User login
SAN ANTONIO – Adjuvant capecitabine does not improve outcomes in women with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have undergone resection and received standard chemotherapy, finds a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial jointly conducted by the Spanish GEICAM group and the Central and South American CIBOMA group. But the story may not end there.
Findings reported in a session and press conference at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium showed that, compared with observation, eight cycles of adjuvant capecitabine (Xeloda) reduced the 5-year risks of disease-free survival events and death by a nonsignificant relative 18% and 8%, respectively, among all 876 women randomized. However, the subgroup whose tumors had the nonbasal phenotype saw large significant benefits, with 47% and 58% relative reductions in these risks, respectively.
“The trial is formally negative,” commented lead investigator Miguel Martín, MD, PhD, head of the medical oncology service at Hospital Gregorio Marañón in Madrid. However, the observation arm fared better than expected. In addition, the trial had a very low–risk patient population, which may help explain why its findings differ somewhat from the more positive findings of the similar CREATE-X trial.
“Our data don’t speak against the CREATE-X study. My personal view is that capecitabine is useful for some TNBC patients,” Dr. Martin said. “Our study is not finished because we are going to look at the genomic characteristics of this group defined as non–basal-like because we want to know more about this subgroup. We are planning also to reproduce our subset in the CREATE-X trial to see if this is a real finding because we are in the era of personalized medicine.”
TNBC is a broad group defined only by negative findings for the main markers having available treatments, he elaborated. “So if we could define a subpopulation that actually benefited from capecitabine, this will be great for the patients.” Currently, conventional pathology does not routinely report on tumor basal phenotype, so all TNBC patients receive the same drugs. “This is a mistake. We should select the right drug for the right patient. Probably not all breast cancer patients are sensitive to the same drugs. But the fact is that we don’t have funding to run trials looking at that because this kind of trial is not interesting for pharma companies.”
“That’s an important message that triple-negative is really a big, very heterogeneous group,” agreed SABCS codirector and press conference moderator Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and associate dean of oncology programs at the University of Texas, Dallas.
Patients and clinicians alike are largely unaware of the presence of TNBC basal and nonbasal subtypes and their potential importance, he said. “We all need some education on that, us included. It’s a very, very heterogeneous group, it is one that is very challenging. We need to start by educating all of us that there is a need to do research on that. ... We have a duty to define this phenotype better.”
Study details
“TNBC is sensitive to chemotherapy, but a significant proportion of patients will eventually relapse after conventional anthracycline and taxane combinations, so we need new approaches to this population,” Dr. Martín noted.
The trial, joint GEICAM/2003-11 and CIBOMA/2004-01, was designed in 2004. Although no information about capecitabine in breast cancer was available at the time, the investigators selected this drug because it is non–cross-resistant with anthracyclines and taxanes.
About 55% of the patients randomized had node-negative disease and roughly 80% received adjuvant chemotherapy alone because neoadjuvant chemotherapy was generally not used 14 years ago, Dr. Martín noted.
After a median follow-up of 7.34 years, the 5-year disease-free survival rate—the trial’s primary endpoint—was 79.6% with capecitabine and 76.8% with observation, a nonsignificant difference in both unadjusted analysis (hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .136) and adjusted analysis (HR, 0.79; P = .082). The 5-year overall survival rate was 86.2% with capecitabine and 85.9% with observation, another nonsignificant difference (HR, 0.92; P = .623).
However, in subgroup analyses among the 248 patients with nonbasal disease, defined as immunohistochemically negative for both EGFR and CK5/6, capecitabine conferred a significant disease-free survival advantage (HR, 0.53; P = .02) and overall survival advantage (HR, 0.420; P = .007) relative to observation.
Interaction of basal/nonbasal phenotype with treatment was marginal for disease-free survival (P = .0694) and significant for overall survival (P = .0052).
In the nonbasal subgroup, the disease-free survival benefit of capecitabine was mainly driven by a reduction in distant recurrences, particularly in the liver and the brain.
Adjuvant capecitabine had tolerability that was “exactly as expected,” according to Dr. Martín. The median dose intensity was 86.3%, and 75.2% of patients completed all of the planned eight cycles.
The trial was supported by Roche, which also provided capecitabine. Dr. Martín reported receiving speaker’s honoraria from Pfizer and Eli Lilly; honoraria for participation in advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, PharmaMar, Taiho Oncology, and Eli Lilly; and research grants from Novartis and Roche.
SOURCE: Martín M et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS2-04.
SAN ANTONIO – Adjuvant capecitabine does not improve outcomes in women with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have undergone resection and received standard chemotherapy, finds a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial jointly conducted by the Spanish GEICAM group and the Central and South American CIBOMA group. But the story may not end there.
Findings reported in a session and press conference at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium showed that, compared with observation, eight cycles of adjuvant capecitabine (Xeloda) reduced the 5-year risks of disease-free survival events and death by a nonsignificant relative 18% and 8%, respectively, among all 876 women randomized. However, the subgroup whose tumors had the nonbasal phenotype saw large significant benefits, with 47% and 58% relative reductions in these risks, respectively.
“The trial is formally negative,” commented lead investigator Miguel Martín, MD, PhD, head of the medical oncology service at Hospital Gregorio Marañón in Madrid. However, the observation arm fared better than expected. In addition, the trial had a very low–risk patient population, which may help explain why its findings differ somewhat from the more positive findings of the similar CREATE-X trial.
“Our data don’t speak against the CREATE-X study. My personal view is that capecitabine is useful for some TNBC patients,” Dr. Martin said. “Our study is not finished because we are going to look at the genomic characteristics of this group defined as non–basal-like because we want to know more about this subgroup. We are planning also to reproduce our subset in the CREATE-X trial to see if this is a real finding because we are in the era of personalized medicine.”
TNBC is a broad group defined only by negative findings for the main markers having available treatments, he elaborated. “So if we could define a subpopulation that actually benefited from capecitabine, this will be great for the patients.” Currently, conventional pathology does not routinely report on tumor basal phenotype, so all TNBC patients receive the same drugs. “This is a mistake. We should select the right drug for the right patient. Probably not all breast cancer patients are sensitive to the same drugs. But the fact is that we don’t have funding to run trials looking at that because this kind of trial is not interesting for pharma companies.”
“That’s an important message that triple-negative is really a big, very heterogeneous group,” agreed SABCS codirector and press conference moderator Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and associate dean of oncology programs at the University of Texas, Dallas.
Patients and clinicians alike are largely unaware of the presence of TNBC basal and nonbasal subtypes and their potential importance, he said. “We all need some education on that, us included. It’s a very, very heterogeneous group, it is one that is very challenging. We need to start by educating all of us that there is a need to do research on that. ... We have a duty to define this phenotype better.”
Study details
“TNBC is sensitive to chemotherapy, but a significant proportion of patients will eventually relapse after conventional anthracycline and taxane combinations, so we need new approaches to this population,” Dr. Martín noted.
The trial, joint GEICAM/2003-11 and CIBOMA/2004-01, was designed in 2004. Although no information about capecitabine in breast cancer was available at the time, the investigators selected this drug because it is non–cross-resistant with anthracyclines and taxanes.
About 55% of the patients randomized had node-negative disease and roughly 80% received adjuvant chemotherapy alone because neoadjuvant chemotherapy was generally not used 14 years ago, Dr. Martín noted.
After a median follow-up of 7.34 years, the 5-year disease-free survival rate—the trial’s primary endpoint—was 79.6% with capecitabine and 76.8% with observation, a nonsignificant difference in both unadjusted analysis (hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .136) and adjusted analysis (HR, 0.79; P = .082). The 5-year overall survival rate was 86.2% with capecitabine and 85.9% with observation, another nonsignificant difference (HR, 0.92; P = .623).
However, in subgroup analyses among the 248 patients with nonbasal disease, defined as immunohistochemically negative for both EGFR and CK5/6, capecitabine conferred a significant disease-free survival advantage (HR, 0.53; P = .02) and overall survival advantage (HR, 0.420; P = .007) relative to observation.
Interaction of basal/nonbasal phenotype with treatment was marginal for disease-free survival (P = .0694) and significant for overall survival (P = .0052).
In the nonbasal subgroup, the disease-free survival benefit of capecitabine was mainly driven by a reduction in distant recurrences, particularly in the liver and the brain.
Adjuvant capecitabine had tolerability that was “exactly as expected,” according to Dr. Martín. The median dose intensity was 86.3%, and 75.2% of patients completed all of the planned eight cycles.
The trial was supported by Roche, which also provided capecitabine. Dr. Martín reported receiving speaker’s honoraria from Pfizer and Eli Lilly; honoraria for participation in advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, PharmaMar, Taiho Oncology, and Eli Lilly; and research grants from Novartis and Roche.
SOURCE: Martín M et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS2-04.
SAN ANTONIO – Adjuvant capecitabine does not improve outcomes in women with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have undergone resection and received standard chemotherapy, finds a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial jointly conducted by the Spanish GEICAM group and the Central and South American CIBOMA group. But the story may not end there.
Findings reported in a session and press conference at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium showed that, compared with observation, eight cycles of adjuvant capecitabine (Xeloda) reduced the 5-year risks of disease-free survival events and death by a nonsignificant relative 18% and 8%, respectively, among all 876 women randomized. However, the subgroup whose tumors had the nonbasal phenotype saw large significant benefits, with 47% and 58% relative reductions in these risks, respectively.
“The trial is formally negative,” commented lead investigator Miguel Martín, MD, PhD, head of the medical oncology service at Hospital Gregorio Marañón in Madrid. However, the observation arm fared better than expected. In addition, the trial had a very low–risk patient population, which may help explain why its findings differ somewhat from the more positive findings of the similar CREATE-X trial.
“Our data don’t speak against the CREATE-X study. My personal view is that capecitabine is useful for some TNBC patients,” Dr. Martin said. “Our study is not finished because we are going to look at the genomic characteristics of this group defined as non–basal-like because we want to know more about this subgroup. We are planning also to reproduce our subset in the CREATE-X trial to see if this is a real finding because we are in the era of personalized medicine.”
TNBC is a broad group defined only by negative findings for the main markers having available treatments, he elaborated. “So if we could define a subpopulation that actually benefited from capecitabine, this will be great for the patients.” Currently, conventional pathology does not routinely report on tumor basal phenotype, so all TNBC patients receive the same drugs. “This is a mistake. We should select the right drug for the right patient. Probably not all breast cancer patients are sensitive to the same drugs. But the fact is that we don’t have funding to run trials looking at that because this kind of trial is not interesting for pharma companies.”
“That’s an important message that triple-negative is really a big, very heterogeneous group,” agreed SABCS codirector and press conference moderator Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and associate dean of oncology programs at the University of Texas, Dallas.
Patients and clinicians alike are largely unaware of the presence of TNBC basal and nonbasal subtypes and their potential importance, he said. “We all need some education on that, us included. It’s a very, very heterogeneous group, it is one that is very challenging. We need to start by educating all of us that there is a need to do research on that. ... We have a duty to define this phenotype better.”
Study details
“TNBC is sensitive to chemotherapy, but a significant proportion of patients will eventually relapse after conventional anthracycline and taxane combinations, so we need new approaches to this population,” Dr. Martín noted.
The trial, joint GEICAM/2003-11 and CIBOMA/2004-01, was designed in 2004. Although no information about capecitabine in breast cancer was available at the time, the investigators selected this drug because it is non–cross-resistant with anthracyclines and taxanes.
About 55% of the patients randomized had node-negative disease and roughly 80% received adjuvant chemotherapy alone because neoadjuvant chemotherapy was generally not used 14 years ago, Dr. Martín noted.
After a median follow-up of 7.34 years, the 5-year disease-free survival rate—the trial’s primary endpoint—was 79.6% with capecitabine and 76.8% with observation, a nonsignificant difference in both unadjusted analysis (hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .136) and adjusted analysis (HR, 0.79; P = .082). The 5-year overall survival rate was 86.2% with capecitabine and 85.9% with observation, another nonsignificant difference (HR, 0.92; P = .623).
However, in subgroup analyses among the 248 patients with nonbasal disease, defined as immunohistochemically negative for both EGFR and CK5/6, capecitabine conferred a significant disease-free survival advantage (HR, 0.53; P = .02) and overall survival advantage (HR, 0.420; P = .007) relative to observation.
Interaction of basal/nonbasal phenotype with treatment was marginal for disease-free survival (P = .0694) and significant for overall survival (P = .0052).
In the nonbasal subgroup, the disease-free survival benefit of capecitabine was mainly driven by a reduction in distant recurrences, particularly in the liver and the brain.
Adjuvant capecitabine had tolerability that was “exactly as expected,” according to Dr. Martín. The median dose intensity was 86.3%, and 75.2% of patients completed all of the planned eight cycles.
The trial was supported by Roche, which also provided capecitabine. Dr. Martín reported receiving speaker’s honoraria from Pfizer and Eli Lilly; honoraria for participation in advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, PharmaMar, Taiho Oncology, and Eli Lilly; and research grants from Novartis and Roche.
SOURCE: Martín M et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS2-04.
REPORTING FROM SABCS 2018
Key clinical point: Adjuvant capecitabine fails to improve outcomes in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer treated with surgery and standard chemotherapy.
Major finding: The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 79.6% with eight cycles of adjuvant capecitabine versus 76.8% with observation (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; P = .082).
Study details: A phase 3, randomized, controlled trial among 876 women with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer who had undergone surgery and received standard chemotherapy (joint GEICAM/2003-11 and CIBOMA/2004-01 trial).
Disclosures: The trial was supported by Roche, which also provided capecitabine. Dr. Martín reported receiving speaker’s honoraria from Pfizer and Eli Lilly; honoraria for participation in advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, PharmaMar, Taiho Oncology, and Eli Lilly; and research grants from Novartis and Roche.
Source: Martín M et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS2-04.