior to presentation of these data at the European Society of Medical Oncology Congress.

The laboratories participating in their study had turnaround times ranging from a few days up to 1 week, they noted.

Fluoropyrimidines are the backbones of therapy for several different malignancies, but up to 30% of patients treated with these drugs can experience severe toxicities because of reduced DPD activity, primarily caused by genetic variants in DPYD.

The investigators conducted a prospective multicenter study to see whether screening for the four most common variants could help clinicians tailor treatment programs to improve tolerability of fluoropyrimidine-based therapies.

They looked at the incidence of toxicities between patients carrying DPYD variant alleles and DPYD wild-type carriers in an intention-to-treat analysis, and compared relative risks for severe toxicities among patients with those of historical controls – patients with DPYD variant alleles who had been treated with a full-dose fluoropyrimidine in previous studies.

They enrolled 1,181 patients during May 2015–December 2017, of whom 1,103 were evaluable. Of this group, 92% (1,018 patients) had wild-type DPYD, and 8% (85) were heterozygous variant allele carriers.

The four variant alleles the investigators genotyped for were: DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G, and c.1236G>A.

Patients who were heterozygous for c.2846A>T or c.1236G>A received doses reduced by 25%, and patients with DPYD*2A or c.1679T>G received doses reduced by 50%. Patients with DPYD wild-type were treated according to the current standard of care.

The incidence of severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity, the primary endpoint, was significantly higher among variant allele carriers compared with patients with wild-type DPYD (39% vs. 23%, respectively, P = .0013).

The relative risk for severe toxicity among patients with DPYD*2A treated in the current study with genotype-guided therapy was 1.31, compared with 2.87 for historical controls carrying the same variant.

Among c.1679T>G carriers, those treated with genotype-guided therapy had no severe toxicity, whereas the relative risk for historical controls was 4.30.

Respective relative risks for c.2846A>T carriers were 2.0 vs. 3.11, and for c.1236G>A carriers were 1.69 vs. 1.72.

“Although our study revealed that the applied approach of genotype-guided adaptive dosing significantly reduced severe fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity and prevented treatment-related death, additional methods should be explored and prospectively tested to further reduce treatment-related toxicity, not only in DPYD variant allele carriers, but also in DPYD wild-type patients,” Dr. Henricks and her associates wrote.

The study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society. Dr. Henricks and a coauthor report grants from the Society. One coauthor reported a prior unrestricted grant from Roche and one personal fee from Modra outside the submitted work.
 

SOURCE: Henricks LM et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Oct 19. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30686-7.

MUNICH – Pretreatment genotyping of patients for a key metabolizing enzyme prior to therapy with a fluoropyrimidine agent can be performed in routine clinical practice and can significantly improve safety of the drugs, investigators reported.

Among 1,103 patients scheduled for fluoropyrimidine-based therapy with either fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine alone or in combination with other therapies, toxicities were highest among patients with two common variant alleles of DPYD, the gene encoding for the metabolizing enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). The risk for toxicity was “markedly reduced” when doses were reduced by 50% in patients carrying the alleles, reported Linda Henricks, PharmD, from the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, and her colleagues.

“Our study was done in a daily clinical care setting in regional general hospitals and a few academic centers, showing the feasibility of implementation of upfront DPYD screening. To make DPYD-guided dosing feasible in all hospitals, the turnaround time for DPYD genotyping must be short to prevent a delay in the start of treatment,” they wrote in a study published in The Lancet Oncology prior to presentation of these data at the European Society of Medical Oncology Congress.

The laboratories participating in their study had turnaround times ranging from a few days up to 1 week, they noted.

Fluoropyrimidines are the backbones of therapy for several different malignancies, but up to 30% of patients treated with these drugs can experience severe toxicities because of reduced DPD activity, primarily caused by genetic variants in DPYD.

The investigators conducted a prospective multicenter study to see whether screening for the four most common variants could help clinicians tailor treatment programs to improve tolerability of fluoropyrimidine-based therapies.

They looked at the incidence of toxicities between patients carrying DPYD variant alleles and DPYD wild-type carriers in an intention-to-treat analysis, and compared relative risks for severe toxicities among patients with those of historical controls – patients with DPYD variant alleles who had been treated with a full-dose fluoropyrimidine in previous studies.

They enrolled 1,181 patients during May 2015–December 2017, of whom 1,103 were evaluable. Of this group, 92% (1,018 patients) had wild-type DPYD, and 8% (85) were heterozygous variant allele carriers.

The four variant alleles the investigators genotyped for were: DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G, and c.1236G>A.

Patients who were heterozygous for c.2846A>T or c.1236G>A received doses reduced by 25%, and patients with DPYD*2A or c.1679T>G received doses reduced by 50%. Patients with DPYD wild-type were treated according to the current standard of care.

The incidence of severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity, the primary endpoint, was significantly higher among variant allele carriers compared with patients with wild-type DPYD (39% vs. 23%, respectively, P = .0013).

The relative risk for severe toxicity among patients with DPYD*2A treated in the current study with genotype-guided therapy was 1.31, compared with 2.87 for historical controls carrying the same variant.

Among c.1679T>G carriers, those treated with genotype-guided therapy had no severe toxicity, whereas the relative risk for historical controls was 4.30.

Respective relative risks for c.2846A>T carriers were 2.0 vs. 3.11, and for c.1236G>A carriers were 1.69 vs. 1.72.

“Although our study revealed that the applied approach of genotype-guided adaptive dosing significantly reduced severe fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity and prevented treatment-related death, additional methods should be explored and prospectively tested to further reduce treatment-related toxicity, not only in DPYD variant allele carriers, but also in DPYD wild-type patients,” Dr. Henricks and her associates wrote.

The study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society. Dr. Henricks and a coauthor report grants from the Society. One coauthor reported a prior unrestricted grant from Roche and one personal fee from Modra outside the submitted work.
 

SOURCE: Henricks LM et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Oct 19. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30686-7.

MUNICH – Pretreatment genotyping of patients for a key metabolizing enzyme prior to therapy with a fluoropyrimidine agent can be performed in routine clinical practice and can significantly improve safety of the drugs, investigators reported.

Among 1,103 patients scheduled for fluoropyrimidine-based therapy with either fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine alone or in combination with other therapies, toxicities were highest among patients with two common variant alleles of DPYD, the gene encoding for the metabolizing enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). The risk for toxicity was “markedly reduced” when doses were reduced by 50% in patients carrying the alleles, reported Linda Henricks, PharmD, from the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, and her colleagues.

“Our study was done in a daily clinical care setting in regional general hospitals and a few academic centers, showing the feasibility of implementation of upfront DPYD screening. To make DPYD-guided dosing feasible in all hospitals, the turnaround time for DPYD genotyping must be short to prevent a delay in the start of treatment,” they wrote in a study published in The Lancet Oncology prior to presentation of these data at the European Society of Medical Oncology Congress.

The laboratories participating in their study had turnaround times ranging from a few days up to 1 week, they noted.

Fluoropyrimidines are the backbones of therapy for several different malignancies, but up to 30% of patients treated with these drugs can experience severe toxicities because of reduced DPD activity, primarily caused by genetic variants in DPYD.

The investigators conducted a prospective multicenter study to see whether screening for the four most common variants could help clinicians tailor treatment programs to improve tolerability of fluoropyrimidine-based therapies.

They looked at the incidence of toxicities between patients carrying DPYD variant alleles and DPYD wild-type carriers in an intention-to-treat analysis, and compared relative risks for severe toxicities among patients with those of historical controls – patients with DPYD variant alleles who had been treated with a full-dose fluoropyrimidine in previous studies.

They enrolled 1,181 patients during May 2015–December 2017, of whom 1,103 were evaluable. Of this group, 92% (1,018 patients) had wild-type DPYD, and 8% (85) were heterozygous variant allele carriers.

The four variant alleles the investigators genotyped for were: DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G, and c.1236G>A.

Patients who were heterozygous for c.2846A>T or c.1236G>A received doses reduced by 25%, and patients with DPYD*2A or c.1679T>G received doses reduced by 50%. Patients with DPYD wild-type were treated according to the current standard of care.

The incidence of severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity, the primary endpoint, was significantly higher among variant allele carriers compared with patients with wild-type DPYD (39% vs. 23%, respectively, P = .0013).

The relative risk for severe toxicity among patients with DPYD*2A treated in the current study with genotype-guided therapy was 1.31, compared with 2.87 for historical controls carrying the same variant.

Among c.1679T>G carriers, those treated with genotype-guided therapy had no severe toxicity, whereas the relative risk for historical controls was 4.30.

Respective relative risks for c.2846A>T carriers were 2.0 vs. 3.11, and for c.1236G>A carriers were 1.69 vs. 1.72.

“Although our study revealed that the applied approach of genotype-guided adaptive dosing significantly reduced severe fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity and prevented treatment-related death, additional methods should be explored and prospectively tested to further reduce treatment-related toxicity, not only in DPYD variant allele carriers, but also in DPYD wild-type patients,” Dr. Henricks and her associates wrote.

The study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society. Dr. Henricks and a coauthor report grants from the Society. One coauthor reported a prior unrestricted grant from Roche and one personal fee from Modra outside the submitted work.
 

SOURCE: Henricks LM et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Oct 19. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30686-7.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved talazoparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, for patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx from Myriad Genetic Laboratories as the companion diagnostic to identify patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious gBRCAm who are eligible for talazoparib, the agency announced.

Approval was based on improved progression-free survival in EMBRACA, a phase 3, open-label trial of 431 patients with gBRCAm HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Patients in the trial were randomized 2:1 to receive either talazoparib (1 mg) or a physician’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine). All patients had received treatment with an anthracycline and/or a taxane previously.

Median progression-free survival was 8.6 months in the talazoparib arm, compared with 5.6 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.71; P less than .0001).

Anemia was the most common hematologic adverse event, with grade 3 or greater occurring in 39.2% of patients on the PARP inhibitor, compared with 4.8% of patients treated with other agents, according to results of the trial presented at the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.


Warnings and precautions for myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia, myelosuppression, and embryo-fetal toxicity are included in the drug’s prescribing information. The PARP inhibitor’s most common adverse reactions of any grade are fatigue, anemia, nausea, neutropenia, headache, thrombocytopenia, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, and decreased appetite, the FDA said.

The recommended dose for talazoparib, marketed as Talzenna by Pfizer, is 1 mg taken as a single oral daily dose, with or without food.




 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved talazoparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, for patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx from Myriad Genetic Laboratories as the companion diagnostic to identify patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious gBRCAm who are eligible for talazoparib, the agency announced.

Approval was based on improved progression-free survival in EMBRACA, a phase 3, open-label trial of 431 patients with gBRCAm HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Patients in the trial were randomized 2:1 to receive either talazoparib (1 mg) or a physician’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine). All patients had received treatment with an anthracycline and/or a taxane previously.

Median progression-free survival was 8.6 months in the talazoparib arm, compared with 5.6 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.71; P less than .0001).

Anemia was the most common hematologic adverse event, with grade 3 or greater occurring in 39.2% of patients on the PARP inhibitor, compared with 4.8% of patients treated with other agents, according to results of the trial presented at the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.


Warnings and precautions for myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia, myelosuppression, and embryo-fetal toxicity are included in the drug’s prescribing information. The PARP inhibitor’s most common adverse reactions of any grade are fatigue, anemia, nausea, neutropenia, headache, thrombocytopenia, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, and decreased appetite, the FDA said.

The recommended dose for talazoparib, marketed as Talzenna by Pfizer, is 1 mg taken as a single oral daily dose, with or without food.




 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved talazoparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, for patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx from Myriad Genetic Laboratories as the companion diagnostic to identify patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious gBRCAm who are eligible for talazoparib, the agency announced.

Approval was based on improved progression-free survival in EMBRACA, a phase 3, open-label trial of 431 patients with gBRCAm HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Patients in the trial were randomized 2:1 to receive either talazoparib (1 mg) or a physician’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine). All patients had received treatment with an anthracycline and/or a taxane previously.

Median progression-free survival was 8.6 months in the talazoparib arm, compared with 5.6 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.71; P less than .0001).

Anemia was the most common hematologic adverse event, with grade 3 or greater occurring in 39.2% of patients on the PARP inhibitor, compared with 4.8% of patients treated with other agents, according to results of the trial presented at the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.


Warnings and precautions for myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia, myelosuppression, and embryo-fetal toxicity are included in the drug’s prescribing information. The PARP inhibitor’s most common adverse reactions of any grade are fatigue, anemia, nausea, neutropenia, headache, thrombocytopenia, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, and decreased appetite, the FDA said.

The recommended dose for talazoparib, marketed as Talzenna by Pfizer, is 1 mg taken as a single oral daily dose, with or without food.




 

Learn more about NAMS: http://www.menopause.org/home

Learn more about NAMS: http://www.menopause.org/home

Learn more about NAMS: http://www.menopause.org/home