User login
Myeloma: First-In-Class ADC Regimen Yields Key Benefits
“Taken together with results from the [previous] DREAMM-7 trial, these data highlight the potential of belantamab mafodotin-containing triplets to address an unmet need for novel regimens to treat patients with multiple myeloma at the first relapse,” senior author Suzanne Trudel, MD, of the department of medical oncology and hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada, said in presenting the late-breaking findings in a press briefing at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting in Chicago.
The results, published concurrently in The New England Journal of Medicine, are from an interim analysis of the ongoing phase 3, global open-label DREAMM-8 trial, involving 302 patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who were randomized to treatment with either belantamab mafodotin (n = 155) or bortezomib (n=147), each in addition to the pom-dex combination.
The study met its primary endpoint of PFS at a median follow-up of 21.8 months, with the median PFS in the belantamab mafodotin group not met, and the rate 12.7 months for bortezomib (HR 0.52; P < .001).
The 12-month rate of PFS was significantly higher with belantamab mafodotin compared with the bortezomib group (71% versus 51%).
The overall response rates between the 2 groups were similar (77% versus 72%), however, the belantamab mafodotin group had an improved rate of complete response of 40% versus 16% in the bortezomib group.
The median duration of response was not reached with belantamab mafodotin versus 17.5 months with bortezomib.
While a positive trend for median overall survival favored belantamab mafodotin for median overall survival (HR .77), the authors note that survival data still need to mature.
Further analyses showed early and sustained separation in favor of belantamab mafodotin for PFS in all prespecified subgroups, including those with high-risk cytogenetics, and those refractory to lenalidomide and anti-CD38s.
In terms of safety, grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) occurred among 91% of those in the belantamab mafodotin group compared with 73% in the bortezomib group, however, when the researchers adjusted for time on treatment, the belantamab mafodotin group had similar or lower rates of AEs.
Discontinuation rates for fatal or AEs of any cause were similar in both arms.
The most prominent side effects of belantamab mafodotin are the ocular AEs that affect the majority of patients. In the DREAMM-8 study, the ocular events affected 89% of patients, with events that were grade 3 or higher occurring among 43% (grade 3, 42%; grade 4, 1%).
The ocular events, which included blurred vision, dry eye, and a foreign body sensation in the eyes, were generally reversible and managed with treatment delays and dose modifications.
As of the time of the analysis, the first occurrence of the ocular events had improved in 92% of patients and resolved in 85%, with a median time to resolution of 57 days.
The AEs resulted in treatment discontinuation for 9% of patients.
The ocular events were managed with a protocol-recommended modification of the belantamab mafodotin dose, which included dose delays until the KVA grade improved to 1 or lower, as well as reductions in the frequency of administration from every 4 weeks to every 8 weeks.
“Ocular AEs are seen in the majority of patients, and the best strategies to mitigate things at this time that we know of are dose holds for grade 2 ocular events, which allow for full recovery and minimize cumulative toxicity, and then prolonging dosing intervals for subsequent doses,” Dr. Trudel said in an interview.
Previous FDA Approval Withdrawn
Of note, belantamab mafodotin previously generated high interest for relapsed/refractory multiple melanoma, with early clinical results earning the therapy accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
However, the FDA approval was subsequently revoked when the DREAMM-3 trial filed to achieve its primary outcome of superior PFS.
Dr. Trudel explained in an interview that since then, key changes have included combinations to improve responses, “overcome early progression and allow patients to benefit from the long duration of response that is achieved with belantamab mafodotin once they respond.”
While the ocular toxicities are common, Dr. Trudel underscored that they are “reversible and manageable.”
Antibody-Drug Conjugates: Less is More?
The ocular AEs observed with belantamab mafodotin are among the variety of unique side effects that are reported with the emerging antibody-drug conjugates, which, with precision targeting, deliver highly potent cytotoxic ‘payloads’ that bind to cells, earning the drugs nicknames such as “smart bombs” and “biologic missiles.”
In the case of belantamab mafodotin, the target is the protein B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).
In a commentary on the DREAMM-8 study presented at the meeting, Sagar Lonial, MD, chair of the department of hematology and medical oncology at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University in Atlanta, noted the importance of BCMA: “In describing it to fellows, I explain that everything bad that a myeloma cell wants to do is mediated through BCMA.”
He underscored, however, the need to consider strategic dosing reductions, evoking iconic architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s adage “less is more.”
“These results show belantamab mafodotin is clearly effective, but the question is how do we most effectively deliver it,” he said. “The idea that more is better is not necessarily the case when we’re talking about antibody drug conjugates,” he said.
“We need to use less [drug], less frequently, and do it in a way that preserves patient function,” Dr. Lonial said. “Missed doses may actually result in better safety profiles and maintain the efficacy of the treatment,” he said.
That being said, Dr. Lonial emphasized that the DREAMM-8 study is important, showing “the longest PFS in a pom-dex combination that we’ve seen in multiple myeloma.”
And “less ocular toxicity with similar efficacy are big wins,” he added.
“Future studies should take less frequent dosing into account as they are planned and as they’re executed.”
Other Therapies
In addition to the bortezomib, pom-dex regimen, other currently approved triplet regimens used at the first relapse in multiple myeloma include selinexor-bortezomib-dexamethasone, however that regimen is associated with adverse events that can pose challenges.
Furthermore, two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies — ciltacabtagene autoleucel and idecabtagene vicleucel, have emerged and been approved for multiple myeloma patients who have received at least one and at least two previous lines of therapy, respectively.
While those CAR T-cell therapies show important improvements in PFS benefit and quality of life compared with standard triplet regimens, access is a significant stumbling block, and safety issues, including the potential for cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxic effects are also a concern.
“Each regimen for myeloma comes with unique toxicities. Thus, it is beneficial for physicians and patients to have access to multiple treatment regimens to individualize to the patient, based on patient characteristics [and] drug related factors,” Dr. Trudel said.
The current DREAMM-8 regimen represents a convenient, “off-the-shelf option that can be given in the community,” she added.
The trial was sponsored by GSK. Dr. Trudel disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen Biotech, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Lonial reported ties with Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, GSK, ABBVIE, Genentech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Janssen, and TG Therapeutics.
“Taken together with results from the [previous] DREAMM-7 trial, these data highlight the potential of belantamab mafodotin-containing triplets to address an unmet need for novel regimens to treat patients with multiple myeloma at the first relapse,” senior author Suzanne Trudel, MD, of the department of medical oncology and hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada, said in presenting the late-breaking findings in a press briefing at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting in Chicago.
The results, published concurrently in The New England Journal of Medicine, are from an interim analysis of the ongoing phase 3, global open-label DREAMM-8 trial, involving 302 patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who were randomized to treatment with either belantamab mafodotin (n = 155) or bortezomib (n=147), each in addition to the pom-dex combination.
The study met its primary endpoint of PFS at a median follow-up of 21.8 months, with the median PFS in the belantamab mafodotin group not met, and the rate 12.7 months for bortezomib (HR 0.52; P < .001).
The 12-month rate of PFS was significantly higher with belantamab mafodotin compared with the bortezomib group (71% versus 51%).
The overall response rates between the 2 groups were similar (77% versus 72%), however, the belantamab mafodotin group had an improved rate of complete response of 40% versus 16% in the bortezomib group.
The median duration of response was not reached with belantamab mafodotin versus 17.5 months with bortezomib.
While a positive trend for median overall survival favored belantamab mafodotin for median overall survival (HR .77), the authors note that survival data still need to mature.
Further analyses showed early and sustained separation in favor of belantamab mafodotin for PFS in all prespecified subgroups, including those with high-risk cytogenetics, and those refractory to lenalidomide and anti-CD38s.
In terms of safety, grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) occurred among 91% of those in the belantamab mafodotin group compared with 73% in the bortezomib group, however, when the researchers adjusted for time on treatment, the belantamab mafodotin group had similar or lower rates of AEs.
Discontinuation rates for fatal or AEs of any cause were similar in both arms.
The most prominent side effects of belantamab mafodotin are the ocular AEs that affect the majority of patients. In the DREAMM-8 study, the ocular events affected 89% of patients, with events that were grade 3 or higher occurring among 43% (grade 3, 42%; grade 4, 1%).
The ocular events, which included blurred vision, dry eye, and a foreign body sensation in the eyes, were generally reversible and managed with treatment delays and dose modifications.
As of the time of the analysis, the first occurrence of the ocular events had improved in 92% of patients and resolved in 85%, with a median time to resolution of 57 days.
The AEs resulted in treatment discontinuation for 9% of patients.
The ocular events were managed with a protocol-recommended modification of the belantamab mafodotin dose, which included dose delays until the KVA grade improved to 1 or lower, as well as reductions in the frequency of administration from every 4 weeks to every 8 weeks.
“Ocular AEs are seen in the majority of patients, and the best strategies to mitigate things at this time that we know of are dose holds for grade 2 ocular events, which allow for full recovery and minimize cumulative toxicity, and then prolonging dosing intervals for subsequent doses,” Dr. Trudel said in an interview.
Previous FDA Approval Withdrawn
Of note, belantamab mafodotin previously generated high interest for relapsed/refractory multiple melanoma, with early clinical results earning the therapy accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
However, the FDA approval was subsequently revoked when the DREAMM-3 trial filed to achieve its primary outcome of superior PFS.
Dr. Trudel explained in an interview that since then, key changes have included combinations to improve responses, “overcome early progression and allow patients to benefit from the long duration of response that is achieved with belantamab mafodotin once they respond.”
While the ocular toxicities are common, Dr. Trudel underscored that they are “reversible and manageable.”
Antibody-Drug Conjugates: Less is More?
The ocular AEs observed with belantamab mafodotin are among the variety of unique side effects that are reported with the emerging antibody-drug conjugates, which, with precision targeting, deliver highly potent cytotoxic ‘payloads’ that bind to cells, earning the drugs nicknames such as “smart bombs” and “biologic missiles.”
In the case of belantamab mafodotin, the target is the protein B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).
In a commentary on the DREAMM-8 study presented at the meeting, Sagar Lonial, MD, chair of the department of hematology and medical oncology at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University in Atlanta, noted the importance of BCMA: “In describing it to fellows, I explain that everything bad that a myeloma cell wants to do is mediated through BCMA.”
He underscored, however, the need to consider strategic dosing reductions, evoking iconic architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s adage “less is more.”
“These results show belantamab mafodotin is clearly effective, but the question is how do we most effectively deliver it,” he said. “The idea that more is better is not necessarily the case when we’re talking about antibody drug conjugates,” he said.
“We need to use less [drug], less frequently, and do it in a way that preserves patient function,” Dr. Lonial said. “Missed doses may actually result in better safety profiles and maintain the efficacy of the treatment,” he said.
That being said, Dr. Lonial emphasized that the DREAMM-8 study is important, showing “the longest PFS in a pom-dex combination that we’ve seen in multiple myeloma.”
And “less ocular toxicity with similar efficacy are big wins,” he added.
“Future studies should take less frequent dosing into account as they are planned and as they’re executed.”
Other Therapies
In addition to the bortezomib, pom-dex regimen, other currently approved triplet regimens used at the first relapse in multiple myeloma include selinexor-bortezomib-dexamethasone, however that regimen is associated with adverse events that can pose challenges.
Furthermore, two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies — ciltacabtagene autoleucel and idecabtagene vicleucel, have emerged and been approved for multiple myeloma patients who have received at least one and at least two previous lines of therapy, respectively.
While those CAR T-cell therapies show important improvements in PFS benefit and quality of life compared with standard triplet regimens, access is a significant stumbling block, and safety issues, including the potential for cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxic effects are also a concern.
“Each regimen for myeloma comes with unique toxicities. Thus, it is beneficial for physicians and patients to have access to multiple treatment regimens to individualize to the patient, based on patient characteristics [and] drug related factors,” Dr. Trudel said.
The current DREAMM-8 regimen represents a convenient, “off-the-shelf option that can be given in the community,” she added.
The trial was sponsored by GSK. Dr. Trudel disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen Biotech, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Lonial reported ties with Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, GSK, ABBVIE, Genentech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Janssen, and TG Therapeutics.
“Taken together with results from the [previous] DREAMM-7 trial, these data highlight the potential of belantamab mafodotin-containing triplets to address an unmet need for novel regimens to treat patients with multiple myeloma at the first relapse,” senior author Suzanne Trudel, MD, of the department of medical oncology and hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada, said in presenting the late-breaking findings in a press briefing at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting in Chicago.
The results, published concurrently in The New England Journal of Medicine, are from an interim analysis of the ongoing phase 3, global open-label DREAMM-8 trial, involving 302 patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who were randomized to treatment with either belantamab mafodotin (n = 155) or bortezomib (n=147), each in addition to the pom-dex combination.
The study met its primary endpoint of PFS at a median follow-up of 21.8 months, with the median PFS in the belantamab mafodotin group not met, and the rate 12.7 months for bortezomib (HR 0.52; P < .001).
The 12-month rate of PFS was significantly higher with belantamab mafodotin compared with the bortezomib group (71% versus 51%).
The overall response rates between the 2 groups were similar (77% versus 72%), however, the belantamab mafodotin group had an improved rate of complete response of 40% versus 16% in the bortezomib group.
The median duration of response was not reached with belantamab mafodotin versus 17.5 months with bortezomib.
While a positive trend for median overall survival favored belantamab mafodotin for median overall survival (HR .77), the authors note that survival data still need to mature.
Further analyses showed early and sustained separation in favor of belantamab mafodotin for PFS in all prespecified subgroups, including those with high-risk cytogenetics, and those refractory to lenalidomide and anti-CD38s.
In terms of safety, grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) occurred among 91% of those in the belantamab mafodotin group compared with 73% in the bortezomib group, however, when the researchers adjusted for time on treatment, the belantamab mafodotin group had similar or lower rates of AEs.
Discontinuation rates for fatal or AEs of any cause were similar in both arms.
The most prominent side effects of belantamab mafodotin are the ocular AEs that affect the majority of patients. In the DREAMM-8 study, the ocular events affected 89% of patients, with events that were grade 3 or higher occurring among 43% (grade 3, 42%; grade 4, 1%).
The ocular events, which included blurred vision, dry eye, and a foreign body sensation in the eyes, were generally reversible and managed with treatment delays and dose modifications.
As of the time of the analysis, the first occurrence of the ocular events had improved in 92% of patients and resolved in 85%, with a median time to resolution of 57 days.
The AEs resulted in treatment discontinuation for 9% of patients.
The ocular events were managed with a protocol-recommended modification of the belantamab mafodotin dose, which included dose delays until the KVA grade improved to 1 or lower, as well as reductions in the frequency of administration from every 4 weeks to every 8 weeks.
“Ocular AEs are seen in the majority of patients, and the best strategies to mitigate things at this time that we know of are dose holds for grade 2 ocular events, which allow for full recovery and minimize cumulative toxicity, and then prolonging dosing intervals for subsequent doses,” Dr. Trudel said in an interview.
Previous FDA Approval Withdrawn
Of note, belantamab mafodotin previously generated high interest for relapsed/refractory multiple melanoma, with early clinical results earning the therapy accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
However, the FDA approval was subsequently revoked when the DREAMM-3 trial filed to achieve its primary outcome of superior PFS.
Dr. Trudel explained in an interview that since then, key changes have included combinations to improve responses, “overcome early progression and allow patients to benefit from the long duration of response that is achieved with belantamab mafodotin once they respond.”
While the ocular toxicities are common, Dr. Trudel underscored that they are “reversible and manageable.”
Antibody-Drug Conjugates: Less is More?
The ocular AEs observed with belantamab mafodotin are among the variety of unique side effects that are reported with the emerging antibody-drug conjugates, which, with precision targeting, deliver highly potent cytotoxic ‘payloads’ that bind to cells, earning the drugs nicknames such as “smart bombs” and “biologic missiles.”
In the case of belantamab mafodotin, the target is the protein B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).
In a commentary on the DREAMM-8 study presented at the meeting, Sagar Lonial, MD, chair of the department of hematology and medical oncology at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University in Atlanta, noted the importance of BCMA: “In describing it to fellows, I explain that everything bad that a myeloma cell wants to do is mediated through BCMA.”
He underscored, however, the need to consider strategic dosing reductions, evoking iconic architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s adage “less is more.”
“These results show belantamab mafodotin is clearly effective, but the question is how do we most effectively deliver it,” he said. “The idea that more is better is not necessarily the case when we’re talking about antibody drug conjugates,” he said.
“We need to use less [drug], less frequently, and do it in a way that preserves patient function,” Dr. Lonial said. “Missed doses may actually result in better safety profiles and maintain the efficacy of the treatment,” he said.
That being said, Dr. Lonial emphasized that the DREAMM-8 study is important, showing “the longest PFS in a pom-dex combination that we’ve seen in multiple myeloma.”
And “less ocular toxicity with similar efficacy are big wins,” he added.
“Future studies should take less frequent dosing into account as they are planned and as they’re executed.”
Other Therapies
In addition to the bortezomib, pom-dex regimen, other currently approved triplet regimens used at the first relapse in multiple myeloma include selinexor-bortezomib-dexamethasone, however that regimen is associated with adverse events that can pose challenges.
Furthermore, two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies — ciltacabtagene autoleucel and idecabtagene vicleucel, have emerged and been approved for multiple myeloma patients who have received at least one and at least two previous lines of therapy, respectively.
While those CAR T-cell therapies show important improvements in PFS benefit and quality of life compared with standard triplet regimens, access is a significant stumbling block, and safety issues, including the potential for cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxic effects are also a concern.
“Each regimen for myeloma comes with unique toxicities. Thus, it is beneficial for physicians and patients to have access to multiple treatment regimens to individualize to the patient, based on patient characteristics [and] drug related factors,” Dr. Trudel said.
The current DREAMM-8 regimen represents a convenient, “off-the-shelf option that can be given in the community,” she added.
The trial was sponsored by GSK. Dr. Trudel disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen Biotech, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Lonial reported ties with Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, GSK, ABBVIE, Genentech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Janssen, and TG Therapeutics.
FROM ASCO 2024
Anti-Müllerian Hormone Predicts Chemo Benefits in BC
The new findings also show that women with low baseline anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) of less than 10 pg/mL do not benefit from chemotherapy. In fact, AMH levels were a better predictor of chemotherapy benefit than self-reported premenopausal status, age, and other hormone levels.
“We may be overtreating some of our patients” with invasive breast cancer and low AMH levels, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
The potential implication of the study is that clinicians may be able to stop giving chemotherapy to a subset of breast cancer patients who will not benefit from it, he said in the presentation.
New Analysis Singles Out AMH Levels
In a new analysis of data from the RxPONDER trial, Dr. Kalinsky shared data from 1,016 patients who were younger than 55 years of age and self-reported as premenopausal.
The original RxPONDER trial (also known as SWOG S1007) was a randomized, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the benefit of endocrine therapy (ET) alone vs. ET plus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) invasive breast cancer and low recurrence scores (25 or less with genomic testing by Oncotype DX), Dr. Kalinsky said in his presentation.
The researchers found no improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) with the addition of chemotherapy to ET overall, but significant IDFS improvement occurred with added chemotherapy to ET in the subgroup of self-reported premenopausal women (hazard ratio 0.60).
To better identify the impact of menopausal status on patients who would benefit or not benefit from chemotherapy in the new analysis, the researchers assessed baseline serum samples of serum estradiol, progesterone, follicular stimulating hormone(FSH), luteinizing hormone, AMH, and inhibin B.
The primary outcomes were associations of these markers (continuous and dichotomized) with IDFS and distant relapse-free survival with prognosis and prediction of chemotherapy benefit, based on Cox regression analysis.
Of the six markers analyzed, only AMH showed an association with chemotherapy benefits. “AMH is more stable and reliable during the menstrual cycle” compared to other hormones such as FSH and estradiol. Also, AMH levels ≥ 10 pg/mL are considered a standard cutoff to define normal ovarian reserve, Dr. Kalinsky said in his presentation.
A total of 209 patients (21%) had low AMH (less than 10 pg/mL) and were considered postmenopausal, and 806 (79%) were considered premenopausal, with AMH levels of 10 pg/mL or higher.
Chemotherapy plus ET was significantly more beneficial than ET alone in the premenopausal patients with AMH levels ≥ 10 pg/mL (hazard ratio 0.48), Dr. Kalinsky said. By contrast, no chemotherapy benefit was seen in the patients deemed postmenopausal, with low AMH levels (HR 1.21).
In the patients with AMH of 10 pg/mL or higher, the absolute 5-year IDFS benefit of chemotherapy was 7.8%, compared to no notable difference for those with low AMH levels.
Similarly, 5-year DRFS with chemotherapy in patients with AMH of 10 pg/mL or higher was 4.4% (HR 0.41), with no benefit for those with low AMH (HR 1.50).
The findings were limited by the post hoc design and lack of longitudinal data, Dr. Kalinsky said.
During the question-and-answer session, Dr. Kalinsky said that he hoped the data could be incorporated into a clinical model “to further refine patients who need chemotherapy or don’t.” The results suggest that the reproductive hormone AMH can be used to identify premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- invasive breast cancer and intermediate risk based on oncotype scores who would likely benefit from chemotherapy, while those with lower AMH who could forgo it, Dr. Kalinsky concluded.
AMH May Ultimately Inform Chemotherapy Choices
The findings are “thoughtful and intriguing” and may inform which patients benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and which may not, said Lisa A. Carey, MD, of Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who served as discussant for the abstract.
Dr. Carey noted as a caveat that AMH is not currently recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for menopause prediction. However, AMH is “a very credible biomarker of ovarian reserve,” she said in her presentation.
As for clinical implications, the lack of chemotherapy benefit in patients with low AMH at baseline suggests that at least part of the benefits of chemotherapy come from ovarian suppression, Dr. Carey said.
Current assessments of menopausal status are often crude, she noted, and AMH may be helpful when menopausal status is clinically unclear.
Dr. Carey agreed the findings were limited by the post hoc design, and longitudinal data are needed. However, the clinical implications are real if the results are validated, she said, and longitudinal data will be explored in the currently enrolling NRG BR009 OFSET trial.
Clinical Challenges of Menopausal Status
Since the original RxPONDER showed a benefit of chemotherapy for premenopausal women, but not for postmenopausal women with the same low recurrence score, the medical oncology community has worked to determine how much of the benefit seen was related to the ovarian suppression associated with chemotherapy, Megan Kruse, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.
“Determining a woman’s menopausal status can be challenging in the clinic, as many women have had hysterectomy but have intact ovaries or may have significantly irregular periods, which can lead to confusion about the best endocrine therapy to recommend and how to categorize risk when it comes to Oncotype DX testing,” said Dr. Kruse. She was not involved in the RxPONDER study, but commented on the study in a podcast for ASCO Daily News in advance of the ASCO meeting.
“I was surprised that only AMH showed an association with chemotherapy benefit, as we often obtain estradiol/FSH levels in clinic to try to help with the menopausal assessment,” Dr. Kruse said in an interview. However, in clinical practice, the data may help discuss systemic therapy in patients who are near clinical menopause and trying to decide whether the potential added benefit of chemotherapy is worth the associated toxicity, she said.
“My hope is that new data allow for a more informed, individualized decision-making process,” she added.
Potential barriers to incorporate AMH into chemotherapy decisions in clinical practice include the need for insurance coverage for AMH levels, Dr. Kruse said in an interview. “The [AMH] levels also can be dynamic, so checking one point in time and making such a significant clinical decision based on one level is also a bit concerning,” she said.
Looking ahead, Dr. Kruse emphasized the need to complete the NRG BR-009 OFSET trial. That trial is designed to answer the question of whether adjuvant chemotherapy added to ovarian suppression (OS) plus ET is superior to OS plus ET for premenopausal women with early stage high-risk node negative or 1-3 lymph nodes positive breast cancer with an RS score of 25 or lower, she said.
“This extra analysis of the RxPONDER trial helps to further understand how premenopausal women may best benefit from adjuvant treatments,” Malinda T. West, MD, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview. The new study is important because it shows the ability of serum AMH to help predict ovarian reserve and imminent menopause, said Dr. West, who was not involved in the study.
In clinical practice, the study provides further insight into how premenopausal women may benefit from added chemotherapy and the role of ovarian suppression, Dr. West said.
The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences/National Cancer Institute, Exact Sciences Corporation (previously Genomic Health), and the Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.
Dr. Kalinsky disclosed that immediate family members are employed by EQRx and GRAIL, with stock or other ownership interests in these companies. He disclosed consulting or advisory roles with 4D Pharma, AstraZeneca, Cullinan Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Immunomedics, Lilly, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Merck, Mersana, Myovant Sciences, Novartis, Oncosec, Prelude Therapeutics, Puma Biotechnology, RayzeBio, Seagen, and Takeda. Dr. Kalinsky further disclosed research funding to his institution from Ascentage Pharma, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Novartis, and Seagen, and relationships with Genentech and Immunomedics.
Dr. Carey disclosed research funding to her institution from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, NanoString Technologies, Novartis, Seagen, and Veracyte. She disclosed an uncompensated relationship with Seagen, and uncompensated relationships between her institution and Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, and Novartis.
Dr. Kruse disclosed consulting or advisory roles with Novartis Oncology, Puma Biotechnology, Immunomedics, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, and Lilly.
Dr. West had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The new findings also show that women with low baseline anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) of less than 10 pg/mL do not benefit from chemotherapy. In fact, AMH levels were a better predictor of chemotherapy benefit than self-reported premenopausal status, age, and other hormone levels.
“We may be overtreating some of our patients” with invasive breast cancer and low AMH levels, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
The potential implication of the study is that clinicians may be able to stop giving chemotherapy to a subset of breast cancer patients who will not benefit from it, he said in the presentation.
New Analysis Singles Out AMH Levels
In a new analysis of data from the RxPONDER trial, Dr. Kalinsky shared data from 1,016 patients who were younger than 55 years of age and self-reported as premenopausal.
The original RxPONDER trial (also known as SWOG S1007) was a randomized, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the benefit of endocrine therapy (ET) alone vs. ET plus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) invasive breast cancer and low recurrence scores (25 or less with genomic testing by Oncotype DX), Dr. Kalinsky said in his presentation.
The researchers found no improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) with the addition of chemotherapy to ET overall, but significant IDFS improvement occurred with added chemotherapy to ET in the subgroup of self-reported premenopausal women (hazard ratio 0.60).
To better identify the impact of menopausal status on patients who would benefit or not benefit from chemotherapy in the new analysis, the researchers assessed baseline serum samples of serum estradiol, progesterone, follicular stimulating hormone(FSH), luteinizing hormone, AMH, and inhibin B.
The primary outcomes were associations of these markers (continuous and dichotomized) with IDFS and distant relapse-free survival with prognosis and prediction of chemotherapy benefit, based on Cox regression analysis.
Of the six markers analyzed, only AMH showed an association with chemotherapy benefits. “AMH is more stable and reliable during the menstrual cycle” compared to other hormones such as FSH and estradiol. Also, AMH levels ≥ 10 pg/mL are considered a standard cutoff to define normal ovarian reserve, Dr. Kalinsky said in his presentation.
A total of 209 patients (21%) had low AMH (less than 10 pg/mL) and were considered postmenopausal, and 806 (79%) were considered premenopausal, with AMH levels of 10 pg/mL or higher.
Chemotherapy plus ET was significantly more beneficial than ET alone in the premenopausal patients with AMH levels ≥ 10 pg/mL (hazard ratio 0.48), Dr. Kalinsky said. By contrast, no chemotherapy benefit was seen in the patients deemed postmenopausal, with low AMH levels (HR 1.21).
In the patients with AMH of 10 pg/mL or higher, the absolute 5-year IDFS benefit of chemotherapy was 7.8%, compared to no notable difference for those with low AMH levels.
Similarly, 5-year DRFS with chemotherapy in patients with AMH of 10 pg/mL or higher was 4.4% (HR 0.41), with no benefit for those with low AMH (HR 1.50).
The findings were limited by the post hoc design and lack of longitudinal data, Dr. Kalinsky said.
During the question-and-answer session, Dr. Kalinsky said that he hoped the data could be incorporated into a clinical model “to further refine patients who need chemotherapy or don’t.” The results suggest that the reproductive hormone AMH can be used to identify premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- invasive breast cancer and intermediate risk based on oncotype scores who would likely benefit from chemotherapy, while those with lower AMH who could forgo it, Dr. Kalinsky concluded.
AMH May Ultimately Inform Chemotherapy Choices
The findings are “thoughtful and intriguing” and may inform which patients benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and which may not, said Lisa A. Carey, MD, of Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who served as discussant for the abstract.
Dr. Carey noted as a caveat that AMH is not currently recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for menopause prediction. However, AMH is “a very credible biomarker of ovarian reserve,” she said in her presentation.
As for clinical implications, the lack of chemotherapy benefit in patients with low AMH at baseline suggests that at least part of the benefits of chemotherapy come from ovarian suppression, Dr. Carey said.
Current assessments of menopausal status are often crude, she noted, and AMH may be helpful when menopausal status is clinically unclear.
Dr. Carey agreed the findings were limited by the post hoc design, and longitudinal data are needed. However, the clinical implications are real if the results are validated, she said, and longitudinal data will be explored in the currently enrolling NRG BR009 OFSET trial.
Clinical Challenges of Menopausal Status
Since the original RxPONDER showed a benefit of chemotherapy for premenopausal women, but not for postmenopausal women with the same low recurrence score, the medical oncology community has worked to determine how much of the benefit seen was related to the ovarian suppression associated with chemotherapy, Megan Kruse, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.
“Determining a woman’s menopausal status can be challenging in the clinic, as many women have had hysterectomy but have intact ovaries or may have significantly irregular periods, which can lead to confusion about the best endocrine therapy to recommend and how to categorize risk when it comes to Oncotype DX testing,” said Dr. Kruse. She was not involved in the RxPONDER study, but commented on the study in a podcast for ASCO Daily News in advance of the ASCO meeting.
“I was surprised that only AMH showed an association with chemotherapy benefit, as we often obtain estradiol/FSH levels in clinic to try to help with the menopausal assessment,” Dr. Kruse said in an interview. However, in clinical practice, the data may help discuss systemic therapy in patients who are near clinical menopause and trying to decide whether the potential added benefit of chemotherapy is worth the associated toxicity, she said.
“My hope is that new data allow for a more informed, individualized decision-making process,” she added.
Potential barriers to incorporate AMH into chemotherapy decisions in clinical practice include the need for insurance coverage for AMH levels, Dr. Kruse said in an interview. “The [AMH] levels also can be dynamic, so checking one point in time and making such a significant clinical decision based on one level is also a bit concerning,” she said.
Looking ahead, Dr. Kruse emphasized the need to complete the NRG BR-009 OFSET trial. That trial is designed to answer the question of whether adjuvant chemotherapy added to ovarian suppression (OS) plus ET is superior to OS plus ET for premenopausal women with early stage high-risk node negative or 1-3 lymph nodes positive breast cancer with an RS score of 25 or lower, she said.
“This extra analysis of the RxPONDER trial helps to further understand how premenopausal women may best benefit from adjuvant treatments,” Malinda T. West, MD, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview. The new study is important because it shows the ability of serum AMH to help predict ovarian reserve and imminent menopause, said Dr. West, who was not involved in the study.
In clinical practice, the study provides further insight into how premenopausal women may benefit from added chemotherapy and the role of ovarian suppression, Dr. West said.
The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences/National Cancer Institute, Exact Sciences Corporation (previously Genomic Health), and the Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.
Dr. Kalinsky disclosed that immediate family members are employed by EQRx and GRAIL, with stock or other ownership interests in these companies. He disclosed consulting or advisory roles with 4D Pharma, AstraZeneca, Cullinan Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Immunomedics, Lilly, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Merck, Mersana, Myovant Sciences, Novartis, Oncosec, Prelude Therapeutics, Puma Biotechnology, RayzeBio, Seagen, and Takeda. Dr. Kalinsky further disclosed research funding to his institution from Ascentage Pharma, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Novartis, and Seagen, and relationships with Genentech and Immunomedics.
Dr. Carey disclosed research funding to her institution from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, NanoString Technologies, Novartis, Seagen, and Veracyte. She disclosed an uncompensated relationship with Seagen, and uncompensated relationships between her institution and Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, and Novartis.
Dr. Kruse disclosed consulting or advisory roles with Novartis Oncology, Puma Biotechnology, Immunomedics, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, and Lilly.
Dr. West had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The new findings also show that women with low baseline anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) of less than 10 pg/mL do not benefit from chemotherapy. In fact, AMH levels were a better predictor of chemotherapy benefit than self-reported premenopausal status, age, and other hormone levels.
“We may be overtreating some of our patients” with invasive breast cancer and low AMH levels, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
The potential implication of the study is that clinicians may be able to stop giving chemotherapy to a subset of breast cancer patients who will not benefit from it, he said in the presentation.
New Analysis Singles Out AMH Levels
In a new analysis of data from the RxPONDER trial, Dr. Kalinsky shared data from 1,016 patients who were younger than 55 years of age and self-reported as premenopausal.
The original RxPONDER trial (also known as SWOG S1007) was a randomized, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the benefit of endocrine therapy (ET) alone vs. ET plus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) invasive breast cancer and low recurrence scores (25 or less with genomic testing by Oncotype DX), Dr. Kalinsky said in his presentation.
The researchers found no improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) with the addition of chemotherapy to ET overall, but significant IDFS improvement occurred with added chemotherapy to ET in the subgroup of self-reported premenopausal women (hazard ratio 0.60).
To better identify the impact of menopausal status on patients who would benefit or not benefit from chemotherapy in the new analysis, the researchers assessed baseline serum samples of serum estradiol, progesterone, follicular stimulating hormone(FSH), luteinizing hormone, AMH, and inhibin B.
The primary outcomes were associations of these markers (continuous and dichotomized) with IDFS and distant relapse-free survival with prognosis and prediction of chemotherapy benefit, based on Cox regression analysis.
Of the six markers analyzed, only AMH showed an association with chemotherapy benefits. “AMH is more stable and reliable during the menstrual cycle” compared to other hormones such as FSH and estradiol. Also, AMH levels ≥ 10 pg/mL are considered a standard cutoff to define normal ovarian reserve, Dr. Kalinsky said in his presentation.
A total of 209 patients (21%) had low AMH (less than 10 pg/mL) and were considered postmenopausal, and 806 (79%) were considered premenopausal, with AMH levels of 10 pg/mL or higher.
Chemotherapy plus ET was significantly more beneficial than ET alone in the premenopausal patients with AMH levels ≥ 10 pg/mL (hazard ratio 0.48), Dr. Kalinsky said. By contrast, no chemotherapy benefit was seen in the patients deemed postmenopausal, with low AMH levels (HR 1.21).
In the patients with AMH of 10 pg/mL or higher, the absolute 5-year IDFS benefit of chemotherapy was 7.8%, compared to no notable difference for those with low AMH levels.
Similarly, 5-year DRFS with chemotherapy in patients with AMH of 10 pg/mL or higher was 4.4% (HR 0.41), with no benefit for those with low AMH (HR 1.50).
The findings were limited by the post hoc design and lack of longitudinal data, Dr. Kalinsky said.
During the question-and-answer session, Dr. Kalinsky said that he hoped the data could be incorporated into a clinical model “to further refine patients who need chemotherapy or don’t.” The results suggest that the reproductive hormone AMH can be used to identify premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- invasive breast cancer and intermediate risk based on oncotype scores who would likely benefit from chemotherapy, while those with lower AMH who could forgo it, Dr. Kalinsky concluded.
AMH May Ultimately Inform Chemotherapy Choices
The findings are “thoughtful and intriguing” and may inform which patients benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and which may not, said Lisa A. Carey, MD, of Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who served as discussant for the abstract.
Dr. Carey noted as a caveat that AMH is not currently recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for menopause prediction. However, AMH is “a very credible biomarker of ovarian reserve,” she said in her presentation.
As for clinical implications, the lack of chemotherapy benefit in patients with low AMH at baseline suggests that at least part of the benefits of chemotherapy come from ovarian suppression, Dr. Carey said.
Current assessments of menopausal status are often crude, she noted, and AMH may be helpful when menopausal status is clinically unclear.
Dr. Carey agreed the findings were limited by the post hoc design, and longitudinal data are needed. However, the clinical implications are real if the results are validated, she said, and longitudinal data will be explored in the currently enrolling NRG BR009 OFSET trial.
Clinical Challenges of Menopausal Status
Since the original RxPONDER showed a benefit of chemotherapy for premenopausal women, but not for postmenopausal women with the same low recurrence score, the medical oncology community has worked to determine how much of the benefit seen was related to the ovarian suppression associated with chemotherapy, Megan Kruse, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.
“Determining a woman’s menopausal status can be challenging in the clinic, as many women have had hysterectomy but have intact ovaries or may have significantly irregular periods, which can lead to confusion about the best endocrine therapy to recommend and how to categorize risk when it comes to Oncotype DX testing,” said Dr. Kruse. She was not involved in the RxPONDER study, but commented on the study in a podcast for ASCO Daily News in advance of the ASCO meeting.
“I was surprised that only AMH showed an association with chemotherapy benefit, as we often obtain estradiol/FSH levels in clinic to try to help with the menopausal assessment,” Dr. Kruse said in an interview. However, in clinical practice, the data may help discuss systemic therapy in patients who are near clinical menopause and trying to decide whether the potential added benefit of chemotherapy is worth the associated toxicity, she said.
“My hope is that new data allow for a more informed, individualized decision-making process,” she added.
Potential barriers to incorporate AMH into chemotherapy decisions in clinical practice include the need for insurance coverage for AMH levels, Dr. Kruse said in an interview. “The [AMH] levels also can be dynamic, so checking one point in time and making such a significant clinical decision based on one level is also a bit concerning,” she said.
Looking ahead, Dr. Kruse emphasized the need to complete the NRG BR-009 OFSET trial. That trial is designed to answer the question of whether adjuvant chemotherapy added to ovarian suppression (OS) plus ET is superior to OS plus ET for premenopausal women with early stage high-risk node negative or 1-3 lymph nodes positive breast cancer with an RS score of 25 or lower, she said.
“This extra analysis of the RxPONDER trial helps to further understand how premenopausal women may best benefit from adjuvant treatments,” Malinda T. West, MD, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview. The new study is important because it shows the ability of serum AMH to help predict ovarian reserve and imminent menopause, said Dr. West, who was not involved in the study.
In clinical practice, the study provides further insight into how premenopausal women may benefit from added chemotherapy and the role of ovarian suppression, Dr. West said.
The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences/National Cancer Institute, Exact Sciences Corporation (previously Genomic Health), and the Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.
Dr. Kalinsky disclosed that immediate family members are employed by EQRx and GRAIL, with stock or other ownership interests in these companies. He disclosed consulting or advisory roles with 4D Pharma, AstraZeneca, Cullinan Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Immunomedics, Lilly, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Merck, Mersana, Myovant Sciences, Novartis, Oncosec, Prelude Therapeutics, Puma Biotechnology, RayzeBio, Seagen, and Takeda. Dr. Kalinsky further disclosed research funding to his institution from Ascentage Pharma, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Novartis, and Seagen, and relationships with Genentech and Immunomedics.
Dr. Carey disclosed research funding to her institution from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, NanoString Technologies, Novartis, Seagen, and Veracyte. She disclosed an uncompensated relationship with Seagen, and uncompensated relationships between her institution and Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, and Novartis.
Dr. Kruse disclosed consulting or advisory roles with Novartis Oncology, Puma Biotechnology, Immunomedics, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, and Lilly.
Dr. West had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM ASCO 2024
‘Groundbreaking’ Trial Shows Survival Benefits in Lung Cancer
These are results of the ADRIATIC trial, the first planned interim analysis of the randomized, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study comparing the PD-L 1 antibody durvalumab vs placebo in patients with stage I-III limited stage disease and prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Lead author David R. Spigel, MD, drew several rounds of applause from an enthusiastic audience when he presented this data, at the plenary session of the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago.
“ADRIATIC is the first positive, global phase 3 trial of immunotherapy in limited stage SCLC,” said Lauren Byers, MD, the discussant in the session.
“This groundbreaking trial sets a new standard of care with consolidative durvalumab following concurrent chemoradiation,” continued Dr. Byers, who is professor and thoracic section chief in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology at the University of Texas MD Andersen Cancer Center in Houston, Texas.
ADRIATIC Methods and Results
The new study enrolled 730 patients and randomized them between 1 and 42 days after concurrent chemoradiation to one of three treatments: durvalumab 1500 mg; durvalumab plus tremelimumab 75 mg; or placebo. Treatment was continued for a maximum of 24 months, or until progression or intolerable toxicity.
The study had dual primary endpoints of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab vs placebo. The researchers have not yet looked at the results for the secondary endpoints of OS and PFS for patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs placebo.
After a median follow-up of 3 years, there was a median OS of 55.9 months in the durvalumab-treated patients, compared with 33.4 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73), and, at a median follow-up of 2 years, there was median PFS of 16.6 months vs 9.2 months respectively (HR, 0.76).
New Standard of Care for Patients with LS-SCLC
“This study had a very good safety profile,” said Dr. Spigel, who is also a medical oncologist and the chief scientific officer at Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee, during his presentation.
“Looking at severe grade 3 or 4 events, these were nearly identical in either arm at 24%. Looking at any-grade immune-mediated AEs, these were 31.2% and 10.2% respectively, and then looking at radiation pneumonitis or pneumonitis, the rates were 38.2% in the durvalumab arm, compared with 30.2% in the placebo arm,” Dr. Spigel said.
Noting that there have been no major advances in the treatment of LS-SCLC for several decades, with most patients experiencing recurrences within 2 years of the cCRT standard of care, Dr. Spigel said “consolidation durvalumab will become the new standard of care for patients with LS-SCLC who have not progressed after cCRT.”
Toby Campbell, MD, a thoracic oncologist, who is professor and chief of Palliative Care at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison, Wisconsin, agrees.
“I take care of patients with small cell lung cancer, an aggressive cancer with high symptom burden that devastates patients and families in its wake,” said Dr. Campbell, during an interview. “About 15% of patients luckily present when the cancer is still contained in the chest and is potentially curable. However, with current treatments we give, which include chemotherapy together with radiation, we are ‘successful’ at curing one in four people.
“This study presents a new treatment option which makes a big difference to patients like mine,” Dr. Campbell continued. “For example, at the 2-year time point, nearly half of patients are still cancer-free. These folks have the opportunity to live their lives more fully, unburdened by the symptoms and dread this disease brings. If approved, I think this treatment would immediately be appropriate to use in clinic.
“Further, oncologists are comfortable using this medication as it is already FDA-approved and used similarly in non–small cell lung cancer.”
The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Spigel discloses consulting or advisory roles with Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lyell Immunopharma, MedImmune, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, and Sanofi/Aventis. He has also received research funding from many companies, and travel, accommodations, and other expense reimbursements from AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Novartis.
Dr. Byers discloses honoraria from and consulting or advisory roles with Abbvie, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Dohme, Novartis, and Puma Biotechnology. He also has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Campbell has served as an advisor for Novocure and Genentech.
These are results of the ADRIATIC trial, the first planned interim analysis of the randomized, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study comparing the PD-L 1 antibody durvalumab vs placebo in patients with stage I-III limited stage disease and prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Lead author David R. Spigel, MD, drew several rounds of applause from an enthusiastic audience when he presented this data, at the plenary session of the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago.
“ADRIATIC is the first positive, global phase 3 trial of immunotherapy in limited stage SCLC,” said Lauren Byers, MD, the discussant in the session.
“This groundbreaking trial sets a new standard of care with consolidative durvalumab following concurrent chemoradiation,” continued Dr. Byers, who is professor and thoracic section chief in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology at the University of Texas MD Andersen Cancer Center in Houston, Texas.
ADRIATIC Methods and Results
The new study enrolled 730 patients and randomized them between 1 and 42 days after concurrent chemoradiation to one of three treatments: durvalumab 1500 mg; durvalumab plus tremelimumab 75 mg; or placebo. Treatment was continued for a maximum of 24 months, or until progression or intolerable toxicity.
The study had dual primary endpoints of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab vs placebo. The researchers have not yet looked at the results for the secondary endpoints of OS and PFS for patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs placebo.
After a median follow-up of 3 years, there was a median OS of 55.9 months in the durvalumab-treated patients, compared with 33.4 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73), and, at a median follow-up of 2 years, there was median PFS of 16.6 months vs 9.2 months respectively (HR, 0.76).
New Standard of Care for Patients with LS-SCLC
“This study had a very good safety profile,” said Dr. Spigel, who is also a medical oncologist and the chief scientific officer at Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee, during his presentation.
“Looking at severe grade 3 or 4 events, these were nearly identical in either arm at 24%. Looking at any-grade immune-mediated AEs, these were 31.2% and 10.2% respectively, and then looking at radiation pneumonitis or pneumonitis, the rates were 38.2% in the durvalumab arm, compared with 30.2% in the placebo arm,” Dr. Spigel said.
Noting that there have been no major advances in the treatment of LS-SCLC for several decades, with most patients experiencing recurrences within 2 years of the cCRT standard of care, Dr. Spigel said “consolidation durvalumab will become the new standard of care for patients with LS-SCLC who have not progressed after cCRT.”
Toby Campbell, MD, a thoracic oncologist, who is professor and chief of Palliative Care at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison, Wisconsin, agrees.
“I take care of patients with small cell lung cancer, an aggressive cancer with high symptom burden that devastates patients and families in its wake,” said Dr. Campbell, during an interview. “About 15% of patients luckily present when the cancer is still contained in the chest and is potentially curable. However, with current treatments we give, which include chemotherapy together with radiation, we are ‘successful’ at curing one in four people.
“This study presents a new treatment option which makes a big difference to patients like mine,” Dr. Campbell continued. “For example, at the 2-year time point, nearly half of patients are still cancer-free. These folks have the opportunity to live their lives more fully, unburdened by the symptoms and dread this disease brings. If approved, I think this treatment would immediately be appropriate to use in clinic.
“Further, oncologists are comfortable using this medication as it is already FDA-approved and used similarly in non–small cell lung cancer.”
The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Spigel discloses consulting or advisory roles with Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lyell Immunopharma, MedImmune, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, and Sanofi/Aventis. He has also received research funding from many companies, and travel, accommodations, and other expense reimbursements from AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Novartis.
Dr. Byers discloses honoraria from and consulting or advisory roles with Abbvie, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Dohme, Novartis, and Puma Biotechnology. He also has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Campbell has served as an advisor for Novocure and Genentech.
These are results of the ADRIATIC trial, the first planned interim analysis of the randomized, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study comparing the PD-L 1 antibody durvalumab vs placebo in patients with stage I-III limited stage disease and prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Lead author David R. Spigel, MD, drew several rounds of applause from an enthusiastic audience when he presented this data, at the plenary session of the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago.
“ADRIATIC is the first positive, global phase 3 trial of immunotherapy in limited stage SCLC,” said Lauren Byers, MD, the discussant in the session.
“This groundbreaking trial sets a new standard of care with consolidative durvalumab following concurrent chemoradiation,” continued Dr. Byers, who is professor and thoracic section chief in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology at the University of Texas MD Andersen Cancer Center in Houston, Texas.
ADRIATIC Methods and Results
The new study enrolled 730 patients and randomized them between 1 and 42 days after concurrent chemoradiation to one of three treatments: durvalumab 1500 mg; durvalumab plus tremelimumab 75 mg; or placebo. Treatment was continued for a maximum of 24 months, or until progression or intolerable toxicity.
The study had dual primary endpoints of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab vs placebo. The researchers have not yet looked at the results for the secondary endpoints of OS and PFS for patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs placebo.
After a median follow-up of 3 years, there was a median OS of 55.9 months in the durvalumab-treated patients, compared with 33.4 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73), and, at a median follow-up of 2 years, there was median PFS of 16.6 months vs 9.2 months respectively (HR, 0.76).
New Standard of Care for Patients with LS-SCLC
“This study had a very good safety profile,” said Dr. Spigel, who is also a medical oncologist and the chief scientific officer at Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee, during his presentation.
“Looking at severe grade 3 or 4 events, these were nearly identical in either arm at 24%. Looking at any-grade immune-mediated AEs, these were 31.2% and 10.2% respectively, and then looking at radiation pneumonitis or pneumonitis, the rates were 38.2% in the durvalumab arm, compared with 30.2% in the placebo arm,” Dr. Spigel said.
Noting that there have been no major advances in the treatment of LS-SCLC for several decades, with most patients experiencing recurrences within 2 years of the cCRT standard of care, Dr. Spigel said “consolidation durvalumab will become the new standard of care for patients with LS-SCLC who have not progressed after cCRT.”
Toby Campbell, MD, a thoracic oncologist, who is professor and chief of Palliative Care at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison, Wisconsin, agrees.
“I take care of patients with small cell lung cancer, an aggressive cancer with high symptom burden that devastates patients and families in its wake,” said Dr. Campbell, during an interview. “About 15% of patients luckily present when the cancer is still contained in the chest and is potentially curable. However, with current treatments we give, which include chemotherapy together with radiation, we are ‘successful’ at curing one in four people.
“This study presents a new treatment option which makes a big difference to patients like mine,” Dr. Campbell continued. “For example, at the 2-year time point, nearly half of patients are still cancer-free. These folks have the opportunity to live their lives more fully, unburdened by the symptoms and dread this disease brings. If approved, I think this treatment would immediately be appropriate to use in clinic.
“Further, oncologists are comfortable using this medication as it is already FDA-approved and used similarly in non–small cell lung cancer.”
The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Spigel discloses consulting or advisory roles with Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lyell Immunopharma, MedImmune, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, and Sanofi/Aventis. He has also received research funding from many companies, and travel, accommodations, and other expense reimbursements from AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Novartis.
Dr. Byers discloses honoraria from and consulting or advisory roles with Abbvie, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Dohme, Novartis, and Puma Biotechnology. He also has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Campbell has served as an advisor for Novocure and Genentech.
FROM ASCO 2024
Should ER-Low Breast Cancer Patients Be Offered Endocrine Therapy?
For women with early-stage estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, adjuvant endocrine therapy is known to decrease the likelihood of recurrence and improve survival, while omitting the therapy is associated with a higher risk of death.
For that reason, current guidelines, including those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for patients with estrogen-receptor positive (ER+) breast cancers.
But these and other guidelines do not make recommendations for a class of tumors deemed estrogen receptor low positive, often referred to as “ER-low,” a category in which ER is seen expressed in between 1% and 10% of cells. This is because benefits of endocrine therapy have not been demonstrated in patients with ER-low disease.
The findings showed that omitting endocrine therapy after surgery and chemotherapy was associated with a 25% higher chance of death within 3 years in ER-low patients.
Endocrine therapy, the investigators say, should therefore be offered to all patients with ER-low cancers, at least until it can be determined which subgroups are most likely to benefit.
How Was the Study Conducted?
Grace M. Choong, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and her colleagues, looked at 2018-2020 data from the National Cancer Database for more than 350,000 female patients with stages 1-3, ER+ breast cancer. From among these they identified about 7000 patients with ER-low cancers who had undergone adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
“We specifically wanted to focus on those treated with chemotherapy as these patients have a higher risk of recurrence in our short interval follow-up,” Dr. Choong said during her presentation.
Patients’ median age was 55 years, and three-quarters of them were White. Their tumors were more likely to be HER2-negative (65%), PR-negative (73%), have higher Ki-67 expression, and have a higher clinical stage (73% grade III).
Forty-two percent of patients did not undergo AET as part of their treatment regimen, with various tumor factors seen associated with AET omission. At a median 3 years of follow-up, 586 patients had died. After the researchers controlled for age, comorbidities, year of diagnosis, tumor factors, and pathologic stage, the effect of omitting AET still resulted in significantly worse survival: (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.05-1.48, P = .01).
Mortality was driven by patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, who comprised nearly half the study cohort. In these patients, omission of endocrine therapy was associated with a 27% higher risk of death (HR 1.27, 1.10-1.58). However, for those with a complete pathological response following chemotherapy, omission of endocrine therapy was not associated with a higher risk of death (HR 1.06; 0.62-1.80).
The investigators noted several limitations of their study, including a retrospective design and no information available on recurrence or the duration of endocrine therapy.
Why Is Endocrine Therapy So Frequently Omitted in This Patient Group?
Matthew P. Goetz, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that in Sweden, for example, ER-low patients are explicitly not offered endocrine therapy based on Swedish guidelines.
In other settings, he said, it is unclear what is happening.
“Are patients refusing it? Do physicians not even offer it because they think there is no value? We do not have that granular detail, but our data right now suggests a physician should be having this conversation with patients,” he said.
Which ER-Low Patients Are Likely To Benefit?
The findings apply mostly to patients with residual disease after chemotherapy, and underlying biological factors are likely the reason, Dr. Goetz said.
ER-low patients are a heterogeneous group, he explained.
“In genomic profiling, where we look at the underlying biology of these cancers, most of the ER-low cancers are considered the basal subtype of triple negative breast cancer. Those patients should have absolutely zero benefit from endocrine therapy. But there is another group, referred to as the luminal group, which comprises anywhere from 20% to 30% of the ER-low patients.”
Dr. Goetz said he expects to find that this latter group are the patients benefiting from endocrine therapy when they have residual disease.
“We are not yet at the point of saying to patients, ‘you have residual disease after chemotherapy. Let’s check your tumor to see if it is the basal or luminal subtype.’ But that is something that we are planning to look into. What is most important right now is that clinicians be aware of these data, and that there is a suggestion that omitting endocrine therapy may have detrimental effects on survival in this subgroup of patients.”
Are the Findings Compelling Enough To Change Clinical Practice Right Away?
In an interview about the findings, Eric Winer, MD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, cautioned that due to the retrospective study design, “we don’t know how doctors made decisions about who got endocrine therapy and who didn’t.”
The patients with the worst tumors tended not to get endocrine therapy, Dr. Winer noted, and despite attempts to adjust for this, “in any large data set like this, unlike in a randomized trial, you just can’t control for all the bias.”
What Should Doctors Tell Patients?
“In the setting of significant side effects from endocrine therapy, we’re still less certain about the benefits of endocrine therapy here than in somebody with an ER-high tumor,” Dr. Winer cautioned.
Nonetheless, he said, the new findings certainly suggest that there may be a benefit for endocrine therapy in patients with ER-low tumors, and doctors should make this known to patients. “It may not be the strongest evidence, but it’s evidence,” he said. “This is very much a question to be raised between the doctor and the patient.”
Dr. Choong and colleagues’ study was funded by a Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant. Dr. Goetz reported consulting fees and research support from pharmaceutical manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Choong and Dr. Winer reported no financial conflicts of interest.
For women with early-stage estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, adjuvant endocrine therapy is known to decrease the likelihood of recurrence and improve survival, while omitting the therapy is associated with a higher risk of death.
For that reason, current guidelines, including those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for patients with estrogen-receptor positive (ER+) breast cancers.
But these and other guidelines do not make recommendations for a class of tumors deemed estrogen receptor low positive, often referred to as “ER-low,” a category in which ER is seen expressed in between 1% and 10% of cells. This is because benefits of endocrine therapy have not been demonstrated in patients with ER-low disease.
The findings showed that omitting endocrine therapy after surgery and chemotherapy was associated with a 25% higher chance of death within 3 years in ER-low patients.
Endocrine therapy, the investigators say, should therefore be offered to all patients with ER-low cancers, at least until it can be determined which subgroups are most likely to benefit.
How Was the Study Conducted?
Grace M. Choong, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and her colleagues, looked at 2018-2020 data from the National Cancer Database for more than 350,000 female patients with stages 1-3, ER+ breast cancer. From among these they identified about 7000 patients with ER-low cancers who had undergone adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
“We specifically wanted to focus on those treated with chemotherapy as these patients have a higher risk of recurrence in our short interval follow-up,” Dr. Choong said during her presentation.
Patients’ median age was 55 years, and three-quarters of them were White. Their tumors were more likely to be HER2-negative (65%), PR-negative (73%), have higher Ki-67 expression, and have a higher clinical stage (73% grade III).
Forty-two percent of patients did not undergo AET as part of their treatment regimen, with various tumor factors seen associated with AET omission. At a median 3 years of follow-up, 586 patients had died. After the researchers controlled for age, comorbidities, year of diagnosis, tumor factors, and pathologic stage, the effect of omitting AET still resulted in significantly worse survival: (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.05-1.48, P = .01).
Mortality was driven by patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, who comprised nearly half the study cohort. In these patients, omission of endocrine therapy was associated with a 27% higher risk of death (HR 1.27, 1.10-1.58). However, for those with a complete pathological response following chemotherapy, omission of endocrine therapy was not associated with a higher risk of death (HR 1.06; 0.62-1.80).
The investigators noted several limitations of their study, including a retrospective design and no information available on recurrence or the duration of endocrine therapy.
Why Is Endocrine Therapy So Frequently Omitted in This Patient Group?
Matthew P. Goetz, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that in Sweden, for example, ER-low patients are explicitly not offered endocrine therapy based on Swedish guidelines.
In other settings, he said, it is unclear what is happening.
“Are patients refusing it? Do physicians not even offer it because they think there is no value? We do not have that granular detail, but our data right now suggests a physician should be having this conversation with patients,” he said.
Which ER-Low Patients Are Likely To Benefit?
The findings apply mostly to patients with residual disease after chemotherapy, and underlying biological factors are likely the reason, Dr. Goetz said.
ER-low patients are a heterogeneous group, he explained.
“In genomic profiling, where we look at the underlying biology of these cancers, most of the ER-low cancers are considered the basal subtype of triple negative breast cancer. Those patients should have absolutely zero benefit from endocrine therapy. But there is another group, referred to as the luminal group, which comprises anywhere from 20% to 30% of the ER-low patients.”
Dr. Goetz said he expects to find that this latter group are the patients benefiting from endocrine therapy when they have residual disease.
“We are not yet at the point of saying to patients, ‘you have residual disease after chemotherapy. Let’s check your tumor to see if it is the basal or luminal subtype.’ But that is something that we are planning to look into. What is most important right now is that clinicians be aware of these data, and that there is a suggestion that omitting endocrine therapy may have detrimental effects on survival in this subgroup of patients.”
Are the Findings Compelling Enough To Change Clinical Practice Right Away?
In an interview about the findings, Eric Winer, MD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, cautioned that due to the retrospective study design, “we don’t know how doctors made decisions about who got endocrine therapy and who didn’t.”
The patients with the worst tumors tended not to get endocrine therapy, Dr. Winer noted, and despite attempts to adjust for this, “in any large data set like this, unlike in a randomized trial, you just can’t control for all the bias.”
What Should Doctors Tell Patients?
“In the setting of significant side effects from endocrine therapy, we’re still less certain about the benefits of endocrine therapy here than in somebody with an ER-high tumor,” Dr. Winer cautioned.
Nonetheless, he said, the new findings certainly suggest that there may be a benefit for endocrine therapy in patients with ER-low tumors, and doctors should make this known to patients. “It may not be the strongest evidence, but it’s evidence,” he said. “This is very much a question to be raised between the doctor and the patient.”
Dr. Choong and colleagues’ study was funded by a Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant. Dr. Goetz reported consulting fees and research support from pharmaceutical manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Choong and Dr. Winer reported no financial conflicts of interest.
For women with early-stage estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, adjuvant endocrine therapy is known to decrease the likelihood of recurrence and improve survival, while omitting the therapy is associated with a higher risk of death.
For that reason, current guidelines, including those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for patients with estrogen-receptor positive (ER+) breast cancers.
But these and other guidelines do not make recommendations for a class of tumors deemed estrogen receptor low positive, often referred to as “ER-low,” a category in which ER is seen expressed in between 1% and 10% of cells. This is because benefits of endocrine therapy have not been demonstrated in patients with ER-low disease.
The findings showed that omitting endocrine therapy after surgery and chemotherapy was associated with a 25% higher chance of death within 3 years in ER-low patients.
Endocrine therapy, the investigators say, should therefore be offered to all patients with ER-low cancers, at least until it can be determined which subgroups are most likely to benefit.
How Was the Study Conducted?
Grace M. Choong, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and her colleagues, looked at 2018-2020 data from the National Cancer Database for more than 350,000 female patients with stages 1-3, ER+ breast cancer. From among these they identified about 7000 patients with ER-low cancers who had undergone adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
“We specifically wanted to focus on those treated with chemotherapy as these patients have a higher risk of recurrence in our short interval follow-up,” Dr. Choong said during her presentation.
Patients’ median age was 55 years, and three-quarters of them were White. Their tumors were more likely to be HER2-negative (65%), PR-negative (73%), have higher Ki-67 expression, and have a higher clinical stage (73% grade III).
Forty-two percent of patients did not undergo AET as part of their treatment regimen, with various tumor factors seen associated with AET omission. At a median 3 years of follow-up, 586 patients had died. After the researchers controlled for age, comorbidities, year of diagnosis, tumor factors, and pathologic stage, the effect of omitting AET still resulted in significantly worse survival: (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.05-1.48, P = .01).
Mortality was driven by patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, who comprised nearly half the study cohort. In these patients, omission of endocrine therapy was associated with a 27% higher risk of death (HR 1.27, 1.10-1.58). However, for those with a complete pathological response following chemotherapy, omission of endocrine therapy was not associated with a higher risk of death (HR 1.06; 0.62-1.80).
The investigators noted several limitations of their study, including a retrospective design and no information available on recurrence or the duration of endocrine therapy.
Why Is Endocrine Therapy So Frequently Omitted in This Patient Group?
Matthew P. Goetz, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that in Sweden, for example, ER-low patients are explicitly not offered endocrine therapy based on Swedish guidelines.
In other settings, he said, it is unclear what is happening.
“Are patients refusing it? Do physicians not even offer it because they think there is no value? We do not have that granular detail, but our data right now suggests a physician should be having this conversation with patients,” he said.
Which ER-Low Patients Are Likely To Benefit?
The findings apply mostly to patients with residual disease after chemotherapy, and underlying biological factors are likely the reason, Dr. Goetz said.
ER-low patients are a heterogeneous group, he explained.
“In genomic profiling, where we look at the underlying biology of these cancers, most of the ER-low cancers are considered the basal subtype of triple negative breast cancer. Those patients should have absolutely zero benefit from endocrine therapy. But there is another group, referred to as the luminal group, which comprises anywhere from 20% to 30% of the ER-low patients.”
Dr. Goetz said he expects to find that this latter group are the patients benefiting from endocrine therapy when they have residual disease.
“We are not yet at the point of saying to patients, ‘you have residual disease after chemotherapy. Let’s check your tumor to see if it is the basal or luminal subtype.’ But that is something that we are planning to look into. What is most important right now is that clinicians be aware of these data, and that there is a suggestion that omitting endocrine therapy may have detrimental effects on survival in this subgroup of patients.”
Are the Findings Compelling Enough To Change Clinical Practice Right Away?
In an interview about the findings, Eric Winer, MD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, cautioned that due to the retrospective study design, “we don’t know how doctors made decisions about who got endocrine therapy and who didn’t.”
The patients with the worst tumors tended not to get endocrine therapy, Dr. Winer noted, and despite attempts to adjust for this, “in any large data set like this, unlike in a randomized trial, you just can’t control for all the bias.”
What Should Doctors Tell Patients?
“In the setting of significant side effects from endocrine therapy, we’re still less certain about the benefits of endocrine therapy here than in somebody with an ER-high tumor,” Dr. Winer cautioned.
Nonetheless, he said, the new findings certainly suggest that there may be a benefit for endocrine therapy in patients with ER-low tumors, and doctors should make this known to patients. “It may not be the strongest evidence, but it’s evidence,” he said. “This is very much a question to be raised between the doctor and the patient.”
Dr. Choong and colleagues’ study was funded by a Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE grant. Dr. Goetz reported consulting fees and research support from pharmaceutical manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Choong and Dr. Winer reported no financial conflicts of interest.
FROM ASCO 2024
Neoadjuvant Checkpoint Inhibition Study Sets New Standard of Care in Melanoma
These results set a new standard of care in this patient population, the study’s lead author, Christian U. Blank, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Blank, a hematologist/oncologist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, called the result “very special,” noting that the trial included an active comparator, rather than a placebo control.
“When we treat these patients with surgery only, the outcome … is very bad: The 5-year relapse-free survival is only 30% and the overall survival is only 50%. Adjuvant therapy improves relapse-free survival but not overall survival ...Thus, there is an urgent need for these patients for novel therapy approaches,” he said during a press conference at the meeting.
Study Methods and Results
The study included 423 patients with stage III de novo or recurrent pathologically proven resectable melanoma with at least 1 lymph node metastasis. Patients were randomized to either the experimental neoadjuvant arm (n = 212), or the standard treatment control arm (n = 211), which consisted of therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant nivolumab (NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks).
Patients in the experimental arm received two cycles of neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI 80 mg every 3 weeks) plus NIVO 240 mg for 3 weeks followed by TLND. Those with a major pathologic response (MPR), defined as less than 10% vital tumor cells in the post-neoadjuvant resection specimen, went straight to follow-up.
Those without an MPR received adjuvant therapy. For patients with BRAF wild-type, this involved 11 cycles of adjuvant NIVO (480 mg every 4 weeks), while BRAF-mutated patients received dabrafenib plus trametinib (150 mg b.i.d./2 mg once a day; 46 weeks).
The study met its primary endpoint — event-free survival (EFS) — at the first interim analysis. After a median follow-up of 9.9 months, the estimated EFS was 83.7% for neoadjuvant immunotherapy versus 57.2% for standard of care, (P less than .0001, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.32).
“When we look into the subgroups, for example BRAF-mutated status or BRAF-wild-type status ... you see for both groups also a highly statistically significant outcome favoring the neoadjuvant therapy with hazard ratios of 0.29 and 0.35,” said Dr. Blank.
In total, 59% of patients in the experimental arm had an MPR needing no further treatment. “This is important, because the patients that achieve a major pathologic response have excellent outcomes, with an EFS of 95%,” said Dr. Blank.
He added that those with a partial response had an EFS of 76%, and among those who had “nonresponse,” the EFS was 57% — the same as that of patients in the control arm.
Toxicities were considered transient and acceptable, with systemic treatment-related grade 3 or 4 events in 29.7% of the neoadjuvant arm and 14.7% of the adjuvant arm.
NADINA is the first neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor phase 3 study in melanoma and the first phase 3 trial in oncology testing a checkpoint inhibitor without chemotherapy, noted Dr. Blank.
“At the moment we see only additions of immunotherapy to the chemotherapy neoadjuvant arms, but here you see that we can also treat patients with pure immunotherapy.”
Neoadjuvant Therapy Defined as Standard of Care
When considered along with evidence from the phase 2 SWOG 1801 study (N Engl J Med. 2023;388:813-8), “NADINA defines neoadjuvant therapy as the new standard of care for macroscopic stage III melanoma “which means that all trials currently ongoing need to be amended from adjuvant comparators to neoadjuvant comparators,” he said.
Dr. Blank called the trial a “new template for other malignancies implementing a neoadjuvant immunotherapy regimen followed by a response-driven adjuvant therapy.
“I think we see at the moment only sandwich designs, and this is more sales driven than patient driven, because what we have seen is that if a patient achieves a really deep response, the patient doesn’t need an adjuvant part,” he said.
Commenting during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, said the result “confirms and shows for the first time in a phase 3 study that giving immunotherapy before surgery results in superior outcomes to giving immunotherapy only after surgery.”
Dr. Lowe, associate professor in the Division of Surgical Oncology, at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, added that the study “also confirms that giving two immunotherapy drugs before surgery results in excellent responses.”
However, he cautioned that “we cannot make comparisons to trials in which patients only got one immunotherapy. But this study confirms that consistency that patients who receive ipilimumab and nivolumab have superior responses compared to single-agent immunotherapy.”
He noted that all of the patients in the new study had all of their lymph nodes removed and called for doing that to remain the standard of care in terms of surgical approach.
“With short follow-up, it is too early to tell if some patients may have benefited from that adjuvant therapy. However, NADINA confirms that immunotherapy should be given to all patients with advanced melanoma before surgery, when possible, and establishes dual therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, as the standard of care in the appropriate patient,” Dr. Lowe said.
EFS Improvement Exceeds Expectations
In an interview, Rodabe N. Amaria, MD, a medical oncologist and professor at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, agreed with Dr. Lowe’s assessment of the findings.
“For years we have been doing neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials, all with favorable results, but all relatively small, with data that was intriguing, but not necessarily definitive,” she said. “I see the data from the NADINA trial as being definitive and true evidence of the many advantages of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for clinical stage 3 melanoma ... This work builds on the data from the SWOG 1801 trial but also exceeds expectations with the 68% improvement in EFS appreciated with the dual combination immunotherapy regimen compared to adjuvant nivolumab.”
Additionally, the approximately 30% grade 3 or higher immune-mediated toxicity is reasonable and in keeping with known data, and this trial demonstrates clearly that neoadjuvant immunotherapy does not increase the rate of surgical complications, she said.
Dr. Amaria also considered that 59% of patients who achieved a major pathologic response were observed in the neoadjuvant setting to be a key finding.
This indicates thats “over half the patients could be spared additional immunotherapy and risk of further immune-mediated toxicities by having only two doses of neoadjuvant immunotherapy, she said.
The results “demonstrate the superiority of a neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy approach for patients with clinical stage III melanoma,” she added.
The study was funded by Bristol Myers-Squibb and the Australian government.
Dr. Blank disclosed ties with Immagene, Signature Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenMab, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Third Rock Ventures, 4SC, NanoString Technologies, WO 2021/177822 A1, and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. No other experts reported any relevant disclosures.
These results set a new standard of care in this patient population, the study’s lead author, Christian U. Blank, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Blank, a hematologist/oncologist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, called the result “very special,” noting that the trial included an active comparator, rather than a placebo control.
“When we treat these patients with surgery only, the outcome … is very bad: The 5-year relapse-free survival is only 30% and the overall survival is only 50%. Adjuvant therapy improves relapse-free survival but not overall survival ...Thus, there is an urgent need for these patients for novel therapy approaches,” he said during a press conference at the meeting.
Study Methods and Results
The study included 423 patients with stage III de novo or recurrent pathologically proven resectable melanoma with at least 1 lymph node metastasis. Patients were randomized to either the experimental neoadjuvant arm (n = 212), or the standard treatment control arm (n = 211), which consisted of therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant nivolumab (NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks).
Patients in the experimental arm received two cycles of neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI 80 mg every 3 weeks) plus NIVO 240 mg for 3 weeks followed by TLND. Those with a major pathologic response (MPR), defined as less than 10% vital tumor cells in the post-neoadjuvant resection specimen, went straight to follow-up.
Those without an MPR received adjuvant therapy. For patients with BRAF wild-type, this involved 11 cycles of adjuvant NIVO (480 mg every 4 weeks), while BRAF-mutated patients received dabrafenib plus trametinib (150 mg b.i.d./2 mg once a day; 46 weeks).
The study met its primary endpoint — event-free survival (EFS) — at the first interim analysis. After a median follow-up of 9.9 months, the estimated EFS was 83.7% for neoadjuvant immunotherapy versus 57.2% for standard of care, (P less than .0001, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.32).
“When we look into the subgroups, for example BRAF-mutated status or BRAF-wild-type status ... you see for both groups also a highly statistically significant outcome favoring the neoadjuvant therapy with hazard ratios of 0.29 and 0.35,” said Dr. Blank.
In total, 59% of patients in the experimental arm had an MPR needing no further treatment. “This is important, because the patients that achieve a major pathologic response have excellent outcomes, with an EFS of 95%,” said Dr. Blank.
He added that those with a partial response had an EFS of 76%, and among those who had “nonresponse,” the EFS was 57% — the same as that of patients in the control arm.
Toxicities were considered transient and acceptable, with systemic treatment-related grade 3 or 4 events in 29.7% of the neoadjuvant arm and 14.7% of the adjuvant arm.
NADINA is the first neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor phase 3 study in melanoma and the first phase 3 trial in oncology testing a checkpoint inhibitor without chemotherapy, noted Dr. Blank.
“At the moment we see only additions of immunotherapy to the chemotherapy neoadjuvant arms, but here you see that we can also treat patients with pure immunotherapy.”
Neoadjuvant Therapy Defined as Standard of Care
When considered along with evidence from the phase 2 SWOG 1801 study (N Engl J Med. 2023;388:813-8), “NADINA defines neoadjuvant therapy as the new standard of care for macroscopic stage III melanoma “which means that all trials currently ongoing need to be amended from adjuvant comparators to neoadjuvant comparators,” he said.
Dr. Blank called the trial a “new template for other malignancies implementing a neoadjuvant immunotherapy regimen followed by a response-driven adjuvant therapy.
“I think we see at the moment only sandwich designs, and this is more sales driven than patient driven, because what we have seen is that if a patient achieves a really deep response, the patient doesn’t need an adjuvant part,” he said.
Commenting during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, said the result “confirms and shows for the first time in a phase 3 study that giving immunotherapy before surgery results in superior outcomes to giving immunotherapy only after surgery.”
Dr. Lowe, associate professor in the Division of Surgical Oncology, at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, added that the study “also confirms that giving two immunotherapy drugs before surgery results in excellent responses.”
However, he cautioned that “we cannot make comparisons to trials in which patients only got one immunotherapy. But this study confirms that consistency that patients who receive ipilimumab and nivolumab have superior responses compared to single-agent immunotherapy.”
He noted that all of the patients in the new study had all of their lymph nodes removed and called for doing that to remain the standard of care in terms of surgical approach.
“With short follow-up, it is too early to tell if some patients may have benefited from that adjuvant therapy. However, NADINA confirms that immunotherapy should be given to all patients with advanced melanoma before surgery, when possible, and establishes dual therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, as the standard of care in the appropriate patient,” Dr. Lowe said.
EFS Improvement Exceeds Expectations
In an interview, Rodabe N. Amaria, MD, a medical oncologist and professor at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, agreed with Dr. Lowe’s assessment of the findings.
“For years we have been doing neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials, all with favorable results, but all relatively small, with data that was intriguing, but not necessarily definitive,” she said. “I see the data from the NADINA trial as being definitive and true evidence of the many advantages of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for clinical stage 3 melanoma ... This work builds on the data from the SWOG 1801 trial but also exceeds expectations with the 68% improvement in EFS appreciated with the dual combination immunotherapy regimen compared to adjuvant nivolumab.”
Additionally, the approximately 30% grade 3 or higher immune-mediated toxicity is reasonable and in keeping with known data, and this trial demonstrates clearly that neoadjuvant immunotherapy does not increase the rate of surgical complications, she said.
Dr. Amaria also considered that 59% of patients who achieved a major pathologic response were observed in the neoadjuvant setting to be a key finding.
This indicates thats “over half the patients could be spared additional immunotherapy and risk of further immune-mediated toxicities by having only two doses of neoadjuvant immunotherapy, she said.
The results “demonstrate the superiority of a neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy approach for patients with clinical stage III melanoma,” she added.
The study was funded by Bristol Myers-Squibb and the Australian government.
Dr. Blank disclosed ties with Immagene, Signature Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenMab, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Third Rock Ventures, 4SC, NanoString Technologies, WO 2021/177822 A1, and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. No other experts reported any relevant disclosures.
These results set a new standard of care in this patient population, the study’s lead author, Christian U. Blank, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Blank, a hematologist/oncologist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, called the result “very special,” noting that the trial included an active comparator, rather than a placebo control.
“When we treat these patients with surgery only, the outcome … is very bad: The 5-year relapse-free survival is only 30% and the overall survival is only 50%. Adjuvant therapy improves relapse-free survival but not overall survival ...Thus, there is an urgent need for these patients for novel therapy approaches,” he said during a press conference at the meeting.
Study Methods and Results
The study included 423 patients with stage III de novo or recurrent pathologically proven resectable melanoma with at least 1 lymph node metastasis. Patients were randomized to either the experimental neoadjuvant arm (n = 212), or the standard treatment control arm (n = 211), which consisted of therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant nivolumab (NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks).
Patients in the experimental arm received two cycles of neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI 80 mg every 3 weeks) plus NIVO 240 mg for 3 weeks followed by TLND. Those with a major pathologic response (MPR), defined as less than 10% vital tumor cells in the post-neoadjuvant resection specimen, went straight to follow-up.
Those without an MPR received adjuvant therapy. For patients with BRAF wild-type, this involved 11 cycles of adjuvant NIVO (480 mg every 4 weeks), while BRAF-mutated patients received dabrafenib plus trametinib (150 mg b.i.d./2 mg once a day; 46 weeks).
The study met its primary endpoint — event-free survival (EFS) — at the first interim analysis. After a median follow-up of 9.9 months, the estimated EFS was 83.7% for neoadjuvant immunotherapy versus 57.2% for standard of care, (P less than .0001, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.32).
“When we look into the subgroups, for example BRAF-mutated status or BRAF-wild-type status ... you see for both groups also a highly statistically significant outcome favoring the neoadjuvant therapy with hazard ratios of 0.29 and 0.35,” said Dr. Blank.
In total, 59% of patients in the experimental arm had an MPR needing no further treatment. “This is important, because the patients that achieve a major pathologic response have excellent outcomes, with an EFS of 95%,” said Dr. Blank.
He added that those with a partial response had an EFS of 76%, and among those who had “nonresponse,” the EFS was 57% — the same as that of patients in the control arm.
Toxicities were considered transient and acceptable, with systemic treatment-related grade 3 or 4 events in 29.7% of the neoadjuvant arm and 14.7% of the adjuvant arm.
NADINA is the first neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor phase 3 study in melanoma and the first phase 3 trial in oncology testing a checkpoint inhibitor without chemotherapy, noted Dr. Blank.
“At the moment we see only additions of immunotherapy to the chemotherapy neoadjuvant arms, but here you see that we can also treat patients with pure immunotherapy.”
Neoadjuvant Therapy Defined as Standard of Care
When considered along with evidence from the phase 2 SWOG 1801 study (N Engl J Med. 2023;388:813-8), “NADINA defines neoadjuvant therapy as the new standard of care for macroscopic stage III melanoma “which means that all trials currently ongoing need to be amended from adjuvant comparators to neoadjuvant comparators,” he said.
Dr. Blank called the trial a “new template for other malignancies implementing a neoadjuvant immunotherapy regimen followed by a response-driven adjuvant therapy.
“I think we see at the moment only sandwich designs, and this is more sales driven than patient driven, because what we have seen is that if a patient achieves a really deep response, the patient doesn’t need an adjuvant part,” he said.
Commenting during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, said the result “confirms and shows for the first time in a phase 3 study that giving immunotherapy before surgery results in superior outcomes to giving immunotherapy only after surgery.”
Dr. Lowe, associate professor in the Division of Surgical Oncology, at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, added that the study “also confirms that giving two immunotherapy drugs before surgery results in excellent responses.”
However, he cautioned that “we cannot make comparisons to trials in which patients only got one immunotherapy. But this study confirms that consistency that patients who receive ipilimumab and nivolumab have superior responses compared to single-agent immunotherapy.”
He noted that all of the patients in the new study had all of their lymph nodes removed and called for doing that to remain the standard of care in terms of surgical approach.
“With short follow-up, it is too early to tell if some patients may have benefited from that adjuvant therapy. However, NADINA confirms that immunotherapy should be given to all patients with advanced melanoma before surgery, when possible, and establishes dual therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, as the standard of care in the appropriate patient,” Dr. Lowe said.
EFS Improvement Exceeds Expectations
In an interview, Rodabe N. Amaria, MD, a medical oncologist and professor at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, agreed with Dr. Lowe’s assessment of the findings.
“For years we have been doing neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials, all with favorable results, but all relatively small, with data that was intriguing, but not necessarily definitive,” she said. “I see the data from the NADINA trial as being definitive and true evidence of the many advantages of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for clinical stage 3 melanoma ... This work builds on the data from the SWOG 1801 trial but also exceeds expectations with the 68% improvement in EFS appreciated with the dual combination immunotherapy regimen compared to adjuvant nivolumab.”
Additionally, the approximately 30% grade 3 or higher immune-mediated toxicity is reasonable and in keeping with known data, and this trial demonstrates clearly that neoadjuvant immunotherapy does not increase the rate of surgical complications, she said.
Dr. Amaria also considered that 59% of patients who achieved a major pathologic response were observed in the neoadjuvant setting to be a key finding.
This indicates thats “over half the patients could be spared additional immunotherapy and risk of further immune-mediated toxicities by having only two doses of neoadjuvant immunotherapy, she said.
The results “demonstrate the superiority of a neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy approach for patients with clinical stage III melanoma,” she added.
The study was funded by Bristol Myers-Squibb and the Australian government.
Dr. Blank disclosed ties with Immagene, Signature Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenMab, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Third Rock Ventures, 4SC, NanoString Technologies, WO 2021/177822 A1, and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. No other experts reported any relevant disclosures.
FROM ASCO 2024
CARACO: Study Shows Safety of Leaving Uninvolved Lymph Nodes in Ovarian Cancer
Retroperitoneal pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (RPPL) in patients undergoing either primary or interval surgery during ovarian cancer treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) resulted in no benefit and significant harm, the new study found.
“[RPPL] brings only toxicity and it does not increase survival ... because we have a lot of improvement with other treatments than surgery,” lead author Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “It’s a surgical de-escalation, because it is not useful.”
Enrollment for the multicenter, phase III CARACO trial stagnated after the LION trial (N Engl J Med . 2019 Feb 28;380[9]:822-832) showed no benefit to doing RPPL in patients undergoing primary surgery for AEOC. Ultimately, the CARACO trial did not enroll the prespecified sample size needed in order for the researchers to show that not doing RPPL was superior.
Dr. Classe, a surgical oncologist at Nantes Université, in Nantes, France, explained that primary surgery is currently much less common than interval surgery for AEOC , thus it was important to design the CARACO trial to explore the risks and benefits of RPPL in a patient population that included more interval surgery.
CARACO enrolled 379 patients, with median age 64-65 years, and was closed prematurely due to stagnation of enrollment. Patients were randomized to no-RPPL (n = 193) or RPPL (n = 186), with about 75% in each arm receiving interval surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy), and about 25% receiving primary surgery (initial cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy). There was a similar postsurgical rate of no residual disease (85.6% and 88.3% in the no-RPPL and RPPL groups, respectively), and lymph node metastases were diagnosed in 43% of the patients in the RPPL arm, with a median of 3 involved lymph nodes.
After a median follow-up of 9 years both the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) showed no advantage to RPPL, with a median PFS of 14.8 months in the no-RPPL arm and 18.5 months in the RPPL arm (HR 0.96), and a median OS of 48.9 months and 58.0 months respectively (HR 0.92).
Surgery in the lymphadenectomy arm was 300 minutes versus 240 minutes.
“We observed statistically significant more morbidity in the lymphadenectomy arm with more transfusion (72 vs 57 patients), more re-intervention (15 vs 6 patients), more urinary injury (7 vs zero patients),” said Dr. Classe. Mortality was the same in both arms.
There were 314 events observed in the trial, which was 22 events fewer than the required sample size to show superiority. However, Dr. Classe said, a “worst-case scenario” calculation, assuming that all events would have favored lymphadenectomy, did not change the overall result.
The discussant for the trial, Shitanshu Uppal, MD, assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, agreed that the study investigators adequately addressed this concern with the “counterfactual scenario.” He added that “as utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy goes up these results are really helpful in consolidating the results of the prior LION study, that lymph node dissection has no role in interval debulking surgery as well.”
Commenting on the study during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, associate professor in the division of surgical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said the CARACO study investigators’ efforts “underscore the difficulty of designing and accruing surgical clinical trials, especially clinical trials in which patients are offered less surgery.” He said the trial’s findings are consistent with other clinical trials in breast cancer and melanoma “that likewise showed similar outcomes for patients that did not undergo removal of clinically normal appearing lymph nodes.”
He pointed out that all of these studies highlight that the focus should turn to improving medical therapies.
Echoing this sentiment, Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice-president, said, “it is very clear that lymph node dissection has significant morbidity ... and it’s very clear that we should not be doing more surgery than is needed ... In advanced ovarian cancer where the majority already have distant disease [focusing] on systemic therapy is probably what will have the most impact.”
Christina Annunziata, MD, PhD, senior vice president, Extramural Discovery Science, at the American Cancer Society, and an expert in ovarian cancer, said the analysis “leaves little doubt that there would be a statistically significant difference between the two arms. The numbers are small, but since this study results were consistent with the similar LION trial, I think that this study will tip the balance further towards omitting the lymphadenectomy in both primary and interval surgeries,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Annunziata added that surgeons are already omitting the dissection based on the LION study.
The study was funded by the French National Institute of Cancer. Dr. Classe disclosed consulting or advisory roles for GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad Genetics, and Roche.
None of the other experts interviewed for this piece declared having any relevant disclosures.
Retroperitoneal pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (RPPL) in patients undergoing either primary or interval surgery during ovarian cancer treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) resulted in no benefit and significant harm, the new study found.
“[RPPL] brings only toxicity and it does not increase survival ... because we have a lot of improvement with other treatments than surgery,” lead author Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “It’s a surgical de-escalation, because it is not useful.”
Enrollment for the multicenter, phase III CARACO trial stagnated after the LION trial (N Engl J Med . 2019 Feb 28;380[9]:822-832) showed no benefit to doing RPPL in patients undergoing primary surgery for AEOC. Ultimately, the CARACO trial did not enroll the prespecified sample size needed in order for the researchers to show that not doing RPPL was superior.
Dr. Classe, a surgical oncologist at Nantes Université, in Nantes, France, explained that primary surgery is currently much less common than interval surgery for AEOC , thus it was important to design the CARACO trial to explore the risks and benefits of RPPL in a patient population that included more interval surgery.
CARACO enrolled 379 patients, with median age 64-65 years, and was closed prematurely due to stagnation of enrollment. Patients were randomized to no-RPPL (n = 193) or RPPL (n = 186), with about 75% in each arm receiving interval surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy), and about 25% receiving primary surgery (initial cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy). There was a similar postsurgical rate of no residual disease (85.6% and 88.3% in the no-RPPL and RPPL groups, respectively), and lymph node metastases were diagnosed in 43% of the patients in the RPPL arm, with a median of 3 involved lymph nodes.
After a median follow-up of 9 years both the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) showed no advantage to RPPL, with a median PFS of 14.8 months in the no-RPPL arm and 18.5 months in the RPPL arm (HR 0.96), and a median OS of 48.9 months and 58.0 months respectively (HR 0.92).
Surgery in the lymphadenectomy arm was 300 minutes versus 240 minutes.
“We observed statistically significant more morbidity in the lymphadenectomy arm with more transfusion (72 vs 57 patients), more re-intervention (15 vs 6 patients), more urinary injury (7 vs zero patients),” said Dr. Classe. Mortality was the same in both arms.
There were 314 events observed in the trial, which was 22 events fewer than the required sample size to show superiority. However, Dr. Classe said, a “worst-case scenario” calculation, assuming that all events would have favored lymphadenectomy, did not change the overall result.
The discussant for the trial, Shitanshu Uppal, MD, assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, agreed that the study investigators adequately addressed this concern with the “counterfactual scenario.” He added that “as utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy goes up these results are really helpful in consolidating the results of the prior LION study, that lymph node dissection has no role in interval debulking surgery as well.”
Commenting on the study during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, associate professor in the division of surgical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said the CARACO study investigators’ efforts “underscore the difficulty of designing and accruing surgical clinical trials, especially clinical trials in which patients are offered less surgery.” He said the trial’s findings are consistent with other clinical trials in breast cancer and melanoma “that likewise showed similar outcomes for patients that did not undergo removal of clinically normal appearing lymph nodes.”
He pointed out that all of these studies highlight that the focus should turn to improving medical therapies.
Echoing this sentiment, Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice-president, said, “it is very clear that lymph node dissection has significant morbidity ... and it’s very clear that we should not be doing more surgery than is needed ... In advanced ovarian cancer where the majority already have distant disease [focusing] on systemic therapy is probably what will have the most impact.”
Christina Annunziata, MD, PhD, senior vice president, Extramural Discovery Science, at the American Cancer Society, and an expert in ovarian cancer, said the analysis “leaves little doubt that there would be a statistically significant difference between the two arms. The numbers are small, but since this study results were consistent with the similar LION trial, I think that this study will tip the balance further towards omitting the lymphadenectomy in both primary and interval surgeries,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Annunziata added that surgeons are already omitting the dissection based on the LION study.
The study was funded by the French National Institute of Cancer. Dr. Classe disclosed consulting or advisory roles for GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad Genetics, and Roche.
None of the other experts interviewed for this piece declared having any relevant disclosures.
Retroperitoneal pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (RPPL) in patients undergoing either primary or interval surgery during ovarian cancer treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) resulted in no benefit and significant harm, the new study found.
“[RPPL] brings only toxicity and it does not increase survival ... because we have a lot of improvement with other treatments than surgery,” lead author Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “It’s a surgical de-escalation, because it is not useful.”
Enrollment for the multicenter, phase III CARACO trial stagnated after the LION trial (N Engl J Med . 2019 Feb 28;380[9]:822-832) showed no benefit to doing RPPL in patients undergoing primary surgery for AEOC. Ultimately, the CARACO trial did not enroll the prespecified sample size needed in order for the researchers to show that not doing RPPL was superior.
Dr. Classe, a surgical oncologist at Nantes Université, in Nantes, France, explained that primary surgery is currently much less common than interval surgery for AEOC , thus it was important to design the CARACO trial to explore the risks and benefits of RPPL in a patient population that included more interval surgery.
CARACO enrolled 379 patients, with median age 64-65 years, and was closed prematurely due to stagnation of enrollment. Patients were randomized to no-RPPL (n = 193) or RPPL (n = 186), with about 75% in each arm receiving interval surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy), and about 25% receiving primary surgery (initial cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy). There was a similar postsurgical rate of no residual disease (85.6% and 88.3% in the no-RPPL and RPPL groups, respectively), and lymph node metastases were diagnosed in 43% of the patients in the RPPL arm, with a median of 3 involved lymph nodes.
After a median follow-up of 9 years both the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) showed no advantage to RPPL, with a median PFS of 14.8 months in the no-RPPL arm and 18.5 months in the RPPL arm (HR 0.96), and a median OS of 48.9 months and 58.0 months respectively (HR 0.92).
Surgery in the lymphadenectomy arm was 300 minutes versus 240 minutes.
“We observed statistically significant more morbidity in the lymphadenectomy arm with more transfusion (72 vs 57 patients), more re-intervention (15 vs 6 patients), more urinary injury (7 vs zero patients),” said Dr. Classe. Mortality was the same in both arms.
There were 314 events observed in the trial, which was 22 events fewer than the required sample size to show superiority. However, Dr. Classe said, a “worst-case scenario” calculation, assuming that all events would have favored lymphadenectomy, did not change the overall result.
The discussant for the trial, Shitanshu Uppal, MD, assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, agreed that the study investigators adequately addressed this concern with the “counterfactual scenario.” He added that “as utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy goes up these results are really helpful in consolidating the results of the prior LION study, that lymph node dissection has no role in interval debulking surgery as well.”
Commenting on the study during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, associate professor in the division of surgical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said the CARACO study investigators’ efforts “underscore the difficulty of designing and accruing surgical clinical trials, especially clinical trials in which patients are offered less surgery.” He said the trial’s findings are consistent with other clinical trials in breast cancer and melanoma “that likewise showed similar outcomes for patients that did not undergo removal of clinically normal appearing lymph nodes.”
He pointed out that all of these studies highlight that the focus should turn to improving medical therapies.
Echoing this sentiment, Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice-president, said, “it is very clear that lymph node dissection has significant morbidity ... and it’s very clear that we should not be doing more surgery than is needed ... In advanced ovarian cancer where the majority already have distant disease [focusing] on systemic therapy is probably what will have the most impact.”
Christina Annunziata, MD, PhD, senior vice president, Extramural Discovery Science, at the American Cancer Society, and an expert in ovarian cancer, said the analysis “leaves little doubt that there would be a statistically significant difference between the two arms. The numbers are small, but since this study results were consistent with the similar LION trial, I think that this study will tip the balance further towards omitting the lymphadenectomy in both primary and interval surgeries,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Annunziata added that surgeons are already omitting the dissection based on the LION study.
The study was funded by the French National Institute of Cancer. Dr. Classe disclosed consulting or advisory roles for GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad Genetics, and Roche.
None of the other experts interviewed for this piece declared having any relevant disclosures.
FROM ASCO 2024
Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant Improves Survival in Advanced Breast Cancer
Disease progression is common in these patients, for whom first-line treatment is cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors plus endocrine therapy, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, said in a presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.
A need exists for additional targeted therapies for patients with advanced hormone receptor (HR)+, HER2- breast cancer whose tumors have progressed on endocrine therapy plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor, he said.
Data on the benefits of continuing CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy after progression have been mixed in phase 2 trials, Dr. Kalinsky noted in his presentation. Abemaciclib, an oral CDK4/6 inhibitor, has shown more selectivity for CDK 4 than CDK 6, and is approved in combination with fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor for advanced breast cancer, he said.
In a phase 3 study known as postMONARCH, the researchers randomized 182 patients to abemaciclib plus fulvestrant and 186 to placebo plus fulvestrant. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) based on investigator assessment; secondary endpoints included PFS based on blinded independent central review (BICR), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.
The PFS rates at 6 months were 50% and 37% for the abemaciclib and placebo arms, respectively.
In the primary analysis, abemaciclib led to a 27% reduction in risk of investigator-assessed progression-free survival events compared with the placebo (117 vs. 141 events, hazard ratio 0.73, P = 0.02).
The study population included men and pre- and postmenopausal women with advanced HR+, HER2- breast cancer and progression after initial CDK4/6 plus endocrine therapy from 96 centers in 16 countries, enrolled between March 2022 and June 2023. The median age of the patients in the abemaciclib and placebo groups was 58 years and 61 years, respectively. Patients underwent scans every 8 weeks for the first 12 months, then every 12 weeks. Most of the patients were enrolled immediately after CDK4/6i + ET as initial therapy for advanced breast cancer. The most common previous CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy was palbociclib (59%), followed by ribociclib (33%) and abemaciclib (8%).
Secondary Endpoints Also Favor Abemaciclib
The effects in favor of abemaciclib were consistent across subgroups, regardless of the presence or absence of baseline genetic mutations (ESR1 or PIK3CA), Dr. Kalinsky said in his presentation.
Overall response rate was significantly improved in the abemaciclib group compared with the placebo group in patients with measurable disease (17% vs. 7%) and PFS according to BICR also significantly improved (HR 0.55).
The magnitude of benefit was less in the subgroup of patients with visceral metastases, Dr. Kalinsky noted.
“Safety was consistent with what is known about the abemaciclib profile,” he added. Six percent of abemaciclib patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events.
The study is the first phase 3 trial to show improvement with CDK4/6 inhibition therapy with a combination of abemaciclib and fulvestrant and offers a new option for patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer not selected for biomarker status, Dr. Kalinsky concluded.
Data Support Switching CDK Inhibitors in Absence of Mutations
Switching CDK inhibitors to abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with endocrine therapy alone, with especially pronounced improvement in those without visceral metastases and those with longer durations of first-line CKD4/6 inhibitor therapy, said Ruth O’Regan, MD, of the University of Rochester, New York, who served as the discussant for the new research.
Dr. Regan referenced the improvement with abemaciclib in the BICR, a technique used to identify potential bias introduced by the assessment of local investigators. This can result in more favorable PFS on a treatment arm as seen in this study, but its use generally does not impact overall trial results, she said.
In the context of other studies involving switching CDK 4/6 inhibitors post-progression, the difference of 0.7 months in PFS between the abemaciclib and placebo groups was less than the 2.5 months difference seen in the MAINTAIN trial and the 1.3 months difference seen in the PALMIRA trial, Dr. O’Regan said in her presentation. Conversely, in the PACE trial, the intervention group did worse (4.6 months) than the control group in terms of the PFS (4.8 months), she said. Overall, the results of the postMONARCH trial support the use abemaciclib in patients with no actionable genetic mutation, she said.
In a question-and-answer session, Dr. Kalinsky was asked whether clinicians should still bother with genetic testing, since patients in the current study showed benefits regardless of the presence or absence of a mutation.
“I would still recommend that we check for mutations,” he emphasized. The current study “is one chapter in a much larger book,” and the field continues to evolve, he said.
A Clinician’s Take
“Currently, no standard second-line treatment after progression on first line CDK4/6 inhibitor plus endocrine therapy exists,” Malinda T. West, MD, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview. “Using a different CDK4/6 inhibitor after progression on a first CDK4/6 inhibitor has mixed data,” she said.
“If benefit with a second CDK4/6 inhibitor is confirmed, it may represent an additional low toxicity, chemotherapy-sparing regimen,” she noted.
Earlier data from the MAINTAIN trial had shown benefit with using ribociclib after progression on a primarily first line palbociclib, though other trials looking at use of palbociclib after progression on CDK 4/6 inhibitor [including the PACE and PALMIRA trials] had not, she said.
Overall, the results from postMONARCH support that switching the CDK4/6 inhibitor at progression to ribociclib or abemaciclib may be another treatment option, and reasonable for patients who don’t have other actionable mutations, Dr. West told this news organization.
The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed that immediate family members are employed by EQRx and GRAIL, with stock or other ownership interests in these companies. He disclosed consulting or advisory roles with 4D Pharma; AstraZeneca; Cullinan Oncology; Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca; eFFECTOR Therapeutics; Genentech/Roche; Immunomedics; Lilly; Menarini Silicon Biosystems; Merck; Mersana; Myovant Sciences; Novartis; Oncosec; Prelude Therapeutics; Puma Biotechnology; RayzeBio; Seagen; and Takeda. Dr. Kalinsky further disclosed research funding to his institution from Ascentage Pharma; AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo; Genentech/Roche; Lilly; Novartis; and Seagen, and relationships with Genentech and Immunomedics.
Dr. O’Regan disclosed honoraria from AstraZeneca/MedImmune; bioTheranostics; Gilead Sciences; Novartis; Pfizer; Puma Biotechnology; and Seagen, serving as a consultant or adviser for AstraZeneca/MedImmune; bioTheranostics; Lilly; Novartis; Puma Biotechnology; and Seagen, and funding to her institution from Novartis and Puma Biotechnology.
Dr. West, who was not involved in the new research or other studies mentioned in this article, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Disease progression is common in these patients, for whom first-line treatment is cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors plus endocrine therapy, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, said in a presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.
A need exists for additional targeted therapies for patients with advanced hormone receptor (HR)+, HER2- breast cancer whose tumors have progressed on endocrine therapy plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor, he said.
Data on the benefits of continuing CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy after progression have been mixed in phase 2 trials, Dr. Kalinsky noted in his presentation. Abemaciclib, an oral CDK4/6 inhibitor, has shown more selectivity for CDK 4 than CDK 6, and is approved in combination with fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor for advanced breast cancer, he said.
In a phase 3 study known as postMONARCH, the researchers randomized 182 patients to abemaciclib plus fulvestrant and 186 to placebo plus fulvestrant. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) based on investigator assessment; secondary endpoints included PFS based on blinded independent central review (BICR), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.
The PFS rates at 6 months were 50% and 37% for the abemaciclib and placebo arms, respectively.
In the primary analysis, abemaciclib led to a 27% reduction in risk of investigator-assessed progression-free survival events compared with the placebo (117 vs. 141 events, hazard ratio 0.73, P = 0.02).
The study population included men and pre- and postmenopausal women with advanced HR+, HER2- breast cancer and progression after initial CDK4/6 plus endocrine therapy from 96 centers in 16 countries, enrolled between March 2022 and June 2023. The median age of the patients in the abemaciclib and placebo groups was 58 years and 61 years, respectively. Patients underwent scans every 8 weeks for the first 12 months, then every 12 weeks. Most of the patients were enrolled immediately after CDK4/6i + ET as initial therapy for advanced breast cancer. The most common previous CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy was palbociclib (59%), followed by ribociclib (33%) and abemaciclib (8%).
Secondary Endpoints Also Favor Abemaciclib
The effects in favor of abemaciclib were consistent across subgroups, regardless of the presence or absence of baseline genetic mutations (ESR1 or PIK3CA), Dr. Kalinsky said in his presentation.
Overall response rate was significantly improved in the abemaciclib group compared with the placebo group in patients with measurable disease (17% vs. 7%) and PFS according to BICR also significantly improved (HR 0.55).
The magnitude of benefit was less in the subgroup of patients with visceral metastases, Dr. Kalinsky noted.
“Safety was consistent with what is known about the abemaciclib profile,” he added. Six percent of abemaciclib patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events.
The study is the first phase 3 trial to show improvement with CDK4/6 inhibition therapy with a combination of abemaciclib and fulvestrant and offers a new option for patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer not selected for biomarker status, Dr. Kalinsky concluded.
Data Support Switching CDK Inhibitors in Absence of Mutations
Switching CDK inhibitors to abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with endocrine therapy alone, with especially pronounced improvement in those without visceral metastases and those with longer durations of first-line CKD4/6 inhibitor therapy, said Ruth O’Regan, MD, of the University of Rochester, New York, who served as the discussant for the new research.
Dr. Regan referenced the improvement with abemaciclib in the BICR, a technique used to identify potential bias introduced by the assessment of local investigators. This can result in more favorable PFS on a treatment arm as seen in this study, but its use generally does not impact overall trial results, she said.
In the context of other studies involving switching CDK 4/6 inhibitors post-progression, the difference of 0.7 months in PFS between the abemaciclib and placebo groups was less than the 2.5 months difference seen in the MAINTAIN trial and the 1.3 months difference seen in the PALMIRA trial, Dr. O’Regan said in her presentation. Conversely, in the PACE trial, the intervention group did worse (4.6 months) than the control group in terms of the PFS (4.8 months), she said. Overall, the results of the postMONARCH trial support the use abemaciclib in patients with no actionable genetic mutation, she said.
In a question-and-answer session, Dr. Kalinsky was asked whether clinicians should still bother with genetic testing, since patients in the current study showed benefits regardless of the presence or absence of a mutation.
“I would still recommend that we check for mutations,” he emphasized. The current study “is one chapter in a much larger book,” and the field continues to evolve, he said.
A Clinician’s Take
“Currently, no standard second-line treatment after progression on first line CDK4/6 inhibitor plus endocrine therapy exists,” Malinda T. West, MD, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview. “Using a different CDK4/6 inhibitor after progression on a first CDK4/6 inhibitor has mixed data,” she said.
“If benefit with a second CDK4/6 inhibitor is confirmed, it may represent an additional low toxicity, chemotherapy-sparing regimen,” she noted.
Earlier data from the MAINTAIN trial had shown benefit with using ribociclib after progression on a primarily first line palbociclib, though other trials looking at use of palbociclib after progression on CDK 4/6 inhibitor [including the PACE and PALMIRA trials] had not, she said.
Overall, the results from postMONARCH support that switching the CDK4/6 inhibitor at progression to ribociclib or abemaciclib may be another treatment option, and reasonable for patients who don’t have other actionable mutations, Dr. West told this news organization.
The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed that immediate family members are employed by EQRx and GRAIL, with stock or other ownership interests in these companies. He disclosed consulting or advisory roles with 4D Pharma; AstraZeneca; Cullinan Oncology; Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca; eFFECTOR Therapeutics; Genentech/Roche; Immunomedics; Lilly; Menarini Silicon Biosystems; Merck; Mersana; Myovant Sciences; Novartis; Oncosec; Prelude Therapeutics; Puma Biotechnology; RayzeBio; Seagen; and Takeda. Dr. Kalinsky further disclosed research funding to his institution from Ascentage Pharma; AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo; Genentech/Roche; Lilly; Novartis; and Seagen, and relationships with Genentech and Immunomedics.
Dr. O’Regan disclosed honoraria from AstraZeneca/MedImmune; bioTheranostics; Gilead Sciences; Novartis; Pfizer; Puma Biotechnology; and Seagen, serving as a consultant or adviser for AstraZeneca/MedImmune; bioTheranostics; Lilly; Novartis; Puma Biotechnology; and Seagen, and funding to her institution from Novartis and Puma Biotechnology.
Dr. West, who was not involved in the new research or other studies mentioned in this article, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Disease progression is common in these patients, for whom first-line treatment is cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors plus endocrine therapy, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, said in a presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.
A need exists for additional targeted therapies for patients with advanced hormone receptor (HR)+, HER2- breast cancer whose tumors have progressed on endocrine therapy plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor, he said.
Data on the benefits of continuing CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy after progression have been mixed in phase 2 trials, Dr. Kalinsky noted in his presentation. Abemaciclib, an oral CDK4/6 inhibitor, has shown more selectivity for CDK 4 than CDK 6, and is approved in combination with fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor for advanced breast cancer, he said.
In a phase 3 study known as postMONARCH, the researchers randomized 182 patients to abemaciclib plus fulvestrant and 186 to placebo plus fulvestrant. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) based on investigator assessment; secondary endpoints included PFS based on blinded independent central review (BICR), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.
The PFS rates at 6 months were 50% and 37% for the abemaciclib and placebo arms, respectively.
In the primary analysis, abemaciclib led to a 27% reduction in risk of investigator-assessed progression-free survival events compared with the placebo (117 vs. 141 events, hazard ratio 0.73, P = 0.02).
The study population included men and pre- and postmenopausal women with advanced HR+, HER2- breast cancer and progression after initial CDK4/6 plus endocrine therapy from 96 centers in 16 countries, enrolled between March 2022 and June 2023. The median age of the patients in the abemaciclib and placebo groups was 58 years and 61 years, respectively. Patients underwent scans every 8 weeks for the first 12 months, then every 12 weeks. Most of the patients were enrolled immediately after CDK4/6i + ET as initial therapy for advanced breast cancer. The most common previous CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy was palbociclib (59%), followed by ribociclib (33%) and abemaciclib (8%).
Secondary Endpoints Also Favor Abemaciclib
The effects in favor of abemaciclib were consistent across subgroups, regardless of the presence or absence of baseline genetic mutations (ESR1 or PIK3CA), Dr. Kalinsky said in his presentation.
Overall response rate was significantly improved in the abemaciclib group compared with the placebo group in patients with measurable disease (17% vs. 7%) and PFS according to BICR also significantly improved (HR 0.55).
The magnitude of benefit was less in the subgroup of patients with visceral metastases, Dr. Kalinsky noted.
“Safety was consistent with what is known about the abemaciclib profile,” he added. Six percent of abemaciclib patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events.
The study is the first phase 3 trial to show improvement with CDK4/6 inhibition therapy with a combination of abemaciclib and fulvestrant and offers a new option for patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer not selected for biomarker status, Dr. Kalinsky concluded.
Data Support Switching CDK Inhibitors in Absence of Mutations
Switching CDK inhibitors to abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with endocrine therapy alone, with especially pronounced improvement in those without visceral metastases and those with longer durations of first-line CKD4/6 inhibitor therapy, said Ruth O’Regan, MD, of the University of Rochester, New York, who served as the discussant for the new research.
Dr. Regan referenced the improvement with abemaciclib in the BICR, a technique used to identify potential bias introduced by the assessment of local investigators. This can result in more favorable PFS on a treatment arm as seen in this study, but its use generally does not impact overall trial results, she said.
In the context of other studies involving switching CDK 4/6 inhibitors post-progression, the difference of 0.7 months in PFS between the abemaciclib and placebo groups was less than the 2.5 months difference seen in the MAINTAIN trial and the 1.3 months difference seen in the PALMIRA trial, Dr. O’Regan said in her presentation. Conversely, in the PACE trial, the intervention group did worse (4.6 months) than the control group in terms of the PFS (4.8 months), she said. Overall, the results of the postMONARCH trial support the use abemaciclib in patients with no actionable genetic mutation, she said.
In a question-and-answer session, Dr. Kalinsky was asked whether clinicians should still bother with genetic testing, since patients in the current study showed benefits regardless of the presence or absence of a mutation.
“I would still recommend that we check for mutations,” he emphasized. The current study “is one chapter in a much larger book,” and the field continues to evolve, he said.
A Clinician’s Take
“Currently, no standard second-line treatment after progression on first line CDK4/6 inhibitor plus endocrine therapy exists,” Malinda T. West, MD, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview. “Using a different CDK4/6 inhibitor after progression on a first CDK4/6 inhibitor has mixed data,” she said.
“If benefit with a second CDK4/6 inhibitor is confirmed, it may represent an additional low toxicity, chemotherapy-sparing regimen,” she noted.
Earlier data from the MAINTAIN trial had shown benefit with using ribociclib after progression on a primarily first line palbociclib, though other trials looking at use of palbociclib after progression on CDK 4/6 inhibitor [including the PACE and PALMIRA trials] had not, she said.
Overall, the results from postMONARCH support that switching the CDK4/6 inhibitor at progression to ribociclib or abemaciclib may be another treatment option, and reasonable for patients who don’t have other actionable mutations, Dr. West told this news organization.
The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed that immediate family members are employed by EQRx and GRAIL, with stock or other ownership interests in these companies. He disclosed consulting or advisory roles with 4D Pharma; AstraZeneca; Cullinan Oncology; Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca; eFFECTOR Therapeutics; Genentech/Roche; Immunomedics; Lilly; Menarini Silicon Biosystems; Merck; Mersana; Myovant Sciences; Novartis; Oncosec; Prelude Therapeutics; Puma Biotechnology; RayzeBio; Seagen; and Takeda. Dr. Kalinsky further disclosed research funding to his institution from Ascentage Pharma; AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo; Genentech/Roche; Lilly; Novartis; and Seagen, and relationships with Genentech and Immunomedics.
Dr. O’Regan disclosed honoraria from AstraZeneca/MedImmune; bioTheranostics; Gilead Sciences; Novartis; Pfizer; Puma Biotechnology; and Seagen, serving as a consultant or adviser for AstraZeneca/MedImmune; bioTheranostics; Lilly; Novartis; Puma Biotechnology; and Seagen, and funding to her institution from Novartis and Puma Biotechnology.
Dr. West, who was not involved in the new research or other studies mentioned in this article, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM ASCO 2024
New Drug Combo Boosts PFS
At a median follow-up of 4 years, progression-free survival for the new treatment, known as BrECADD, was 94.3% vs. 90.9% for BEACOPP (hazard ratio, 0.66, 95% CI, P = .035), researchers led by Peter Borchmann, MD, assistant medical director of hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Cologne, Germany, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
“These results are really striking,” said hematologist-oncologist Oreofe O. Odejide, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved in the study and commented on it during an ASCO news briefing. “This is really poised to impact the standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma.”
As Dr. Borchmann explained at the briefing, Hodgkin lymphoma is the most common cancer among young adults. “The median age at onset is around 30 years, and it can be primarily cured with chemotherapy. Intensified chemotherapy probably is better primary lymphoma control than less intensive treatment, but this comes at the cost of treatment-related adverse events.”
Dr. Borchmann and colleagues developed the existing treatment known as BEACOPP, a combination of bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone. “It’s our standard of care due to its high primary cure rate, which is reflected by compelling progression-free survival,” he said.
However, he said, “it’s a high burden of treatment.” The investigational treatment, BrECADD, includes six drugs instead of seven: brentuximab vedotin, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, dacarbazine, and dexamethasone. Two of the additions — brentuximab vedotin and dacarbazine — are cancer drugs, and dexamethasone is a steroid. There is one fewer cancer drug in the new formulation.
In the international HD21 trial (9 countries, 233 sites), researchers recruited patients aged 18-60 who received four or six cycles of either BEACOPP or BrECADD. The doses were guided by PET2 findings.
In the intention-to-treat cohort of 1,482 subjects (median age 31.1, 44% female), 742 were assigned to BrECADD and 740 to BEACOPP.
There were few early treatment failures in the BrECADD group vs. BEACOPP. The numbers who had primary progression within the first 3 months were 5 vs. 15, respectively, and the numbers reaching early relapse between months 3 and 12 were 11 vs. 23, respectively.
Four-year overall survival rates in the groups were nearly identical at 98.5% for BrECADD and 98.2% for BEACOPP. In regard to fertility, follicle-stimulating hormone recovery rates after 1 year were higher in the BrECADD group in both men (67% vs. 24%, respectively) and women (89% vs. 68%, respectively). Birth rates were also higher in the BrECADD group (n = 60 vs. n = 43 in the BEACOPP group).
Nearly two-thirds of those in BrECADD group (64%) required 12 weeks of therapy — four cycles. As for treatment-related morbidity toxicities, they were less common in the BrECADD group vs. the BEACOPP group (42% vs. 59%, respectively, P < .0001), and 1% of BrECADD-treated had them at 1 year.
Oncologist Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, welcomed the findings at the ACO news briefing. “By replacing some pretty toxic chemo with an antibody-drug conjugate [brentuximab vedotin], and changing the regimen a bit, and using PET scan to determine the number of cycles received, the long-term outcomes were maintained, if not even improved upon,” said Dr. Dr. Gralow, who was not involved in the study.
In addition, she said, the findings about fertility are good news because “these are young people who probably haven’t started a family yet, and we’re increasing the odds that they will be able to do so after survival.”
Moving forward, she said, “we will need to have some discussion on how this relates to ABVD, which is a more commonly used regimen in the United States right now.” ABVD refers to a combination of doxorubicin hydrochloride, bleomycin sulfate, vinblastine sulfate, and dacarbazine.
Takeda funded the study. Dr. Borchmann reported ties with BMS, GmbH & Co, Incyte, MSD/Merck, Roche, Takeda/Millennium, Miltenyi, Amgen, and Novartis. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Odejide and Dr. Gralow have no disclosures.
At a median follow-up of 4 years, progression-free survival for the new treatment, known as BrECADD, was 94.3% vs. 90.9% for BEACOPP (hazard ratio, 0.66, 95% CI, P = .035), researchers led by Peter Borchmann, MD, assistant medical director of hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Cologne, Germany, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
“These results are really striking,” said hematologist-oncologist Oreofe O. Odejide, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved in the study and commented on it during an ASCO news briefing. “This is really poised to impact the standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma.”
As Dr. Borchmann explained at the briefing, Hodgkin lymphoma is the most common cancer among young adults. “The median age at onset is around 30 years, and it can be primarily cured with chemotherapy. Intensified chemotherapy probably is better primary lymphoma control than less intensive treatment, but this comes at the cost of treatment-related adverse events.”
Dr. Borchmann and colleagues developed the existing treatment known as BEACOPP, a combination of bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone. “It’s our standard of care due to its high primary cure rate, which is reflected by compelling progression-free survival,” he said.
However, he said, “it’s a high burden of treatment.” The investigational treatment, BrECADD, includes six drugs instead of seven: brentuximab vedotin, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, dacarbazine, and dexamethasone. Two of the additions — brentuximab vedotin and dacarbazine — are cancer drugs, and dexamethasone is a steroid. There is one fewer cancer drug in the new formulation.
In the international HD21 trial (9 countries, 233 sites), researchers recruited patients aged 18-60 who received four or six cycles of either BEACOPP or BrECADD. The doses were guided by PET2 findings.
In the intention-to-treat cohort of 1,482 subjects (median age 31.1, 44% female), 742 were assigned to BrECADD and 740 to BEACOPP.
There were few early treatment failures in the BrECADD group vs. BEACOPP. The numbers who had primary progression within the first 3 months were 5 vs. 15, respectively, and the numbers reaching early relapse between months 3 and 12 were 11 vs. 23, respectively.
Four-year overall survival rates in the groups were nearly identical at 98.5% for BrECADD and 98.2% for BEACOPP. In regard to fertility, follicle-stimulating hormone recovery rates after 1 year were higher in the BrECADD group in both men (67% vs. 24%, respectively) and women (89% vs. 68%, respectively). Birth rates were also higher in the BrECADD group (n = 60 vs. n = 43 in the BEACOPP group).
Nearly two-thirds of those in BrECADD group (64%) required 12 weeks of therapy — four cycles. As for treatment-related morbidity toxicities, they were less common in the BrECADD group vs. the BEACOPP group (42% vs. 59%, respectively, P < .0001), and 1% of BrECADD-treated had them at 1 year.
Oncologist Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, welcomed the findings at the ACO news briefing. “By replacing some pretty toxic chemo with an antibody-drug conjugate [brentuximab vedotin], and changing the regimen a bit, and using PET scan to determine the number of cycles received, the long-term outcomes were maintained, if not even improved upon,” said Dr. Dr. Gralow, who was not involved in the study.
In addition, she said, the findings about fertility are good news because “these are young people who probably haven’t started a family yet, and we’re increasing the odds that they will be able to do so after survival.”
Moving forward, she said, “we will need to have some discussion on how this relates to ABVD, which is a more commonly used regimen in the United States right now.” ABVD refers to a combination of doxorubicin hydrochloride, bleomycin sulfate, vinblastine sulfate, and dacarbazine.
Takeda funded the study. Dr. Borchmann reported ties with BMS, GmbH & Co, Incyte, MSD/Merck, Roche, Takeda/Millennium, Miltenyi, Amgen, and Novartis. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Odejide and Dr. Gralow have no disclosures.
At a median follow-up of 4 years, progression-free survival for the new treatment, known as BrECADD, was 94.3% vs. 90.9% for BEACOPP (hazard ratio, 0.66, 95% CI, P = .035), researchers led by Peter Borchmann, MD, assistant medical director of hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Cologne, Germany, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
“These results are really striking,” said hematologist-oncologist Oreofe O. Odejide, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved in the study and commented on it during an ASCO news briefing. “This is really poised to impact the standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma.”
As Dr. Borchmann explained at the briefing, Hodgkin lymphoma is the most common cancer among young adults. “The median age at onset is around 30 years, and it can be primarily cured with chemotherapy. Intensified chemotherapy probably is better primary lymphoma control than less intensive treatment, but this comes at the cost of treatment-related adverse events.”
Dr. Borchmann and colleagues developed the existing treatment known as BEACOPP, a combination of bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone. “It’s our standard of care due to its high primary cure rate, which is reflected by compelling progression-free survival,” he said.
However, he said, “it’s a high burden of treatment.” The investigational treatment, BrECADD, includes six drugs instead of seven: brentuximab vedotin, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, dacarbazine, and dexamethasone. Two of the additions — brentuximab vedotin and dacarbazine — are cancer drugs, and dexamethasone is a steroid. There is one fewer cancer drug in the new formulation.
In the international HD21 trial (9 countries, 233 sites), researchers recruited patients aged 18-60 who received four or six cycles of either BEACOPP or BrECADD. The doses were guided by PET2 findings.
In the intention-to-treat cohort of 1,482 subjects (median age 31.1, 44% female), 742 were assigned to BrECADD and 740 to BEACOPP.
There were few early treatment failures in the BrECADD group vs. BEACOPP. The numbers who had primary progression within the first 3 months were 5 vs. 15, respectively, and the numbers reaching early relapse between months 3 and 12 were 11 vs. 23, respectively.
Four-year overall survival rates in the groups were nearly identical at 98.5% for BrECADD and 98.2% for BEACOPP. In regard to fertility, follicle-stimulating hormone recovery rates after 1 year were higher in the BrECADD group in both men (67% vs. 24%, respectively) and women (89% vs. 68%, respectively). Birth rates were also higher in the BrECADD group (n = 60 vs. n = 43 in the BEACOPP group).
Nearly two-thirds of those in BrECADD group (64%) required 12 weeks of therapy — four cycles. As for treatment-related morbidity toxicities, they were less common in the BrECADD group vs. the BEACOPP group (42% vs. 59%, respectively, P < .0001), and 1% of BrECADD-treated had them at 1 year.
Oncologist Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, welcomed the findings at the ACO news briefing. “By replacing some pretty toxic chemo with an antibody-drug conjugate [brentuximab vedotin], and changing the regimen a bit, and using PET scan to determine the number of cycles received, the long-term outcomes were maintained, if not even improved upon,” said Dr. Dr. Gralow, who was not involved in the study.
In addition, she said, the findings about fertility are good news because “these are young people who probably haven’t started a family yet, and we’re increasing the odds that they will be able to do so after survival.”
Moving forward, she said, “we will need to have some discussion on how this relates to ABVD, which is a more commonly used regimen in the United States right now.” ABVD refers to a combination of doxorubicin hydrochloride, bleomycin sulfate, vinblastine sulfate, and dacarbazine.
Takeda funded the study. Dr. Borchmann reported ties with BMS, GmbH & Co, Incyte, MSD/Merck, Roche, Takeda/Millennium, Miltenyi, Amgen, and Novartis. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Odejide and Dr. Gralow have no disclosures.
FROM ASCO 2024
CML: Asciminib Bests Standard TKIs as Frontline Therapy
“In the ASC4FIRST trial, asciminib is the first and only agent to demonstrate statistically significant efficacy versus standard-of-care frontline TKIs in newly diagnosed CML patients,” said senior author Jorge E. Cortes, MD, director of the Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University in Georgia, in presenting the findings at a press briefing for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago.
”Asciminib’s strong benefit-risk profile may transform the CML treatment paradigm,” Dr. Cortes said.
The study was published concurrently in The New England Journal of Medicine.
While TKIs have transformed the treatment of CML, improving the 5-year survival rates from 22% in the 1970s to 70% in recent years, nearly half of patients do not achieve a major molecular response within a year, due to either resistance or intolerance, causing the common switching of drugs.
Long-term use is further associated with common side effects, including gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events, due to off-target effects.
Asciminib is a potent and highly specific agent is an allosteric inhibitor targeting ABL myristoyl pocket, which is important in avoiding off-target effects that cause the common side effects.
The drug already has approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of patients with chronic phase CML who are resistant or intolerant to at least 2 prior TKIs or those with T315I mutation.
For the current pivotal phase 3 ASC4FIRST trial to evaluate the drug as a frontline therapy in recently diagnosed patients with chronic phase CML, 405 patients from cancer centers in 29 countries were enrolled.
The participants were randomized to treatment either with asciminib 80 mg once daily (n = 201) or to an investigator-selected TKI (n = 204), determined based on factors including patient age, preference, and overall health.
In the latter group, 102 patients were receiving imatinib and an equal number receive a stronger, second-generation TKI.
Overall, the patients had a median age of 52 and 65% were male. About 54% were White and 44% were Asian. Those receiving second-generation TKIs were more likely to be younger and without additional health concerns, allowing them to tolerate the more potent drugs.
The median follow-up was 16.3 months in the asciminib group and 15.7 months in the other TKIs group.
For the primary outcome, a major molecular response occurred at week 48 among 67.7% of patients in the asciminib group, compared with 49% in the combined TKI arm of imatinib and second-generation TKI groups (P < .001).
In a subanalysis of patients who were randomized to receive imatinib, a major molecular response occurred at week 48 in 69.3% in the asciminib group versus 40.2% of patients in the imatinib arm (P < .001).
The corresponding rates in the comparison of patients on second-generation TKIs were 66.0% and 57.8%, which was not a statistically significant difference.
Furthermore, a deep molecular response, which may lead to remission and discontinuation of treatment, occurred at week 48 in among 38.8% in the asciminib arm compared with the 20.6% in the combined investigator-selected TKI arm.
In the imatinib comparison analysis, the deep molecular response occurred in 42.6% of patients in the asciminib arm versus 17.8% in the imatinib arm, and in the second-generation TKI arm, the deep molecular response occurred in 35% versus 26.5%, respectively.
Importantly, in the TKI-treated group, significantly more patients in the asciminib group — 86%, remained on therapy at the data cut-off, compared with 62% of those receiving imatinib and 75% of those receiving a second generation TKI.
Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that led to discontinuation were lower with asciminib versus imatinib and second-generation TKIs (38% vs 44.4% and 54.9%, respectively), as were events leading to discontinuation (4.5% versus 11.1% and 9.8%, respectively).
The most common adverse events occurring with asciminib were low platelet count (13%) and low neutrophil count (10%). In terms of severe side effects, blood clots, a known severe side effect of TKIs, occurred in only 1% of patients.
In addition, dose adjustments and treatment interruptions were also more significantly less common in the asciminib group.
Overall, the results indicate that “asciminib has the potential to become a therapy of choice for patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase CML,” said first author Timothy P. Hughes, MD, of South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and University of Adelaide, Australia, in presenting the findings.
Commenting on the study in an interview, Dr. Cortes underscored the importance of molecular responses as indicators of longer-term responses.
“Early responses correlate with better long-term outcomes,” he said. “Most importantly, they are associated with better probabilities of having a deep molecular response, a requirement for considerations of treatment discontinuation,” which is a highly desirable goal for many patients, he noted.
“If we can get more patients to be eligible for treatment discontinuation and to discontinue successfully, this could be a major advance,” Dr. Cortes emphasized.
“Also, for the patients who do have to stay on therapy for the rest of their lives, a treatment option that has fewer adverse events would be very desirable,” he said.
“We need to see that longer follow-up confirms the current trends, but we are very encouraged by what we see so far.”
Impressive Results; Financial Toxicity Concerns
In discussing the significance of the findings at the meeting, Pankit Vachhani, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said the efficacy and toxicity profiles with asciminib were impressive.
“The nearly 70% major molecular response is one of the highest rates that we have seen in clinical trials at week 48,” he said. “That’s great and maybe we will see deeper responses with time.”
He added that the toxicity profile “was better than imagined — frankly I did not expect that, so that’s a welcome surprise, but we do need longer-term data especially on arterial occlusive events not to mention some other adverse events as well.”
“The question to ask ourselves, though, is whether the use of lower dose first- or second-generation TKIs leads to comparable amounts of toxicities.”
Dr. Vachhani raised the concern of cost: “There is the issue of financial toxicity,” he noted. “At current prices, treatment using asciminib would come to approximately $260,000 per year in terms of the cost to the healthcare system,” he said.
“Meanwhile, imatinib right now, in the US, can be obtained for $500 per year, and additional TKIs are going generic [soon],” he said, noting that survival differences remain unclear.
Further commenting, Eunice Wang, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, agreed that the results are impressive, saying the trial supports asciminib as “the new standard of care of first line therapy of newly diagnosed CML based on both efficacy.”
Dr. Wang, who moderated the ASCO session, noted the caveat that “given the chronicity of this disease, it is important to continue to follow the patients enrolled on this study for longevity and durability of these efficacy endpoints.”
Nevertheless, “given the lower discontinuation rates versus other TKIs and the fact that, in my opinion, most patients who stop drug will do so in the first 6-12 months if not tolerated, these results are highly promising,” she said.
Dr. Wang also agreed, however, that the rising costs of the TKIs are an important concern.
“All of the BCR-ABL TKIs except imatinib already cost several thousand dollars per month, but there is a trend that newer agents are priced higher than prior,” she said. “This needs to be addressed as $10-$20K per month is not reasonable, and the pharmaceutical companies need to be aware.
“Yes, the data with asciminib is better, but if many patients who respond to imatinib just take longer and there is no difference in overall or disease-free survival long-term, the financial costs are a serious topic of discussion,” Dr. Wang noted.
The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Cortes disclosed ties with Ascentage Pharma, Bio-Path Holdings, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel Pharmeuticals, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, and Takeda Oncology. Dr. Vachhani and Dr. Wang reported various disclosures.
“In the ASC4FIRST trial, asciminib is the first and only agent to demonstrate statistically significant efficacy versus standard-of-care frontline TKIs in newly diagnosed CML patients,” said senior author Jorge E. Cortes, MD, director of the Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University in Georgia, in presenting the findings at a press briefing for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago.
”Asciminib’s strong benefit-risk profile may transform the CML treatment paradigm,” Dr. Cortes said.
The study was published concurrently in The New England Journal of Medicine.
While TKIs have transformed the treatment of CML, improving the 5-year survival rates from 22% in the 1970s to 70% in recent years, nearly half of patients do not achieve a major molecular response within a year, due to either resistance or intolerance, causing the common switching of drugs.
Long-term use is further associated with common side effects, including gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events, due to off-target effects.
Asciminib is a potent and highly specific agent is an allosteric inhibitor targeting ABL myristoyl pocket, which is important in avoiding off-target effects that cause the common side effects.
The drug already has approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of patients with chronic phase CML who are resistant or intolerant to at least 2 prior TKIs or those with T315I mutation.
For the current pivotal phase 3 ASC4FIRST trial to evaluate the drug as a frontline therapy in recently diagnosed patients with chronic phase CML, 405 patients from cancer centers in 29 countries were enrolled.
The participants were randomized to treatment either with asciminib 80 mg once daily (n = 201) or to an investigator-selected TKI (n = 204), determined based on factors including patient age, preference, and overall health.
In the latter group, 102 patients were receiving imatinib and an equal number receive a stronger, second-generation TKI.
Overall, the patients had a median age of 52 and 65% were male. About 54% were White and 44% were Asian. Those receiving second-generation TKIs were more likely to be younger and without additional health concerns, allowing them to tolerate the more potent drugs.
The median follow-up was 16.3 months in the asciminib group and 15.7 months in the other TKIs group.
For the primary outcome, a major molecular response occurred at week 48 among 67.7% of patients in the asciminib group, compared with 49% in the combined TKI arm of imatinib and second-generation TKI groups (P < .001).
In a subanalysis of patients who were randomized to receive imatinib, a major molecular response occurred at week 48 in 69.3% in the asciminib group versus 40.2% of patients in the imatinib arm (P < .001).
The corresponding rates in the comparison of patients on second-generation TKIs were 66.0% and 57.8%, which was not a statistically significant difference.
Furthermore, a deep molecular response, which may lead to remission and discontinuation of treatment, occurred at week 48 in among 38.8% in the asciminib arm compared with the 20.6% in the combined investigator-selected TKI arm.
In the imatinib comparison analysis, the deep molecular response occurred in 42.6% of patients in the asciminib arm versus 17.8% in the imatinib arm, and in the second-generation TKI arm, the deep molecular response occurred in 35% versus 26.5%, respectively.
Importantly, in the TKI-treated group, significantly more patients in the asciminib group — 86%, remained on therapy at the data cut-off, compared with 62% of those receiving imatinib and 75% of those receiving a second generation TKI.
Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that led to discontinuation were lower with asciminib versus imatinib and second-generation TKIs (38% vs 44.4% and 54.9%, respectively), as were events leading to discontinuation (4.5% versus 11.1% and 9.8%, respectively).
The most common adverse events occurring with asciminib were low platelet count (13%) and low neutrophil count (10%). In terms of severe side effects, blood clots, a known severe side effect of TKIs, occurred in only 1% of patients.
In addition, dose adjustments and treatment interruptions were also more significantly less common in the asciminib group.
Overall, the results indicate that “asciminib has the potential to become a therapy of choice for patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase CML,” said first author Timothy P. Hughes, MD, of South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and University of Adelaide, Australia, in presenting the findings.
Commenting on the study in an interview, Dr. Cortes underscored the importance of molecular responses as indicators of longer-term responses.
“Early responses correlate with better long-term outcomes,” he said. “Most importantly, they are associated with better probabilities of having a deep molecular response, a requirement for considerations of treatment discontinuation,” which is a highly desirable goal for many patients, he noted.
“If we can get more patients to be eligible for treatment discontinuation and to discontinue successfully, this could be a major advance,” Dr. Cortes emphasized.
“Also, for the patients who do have to stay on therapy for the rest of their lives, a treatment option that has fewer adverse events would be very desirable,” he said.
“We need to see that longer follow-up confirms the current trends, but we are very encouraged by what we see so far.”
Impressive Results; Financial Toxicity Concerns
In discussing the significance of the findings at the meeting, Pankit Vachhani, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said the efficacy and toxicity profiles with asciminib were impressive.
“The nearly 70% major molecular response is one of the highest rates that we have seen in clinical trials at week 48,” he said. “That’s great and maybe we will see deeper responses with time.”
He added that the toxicity profile “was better than imagined — frankly I did not expect that, so that’s a welcome surprise, but we do need longer-term data especially on arterial occlusive events not to mention some other adverse events as well.”
“The question to ask ourselves, though, is whether the use of lower dose first- or second-generation TKIs leads to comparable amounts of toxicities.”
Dr. Vachhani raised the concern of cost: “There is the issue of financial toxicity,” he noted. “At current prices, treatment using asciminib would come to approximately $260,000 per year in terms of the cost to the healthcare system,” he said.
“Meanwhile, imatinib right now, in the US, can be obtained for $500 per year, and additional TKIs are going generic [soon],” he said, noting that survival differences remain unclear.
Further commenting, Eunice Wang, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, agreed that the results are impressive, saying the trial supports asciminib as “the new standard of care of first line therapy of newly diagnosed CML based on both efficacy.”
Dr. Wang, who moderated the ASCO session, noted the caveat that “given the chronicity of this disease, it is important to continue to follow the patients enrolled on this study for longevity and durability of these efficacy endpoints.”
Nevertheless, “given the lower discontinuation rates versus other TKIs and the fact that, in my opinion, most patients who stop drug will do so in the first 6-12 months if not tolerated, these results are highly promising,” she said.
Dr. Wang also agreed, however, that the rising costs of the TKIs are an important concern.
“All of the BCR-ABL TKIs except imatinib already cost several thousand dollars per month, but there is a trend that newer agents are priced higher than prior,” she said. “This needs to be addressed as $10-$20K per month is not reasonable, and the pharmaceutical companies need to be aware.
“Yes, the data with asciminib is better, but if many patients who respond to imatinib just take longer and there is no difference in overall or disease-free survival long-term, the financial costs are a serious topic of discussion,” Dr. Wang noted.
The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Cortes disclosed ties with Ascentage Pharma, Bio-Path Holdings, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel Pharmeuticals, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, and Takeda Oncology. Dr. Vachhani and Dr. Wang reported various disclosures.
“In the ASC4FIRST trial, asciminib is the first and only agent to demonstrate statistically significant efficacy versus standard-of-care frontline TKIs in newly diagnosed CML patients,” said senior author Jorge E. Cortes, MD, director of the Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University in Georgia, in presenting the findings at a press briefing for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago.
”Asciminib’s strong benefit-risk profile may transform the CML treatment paradigm,” Dr. Cortes said.
The study was published concurrently in The New England Journal of Medicine.
While TKIs have transformed the treatment of CML, improving the 5-year survival rates from 22% in the 1970s to 70% in recent years, nearly half of patients do not achieve a major molecular response within a year, due to either resistance or intolerance, causing the common switching of drugs.
Long-term use is further associated with common side effects, including gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events, due to off-target effects.
Asciminib is a potent and highly specific agent is an allosteric inhibitor targeting ABL myristoyl pocket, which is important in avoiding off-target effects that cause the common side effects.
The drug already has approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of patients with chronic phase CML who are resistant or intolerant to at least 2 prior TKIs or those with T315I mutation.
For the current pivotal phase 3 ASC4FIRST trial to evaluate the drug as a frontline therapy in recently diagnosed patients with chronic phase CML, 405 patients from cancer centers in 29 countries were enrolled.
The participants were randomized to treatment either with asciminib 80 mg once daily (n = 201) or to an investigator-selected TKI (n = 204), determined based on factors including patient age, preference, and overall health.
In the latter group, 102 patients were receiving imatinib and an equal number receive a stronger, second-generation TKI.
Overall, the patients had a median age of 52 and 65% were male. About 54% were White and 44% were Asian. Those receiving second-generation TKIs were more likely to be younger and without additional health concerns, allowing them to tolerate the more potent drugs.
The median follow-up was 16.3 months in the asciminib group and 15.7 months in the other TKIs group.
For the primary outcome, a major molecular response occurred at week 48 among 67.7% of patients in the asciminib group, compared with 49% in the combined TKI arm of imatinib and second-generation TKI groups (P < .001).
In a subanalysis of patients who were randomized to receive imatinib, a major molecular response occurred at week 48 in 69.3% in the asciminib group versus 40.2% of patients in the imatinib arm (P < .001).
The corresponding rates in the comparison of patients on second-generation TKIs were 66.0% and 57.8%, which was not a statistically significant difference.
Furthermore, a deep molecular response, which may lead to remission and discontinuation of treatment, occurred at week 48 in among 38.8% in the asciminib arm compared with the 20.6% in the combined investigator-selected TKI arm.
In the imatinib comparison analysis, the deep molecular response occurred in 42.6% of patients in the asciminib arm versus 17.8% in the imatinib arm, and in the second-generation TKI arm, the deep molecular response occurred in 35% versus 26.5%, respectively.
Importantly, in the TKI-treated group, significantly more patients in the asciminib group — 86%, remained on therapy at the data cut-off, compared with 62% of those receiving imatinib and 75% of those receiving a second generation TKI.
Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that led to discontinuation were lower with asciminib versus imatinib and second-generation TKIs (38% vs 44.4% and 54.9%, respectively), as were events leading to discontinuation (4.5% versus 11.1% and 9.8%, respectively).
The most common adverse events occurring with asciminib were low platelet count (13%) and low neutrophil count (10%). In terms of severe side effects, blood clots, a known severe side effect of TKIs, occurred in only 1% of patients.
In addition, dose adjustments and treatment interruptions were also more significantly less common in the asciminib group.
Overall, the results indicate that “asciminib has the potential to become a therapy of choice for patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase CML,” said first author Timothy P. Hughes, MD, of South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and University of Adelaide, Australia, in presenting the findings.
Commenting on the study in an interview, Dr. Cortes underscored the importance of molecular responses as indicators of longer-term responses.
“Early responses correlate with better long-term outcomes,” he said. “Most importantly, they are associated with better probabilities of having a deep molecular response, a requirement for considerations of treatment discontinuation,” which is a highly desirable goal for many patients, he noted.
“If we can get more patients to be eligible for treatment discontinuation and to discontinue successfully, this could be a major advance,” Dr. Cortes emphasized.
“Also, for the patients who do have to stay on therapy for the rest of their lives, a treatment option that has fewer adverse events would be very desirable,” he said.
“We need to see that longer follow-up confirms the current trends, but we are very encouraged by what we see so far.”
Impressive Results; Financial Toxicity Concerns
In discussing the significance of the findings at the meeting, Pankit Vachhani, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said the efficacy and toxicity profiles with asciminib were impressive.
“The nearly 70% major molecular response is one of the highest rates that we have seen in clinical trials at week 48,” he said. “That’s great and maybe we will see deeper responses with time.”
He added that the toxicity profile “was better than imagined — frankly I did not expect that, so that’s a welcome surprise, but we do need longer-term data especially on arterial occlusive events not to mention some other adverse events as well.”
“The question to ask ourselves, though, is whether the use of lower dose first- or second-generation TKIs leads to comparable amounts of toxicities.”
Dr. Vachhani raised the concern of cost: “There is the issue of financial toxicity,” he noted. “At current prices, treatment using asciminib would come to approximately $260,000 per year in terms of the cost to the healthcare system,” he said.
“Meanwhile, imatinib right now, in the US, can be obtained for $500 per year, and additional TKIs are going generic [soon],” he said, noting that survival differences remain unclear.
Further commenting, Eunice Wang, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, agreed that the results are impressive, saying the trial supports asciminib as “the new standard of care of first line therapy of newly diagnosed CML based on both efficacy.”
Dr. Wang, who moderated the ASCO session, noted the caveat that “given the chronicity of this disease, it is important to continue to follow the patients enrolled on this study for longevity and durability of these efficacy endpoints.”
Nevertheless, “given the lower discontinuation rates versus other TKIs and the fact that, in my opinion, most patients who stop drug will do so in the first 6-12 months if not tolerated, these results are highly promising,” she said.
Dr. Wang also agreed, however, that the rising costs of the TKIs are an important concern.
“All of the BCR-ABL TKIs except imatinib already cost several thousand dollars per month, but there is a trend that newer agents are priced higher than prior,” she said. “This needs to be addressed as $10-$20K per month is not reasonable, and the pharmaceutical companies need to be aware.
“Yes, the data with asciminib is better, but if many patients who respond to imatinib just take longer and there is no difference in overall or disease-free survival long-term, the financial costs are a serious topic of discussion,” Dr. Wang noted.
The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Cortes disclosed ties with Ascentage Pharma, Bio-Path Holdings, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel Pharmeuticals, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, and Takeda Oncology. Dr. Vachhani and Dr. Wang reported various disclosures.
FROM ASCO 2024
Most women can conceive after breast cancer treatment
The findings, presented May 23 in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) represent the most comprehensive look to date at fertility outcomes following treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 (Abstract 1518).
Kimia Sorouri, MD, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues, looked at data from the Young Women’s Breast Cancer study, a multicenter longitudinal cohort study, for 1213 U.S. and Canadian women (74% non-Hispanic white) who were diagnosed with stages 0-III breast cancer between 2006 and 2016. None of the included patients had metastatic disease, prior hysterectomy, or prior oophorectomy at diagnosis.
During a median 11 years of follow up, 197 of the women reported attempting pregnancy. Of these, 73% reported becoming pregnant, and 65% delivered a live infant a median 4 years after cancer diagnosis. The median age at diagnosis was 32 years, and 28% opted for egg or embryo freezing to preserve fertility. Importantly, 68% received chemotherapy, which can impair fertility, with only a small percentage undergoing ovarian suppression during chemotherapy treatment.
Key predictors of pregnancy or live birth in this study were “financial comfort,” a self-reported measure defined as having money left over to spend after bills are paid (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% CI 1.01-4.12; P = .047); younger age at the time of diagnosis; and undergoing fertility preservation interventions at diagnosis (OR, 2.78; 95% CI 1.29-6.00; P = .009). Chemotherapy and other treatment factors were not seen to be associated with pregnancy or birth outcomes.
“Current research that informs our understanding of the impact of breast cancer treatment on pregnancy and live birth rates is fairly limited,” Dr. Sorouri said during an online press conference announcing the findings. Quality data on fertility outcomes has been limited to studies in certain subgroups, such as women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, she noted, while other studies “have short-term follow-up and critically lack prospective assessment of attempt at conception.”
The new findings show, Dr. Sorouri said, “that in this modern cohort with a heightened awareness of fertility, access to fertility preservation can help to mitigate a portion of the damage from chemotherapy and other agents. Importantly, this highlights the need for increased accessibility of fertility preservation services for women newly diagnosed with breast cancer who are interested in a future pregnancy.”
Commenting on Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ findings, Julie Gralow, MD, a breast cancer researcher and ASCO’s chief medical officer, stressed that, while younger age at diagnosis and financial comfort were two factors outside the scope of clinical oncology practice, “we can impact fertility preservation prior to treatment.”
She called it “critical” that every patient be informed of the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment on future fertility, and that all young patients interested in future fertility be offered fertility preservation prior to beginning treatment.
Ann Partridge, MD, of Dana-Farber, said in an interview that the findings reflected a decades’ long change in approach. “Twenty years ago when we first started this cohort, people would tell women ‘you can’t get pregnant. It’s too dangerous. You won’t be able to.’ And some indeed aren’t able to, but the majority who are attempting are succeeding, especially if they preserve their eggs or embryos. So even if chemo puts you into menopause or made you subfertile, if you’ve preserved eggs or embryos, we now can mitigate that distressing effect that many cancer patients have suffered from historically. That’s the good news here.”
Nonetheless, Dr. Partridge, an oncologist and the last author of the study, noted, the results reflected success only for women actively attempting pregnancy. “Remember, we’re not including the people who didn’t attempt. There may be some who went into menopause who never banked eggs or embryos, and may never have tried because they went to a doctor who told them they’re not fertile.” Further, she said, not all insurances cover in vitro fertilization for women who have had breast cancer.
The fact that financial comfort was correlated with reproductive success, Dr. Partridge said, speaks to broader issues about access. “It may not be all about insurers. It may be to have the ability, to have the time, the education and the wherewithal to do this right — and about being with doctors who talk about it.”
Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ study was sponsored by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Susan G. Komen. Several co-authors disclosed receiving speaking and/or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies, and one reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Sorouri reported no industry funding, while Dr. Partridge reported research funding from Novartis.
The findings, presented May 23 in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) represent the most comprehensive look to date at fertility outcomes following treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 (Abstract 1518).
Kimia Sorouri, MD, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues, looked at data from the Young Women’s Breast Cancer study, a multicenter longitudinal cohort study, for 1213 U.S. and Canadian women (74% non-Hispanic white) who were diagnosed with stages 0-III breast cancer between 2006 and 2016. None of the included patients had metastatic disease, prior hysterectomy, or prior oophorectomy at diagnosis.
During a median 11 years of follow up, 197 of the women reported attempting pregnancy. Of these, 73% reported becoming pregnant, and 65% delivered a live infant a median 4 years after cancer diagnosis. The median age at diagnosis was 32 years, and 28% opted for egg or embryo freezing to preserve fertility. Importantly, 68% received chemotherapy, which can impair fertility, with only a small percentage undergoing ovarian suppression during chemotherapy treatment.
Key predictors of pregnancy or live birth in this study were “financial comfort,” a self-reported measure defined as having money left over to spend after bills are paid (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% CI 1.01-4.12; P = .047); younger age at the time of diagnosis; and undergoing fertility preservation interventions at diagnosis (OR, 2.78; 95% CI 1.29-6.00; P = .009). Chemotherapy and other treatment factors were not seen to be associated with pregnancy or birth outcomes.
“Current research that informs our understanding of the impact of breast cancer treatment on pregnancy and live birth rates is fairly limited,” Dr. Sorouri said during an online press conference announcing the findings. Quality data on fertility outcomes has been limited to studies in certain subgroups, such as women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, she noted, while other studies “have short-term follow-up and critically lack prospective assessment of attempt at conception.”
The new findings show, Dr. Sorouri said, “that in this modern cohort with a heightened awareness of fertility, access to fertility preservation can help to mitigate a portion of the damage from chemotherapy and other agents. Importantly, this highlights the need for increased accessibility of fertility preservation services for women newly diagnosed with breast cancer who are interested in a future pregnancy.”
Commenting on Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ findings, Julie Gralow, MD, a breast cancer researcher and ASCO’s chief medical officer, stressed that, while younger age at diagnosis and financial comfort were two factors outside the scope of clinical oncology practice, “we can impact fertility preservation prior to treatment.”
She called it “critical” that every patient be informed of the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment on future fertility, and that all young patients interested in future fertility be offered fertility preservation prior to beginning treatment.
Ann Partridge, MD, of Dana-Farber, said in an interview that the findings reflected a decades’ long change in approach. “Twenty years ago when we first started this cohort, people would tell women ‘you can’t get pregnant. It’s too dangerous. You won’t be able to.’ And some indeed aren’t able to, but the majority who are attempting are succeeding, especially if they preserve their eggs or embryos. So even if chemo puts you into menopause or made you subfertile, if you’ve preserved eggs or embryos, we now can mitigate that distressing effect that many cancer patients have suffered from historically. That’s the good news here.”
Nonetheless, Dr. Partridge, an oncologist and the last author of the study, noted, the results reflected success only for women actively attempting pregnancy. “Remember, we’re not including the people who didn’t attempt. There may be some who went into menopause who never banked eggs or embryos, and may never have tried because they went to a doctor who told them they’re not fertile.” Further, she said, not all insurances cover in vitro fertilization for women who have had breast cancer.
The fact that financial comfort was correlated with reproductive success, Dr. Partridge said, speaks to broader issues about access. “It may not be all about insurers. It may be to have the ability, to have the time, the education and the wherewithal to do this right — and about being with doctors who talk about it.”
Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ study was sponsored by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Susan G. Komen. Several co-authors disclosed receiving speaking and/or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies, and one reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Sorouri reported no industry funding, while Dr. Partridge reported research funding from Novartis.
The findings, presented May 23 in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) represent the most comprehensive look to date at fertility outcomes following treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 (Abstract 1518).
Kimia Sorouri, MD, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues, looked at data from the Young Women’s Breast Cancer study, a multicenter longitudinal cohort study, for 1213 U.S. and Canadian women (74% non-Hispanic white) who were diagnosed with stages 0-III breast cancer between 2006 and 2016. None of the included patients had metastatic disease, prior hysterectomy, or prior oophorectomy at diagnosis.
During a median 11 years of follow up, 197 of the women reported attempting pregnancy. Of these, 73% reported becoming pregnant, and 65% delivered a live infant a median 4 years after cancer diagnosis. The median age at diagnosis was 32 years, and 28% opted for egg or embryo freezing to preserve fertility. Importantly, 68% received chemotherapy, which can impair fertility, with only a small percentage undergoing ovarian suppression during chemotherapy treatment.
Key predictors of pregnancy or live birth in this study were “financial comfort,” a self-reported measure defined as having money left over to spend after bills are paid (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% CI 1.01-4.12; P = .047); younger age at the time of diagnosis; and undergoing fertility preservation interventions at diagnosis (OR, 2.78; 95% CI 1.29-6.00; P = .009). Chemotherapy and other treatment factors were not seen to be associated with pregnancy or birth outcomes.
“Current research that informs our understanding of the impact of breast cancer treatment on pregnancy and live birth rates is fairly limited,” Dr. Sorouri said during an online press conference announcing the findings. Quality data on fertility outcomes has been limited to studies in certain subgroups, such as women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, she noted, while other studies “have short-term follow-up and critically lack prospective assessment of attempt at conception.”
The new findings show, Dr. Sorouri said, “that in this modern cohort with a heightened awareness of fertility, access to fertility preservation can help to mitigate a portion of the damage from chemotherapy and other agents. Importantly, this highlights the need for increased accessibility of fertility preservation services for women newly diagnosed with breast cancer who are interested in a future pregnancy.”
Commenting on Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ findings, Julie Gralow, MD, a breast cancer researcher and ASCO’s chief medical officer, stressed that, while younger age at diagnosis and financial comfort were two factors outside the scope of clinical oncology practice, “we can impact fertility preservation prior to treatment.”
She called it “critical” that every patient be informed of the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment on future fertility, and that all young patients interested in future fertility be offered fertility preservation prior to beginning treatment.
Ann Partridge, MD, of Dana-Farber, said in an interview that the findings reflected a decades’ long change in approach. “Twenty years ago when we first started this cohort, people would tell women ‘you can’t get pregnant. It’s too dangerous. You won’t be able to.’ And some indeed aren’t able to, but the majority who are attempting are succeeding, especially if they preserve their eggs or embryos. So even if chemo puts you into menopause or made you subfertile, if you’ve preserved eggs or embryos, we now can mitigate that distressing effect that many cancer patients have suffered from historically. That’s the good news here.”
Nonetheless, Dr. Partridge, an oncologist and the last author of the study, noted, the results reflected success only for women actively attempting pregnancy. “Remember, we’re not including the people who didn’t attempt. There may be some who went into menopause who never banked eggs or embryos, and may never have tried because they went to a doctor who told them they’re not fertile.” Further, she said, not all insurances cover in vitro fertilization for women who have had breast cancer.
The fact that financial comfort was correlated with reproductive success, Dr. Partridge said, speaks to broader issues about access. “It may not be all about insurers. It may be to have the ability, to have the time, the education and the wherewithal to do this right — and about being with doctors who talk about it.”
Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ study was sponsored by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Susan G. Komen. Several co-authors disclosed receiving speaking and/or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies, and one reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Sorouri reported no industry funding, while Dr. Partridge reported research funding from Novartis.
FROM ASCO 2024