User login
Beyond Weight Loss, Limited Bariatric Surgery Benefits in Older Adults
TOPLINE:
For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.
METHODOLOGY:
- Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
- Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
- The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
- Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
- During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
- Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
- Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
- There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.
METHODOLOGY:
- Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
- Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
- The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
- Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
- During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
- Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
- Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
- There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.
METHODOLOGY:
- Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
- Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
- The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
- Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
- During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
- Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
- Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
- There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Outcomes with CDK4/6 Inhibitors Vary in BC
Lead investigator Claudio Vernieri, MD, PhD, presented these findings of the PALMARES-2 study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“Along with different safety profiles, drug-drug interactions, and costs of the three available CDK4/6 inhibitor molecules, our efficacy data may help clinicians and patients in choosing the most appropriate CDK4/6 inhibitor in specific clinical contexts,” Dr. Vernieri, who is from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy, said during the meeting.
CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with ET, are the standard of care as first line treatment for this population, noted Dr. Vernieri. However, their efficacy has never been directly compared in a large clinical trial.
“Since these compounds have different pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety profiles, costs, and drug-drug interactions, identifying which of the three CDK4/6 inhibitors may be more effective in specific clinical contexts is a highly clinically relevant issue,” he said. “Real-world data represent a key source to perform direct comparisons.”
The PALMARES-2 study was a retrospective, multicenter, population-based study, in 18 Italian cancer centers. Its two main objectives were to compare the real-world PFS of abemaciclib versus ribociclib versus palbociclib, in combination with ET, in the whole study cohort, as well as in various subgroups including patients with endocrine-resistant disease, luminal B-like disease, or in premenopausal women.
A total of 1,850 patients (median age, 63 years) were enrolled between January 1, 2016 and September 1, 2023, with 750 (40.6%) receiving palbociclib, and 676 (36.5%) and 424 (22.9%) receiving ribociclib and abemaciclib, respectively.
Baseline imbalance
Importantly, there were significant imbalances in baseline characteristics of the patients, with those receiving abemaciclib being more likely to have endocrine-resistant disease, low progesterone receptor expression, and liver metastasis, and less likely to have de novo metastatic disease, compared with other patients, said Dr. Vernieri.
The analysis showed that across the entire cohort, the median real-world PFS and overall survival (OS) were 34.7 months and 66.6 months, respectively, by a January 1, 2024, data cutoff date. “I believe that the overall survival data are still immature to make a definitive conclusion,” he commented, noting that at enrollment only about half of patients had undergone disease progression, and at the close of the study only about 25% had died.
After adjusting for clinically relevant patient- and tumor-related covariates, “we found that both abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib, whereas we did not find statistically significant differences between abemaciclib and ribociclib,” he reported.
Specifically, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for PFS was 0.71 for abemaciclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.56-0.90; P = .005), 0.81 for ribociclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.65-0.99; P = .048), and 0.91 for abemaciclib versus ribociclib (95% CI, 0.70-1.19; P = .505).
“Regarding subgroup analysis, we found that abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib in patients with endocrine-resistant or luminal B-like disease, as well as in premenopausal women. Abemaciclib was superior to palbociclib in patients with poorer ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group] performance status and to both palbociclib and ribociclib in patients with de novo metastatic disease. Both ribociclib and abemaciclib showed a trend toward higher efficacy in patients with liver metastases. However, this difference only reached statistical significance in patients treated with ribociclib. And finally, the three CDK4/6 inhibitors were similarly effective in patients who were older or at bone-only disease,” he concluded.
Justifying adjustment
Speaking during the audience question period Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, from Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, said he preferred unadjusted results when examining real-world data, “because that’s the benefit,” and he questioned why the researchers had adjusted their numbers.
Dr. Vernieri explained that the adjustments were made to account for the important imbalances in the baseline characteristics of the patients.
“When we plotted unadjusted curves, we did not find statistically significant differences between these three drugs, only a trend toward the direction that I showed you today,” he said. “However, as you saw from the tables showing the characteristics of patients, there were important imbalances in terms of important prognostic factors in the three patient cohorts. So, I think that, for this kind of data and based on this level of imbalance, adjustment is necessary.
“To reinforce our conclusions, what we did was also to perform a propensity score match–based analysis,” Dr. Vernieri continued. “I did not have the time to show the results today, but these data were fully in line with the study conclusions. And we also performed a backward selection of variables. So, we basically selected variables more likely to be associated with patient prognosis. And also those models confirm the study conclusion. So I think the conclusions are quite solid.”
Dr. Del Priore, an adjunct professor of obstetrics and gynecology with a specialty in oncology, on the other hand, said he was not convinced that any of the drugs might be better or worse in the actual population treated.
“I still maintain that unadjusted real-world data should be presented and then only a limited adjusted analysis performed using the most unbalanced variables,” he said. “To do more elaborate adjustments may falsely imply a difference in drug choice and outcomes which never should be the conclusion with observational studies. Instead, the conclusions should be that, with typical use, the following similarities in PFS and OS were observed. Then point out how drug choice and important prognostic variables might be linked, thus limiting the generalizable conclusions even further.
“I would conclude that prospective studies should balance for the variables used in the PALMARES-2 analyses, which actually may have been chosen for adjustment post hoc,” Dr. Del Priore said.
The study was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, the European Research Council, the Ministero della Salute, the Scientific Directorate of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Giuliani’s Foundation and Roche. Dr. Vernieri reported consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer; speakers’ bureau roles with Accademia Nazionale Di Medicina (ACCMED), Istituto Gentili, Lilly and Novartis; and research funding from Roche. Dr. Del Priore reported no conflicts of interest and disclosed that he is chief medical officer at BriaCell.
Lead investigator Claudio Vernieri, MD, PhD, presented these findings of the PALMARES-2 study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“Along with different safety profiles, drug-drug interactions, and costs of the three available CDK4/6 inhibitor molecules, our efficacy data may help clinicians and patients in choosing the most appropriate CDK4/6 inhibitor in specific clinical contexts,” Dr. Vernieri, who is from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy, said during the meeting.
CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with ET, are the standard of care as first line treatment for this population, noted Dr. Vernieri. However, their efficacy has never been directly compared in a large clinical trial.
“Since these compounds have different pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety profiles, costs, and drug-drug interactions, identifying which of the three CDK4/6 inhibitors may be more effective in specific clinical contexts is a highly clinically relevant issue,” he said. “Real-world data represent a key source to perform direct comparisons.”
The PALMARES-2 study was a retrospective, multicenter, population-based study, in 18 Italian cancer centers. Its two main objectives were to compare the real-world PFS of abemaciclib versus ribociclib versus palbociclib, in combination with ET, in the whole study cohort, as well as in various subgroups including patients with endocrine-resistant disease, luminal B-like disease, or in premenopausal women.
A total of 1,850 patients (median age, 63 years) were enrolled between January 1, 2016 and September 1, 2023, with 750 (40.6%) receiving palbociclib, and 676 (36.5%) and 424 (22.9%) receiving ribociclib and abemaciclib, respectively.
Baseline imbalance
Importantly, there were significant imbalances in baseline characteristics of the patients, with those receiving abemaciclib being more likely to have endocrine-resistant disease, low progesterone receptor expression, and liver metastasis, and less likely to have de novo metastatic disease, compared with other patients, said Dr. Vernieri.
The analysis showed that across the entire cohort, the median real-world PFS and overall survival (OS) were 34.7 months and 66.6 months, respectively, by a January 1, 2024, data cutoff date. “I believe that the overall survival data are still immature to make a definitive conclusion,” he commented, noting that at enrollment only about half of patients had undergone disease progression, and at the close of the study only about 25% had died.
After adjusting for clinically relevant patient- and tumor-related covariates, “we found that both abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib, whereas we did not find statistically significant differences between abemaciclib and ribociclib,” he reported.
Specifically, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for PFS was 0.71 for abemaciclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.56-0.90; P = .005), 0.81 for ribociclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.65-0.99; P = .048), and 0.91 for abemaciclib versus ribociclib (95% CI, 0.70-1.19; P = .505).
“Regarding subgroup analysis, we found that abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib in patients with endocrine-resistant or luminal B-like disease, as well as in premenopausal women. Abemaciclib was superior to palbociclib in patients with poorer ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group] performance status and to both palbociclib and ribociclib in patients with de novo metastatic disease. Both ribociclib and abemaciclib showed a trend toward higher efficacy in patients with liver metastases. However, this difference only reached statistical significance in patients treated with ribociclib. And finally, the three CDK4/6 inhibitors were similarly effective in patients who were older or at bone-only disease,” he concluded.
Justifying adjustment
Speaking during the audience question period Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, from Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, said he preferred unadjusted results when examining real-world data, “because that’s the benefit,” and he questioned why the researchers had adjusted their numbers.
Dr. Vernieri explained that the adjustments were made to account for the important imbalances in the baseline characteristics of the patients.
“When we plotted unadjusted curves, we did not find statistically significant differences between these three drugs, only a trend toward the direction that I showed you today,” he said. “However, as you saw from the tables showing the characteristics of patients, there were important imbalances in terms of important prognostic factors in the three patient cohorts. So, I think that, for this kind of data and based on this level of imbalance, adjustment is necessary.
“To reinforce our conclusions, what we did was also to perform a propensity score match–based analysis,” Dr. Vernieri continued. “I did not have the time to show the results today, but these data were fully in line with the study conclusions. And we also performed a backward selection of variables. So, we basically selected variables more likely to be associated with patient prognosis. And also those models confirm the study conclusion. So I think the conclusions are quite solid.”
Dr. Del Priore, an adjunct professor of obstetrics and gynecology with a specialty in oncology, on the other hand, said he was not convinced that any of the drugs might be better or worse in the actual population treated.
“I still maintain that unadjusted real-world data should be presented and then only a limited adjusted analysis performed using the most unbalanced variables,” he said. “To do more elaborate adjustments may falsely imply a difference in drug choice and outcomes which never should be the conclusion with observational studies. Instead, the conclusions should be that, with typical use, the following similarities in PFS and OS were observed. Then point out how drug choice and important prognostic variables might be linked, thus limiting the generalizable conclusions even further.
“I would conclude that prospective studies should balance for the variables used in the PALMARES-2 analyses, which actually may have been chosen for adjustment post hoc,” Dr. Del Priore said.
The study was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, the European Research Council, the Ministero della Salute, the Scientific Directorate of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Giuliani’s Foundation and Roche. Dr. Vernieri reported consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer; speakers’ bureau roles with Accademia Nazionale Di Medicina (ACCMED), Istituto Gentili, Lilly and Novartis; and research funding from Roche. Dr. Del Priore reported no conflicts of interest and disclosed that he is chief medical officer at BriaCell.
Lead investigator Claudio Vernieri, MD, PhD, presented these findings of the PALMARES-2 study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“Along with different safety profiles, drug-drug interactions, and costs of the three available CDK4/6 inhibitor molecules, our efficacy data may help clinicians and patients in choosing the most appropriate CDK4/6 inhibitor in specific clinical contexts,” Dr. Vernieri, who is from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy, said during the meeting.
CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with ET, are the standard of care as first line treatment for this population, noted Dr. Vernieri. However, their efficacy has never been directly compared in a large clinical trial.
“Since these compounds have different pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety profiles, costs, and drug-drug interactions, identifying which of the three CDK4/6 inhibitors may be more effective in specific clinical contexts is a highly clinically relevant issue,” he said. “Real-world data represent a key source to perform direct comparisons.”
The PALMARES-2 study was a retrospective, multicenter, population-based study, in 18 Italian cancer centers. Its two main objectives were to compare the real-world PFS of abemaciclib versus ribociclib versus palbociclib, in combination with ET, in the whole study cohort, as well as in various subgroups including patients with endocrine-resistant disease, luminal B-like disease, or in premenopausal women.
A total of 1,850 patients (median age, 63 years) were enrolled between January 1, 2016 and September 1, 2023, with 750 (40.6%) receiving palbociclib, and 676 (36.5%) and 424 (22.9%) receiving ribociclib and abemaciclib, respectively.
Baseline imbalance
Importantly, there were significant imbalances in baseline characteristics of the patients, with those receiving abemaciclib being more likely to have endocrine-resistant disease, low progesterone receptor expression, and liver metastasis, and less likely to have de novo metastatic disease, compared with other patients, said Dr. Vernieri.
The analysis showed that across the entire cohort, the median real-world PFS and overall survival (OS) were 34.7 months and 66.6 months, respectively, by a January 1, 2024, data cutoff date. “I believe that the overall survival data are still immature to make a definitive conclusion,” he commented, noting that at enrollment only about half of patients had undergone disease progression, and at the close of the study only about 25% had died.
After adjusting for clinically relevant patient- and tumor-related covariates, “we found that both abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib, whereas we did not find statistically significant differences between abemaciclib and ribociclib,” he reported.
Specifically, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for PFS was 0.71 for abemaciclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.56-0.90; P = .005), 0.81 for ribociclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.65-0.99; P = .048), and 0.91 for abemaciclib versus ribociclib (95% CI, 0.70-1.19; P = .505).
“Regarding subgroup analysis, we found that abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib in patients with endocrine-resistant or luminal B-like disease, as well as in premenopausal women. Abemaciclib was superior to palbociclib in patients with poorer ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group] performance status and to both palbociclib and ribociclib in patients with de novo metastatic disease. Both ribociclib and abemaciclib showed a trend toward higher efficacy in patients with liver metastases. However, this difference only reached statistical significance in patients treated with ribociclib. And finally, the three CDK4/6 inhibitors were similarly effective in patients who were older or at bone-only disease,” he concluded.
Justifying adjustment
Speaking during the audience question period Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, from Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, said he preferred unadjusted results when examining real-world data, “because that’s the benefit,” and he questioned why the researchers had adjusted their numbers.
Dr. Vernieri explained that the adjustments were made to account for the important imbalances in the baseline characteristics of the patients.
“When we plotted unadjusted curves, we did not find statistically significant differences between these three drugs, only a trend toward the direction that I showed you today,” he said. “However, as you saw from the tables showing the characteristics of patients, there were important imbalances in terms of important prognostic factors in the three patient cohorts. So, I think that, for this kind of data and based on this level of imbalance, adjustment is necessary.
“To reinforce our conclusions, what we did was also to perform a propensity score match–based analysis,” Dr. Vernieri continued. “I did not have the time to show the results today, but these data were fully in line with the study conclusions. And we also performed a backward selection of variables. So, we basically selected variables more likely to be associated with patient prognosis. And also those models confirm the study conclusion. So I think the conclusions are quite solid.”
Dr. Del Priore, an adjunct professor of obstetrics and gynecology with a specialty in oncology, on the other hand, said he was not convinced that any of the drugs might be better or worse in the actual population treated.
“I still maintain that unadjusted real-world data should be presented and then only a limited adjusted analysis performed using the most unbalanced variables,” he said. “To do more elaborate adjustments may falsely imply a difference in drug choice and outcomes which never should be the conclusion with observational studies. Instead, the conclusions should be that, with typical use, the following similarities in PFS and OS were observed. Then point out how drug choice and important prognostic variables might be linked, thus limiting the generalizable conclusions even further.
“I would conclude that prospective studies should balance for the variables used in the PALMARES-2 analyses, which actually may have been chosen for adjustment post hoc,” Dr. Del Priore said.
The study was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, the European Research Council, the Ministero della Salute, the Scientific Directorate of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Giuliani’s Foundation and Roche. Dr. Vernieri reported consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer; speakers’ bureau roles with Accademia Nazionale Di Medicina (ACCMED), Istituto Gentili, Lilly and Novartis; and research funding from Roche. Dr. Del Priore reported no conflicts of interest and disclosed that he is chief medical officer at BriaCell.
FROM ASCO 2024
What Does Hormone Receptor Mean in BRCA-Associated BC?
CHICAGO — Being hormone receptor positive is generally a favorable prognostic factor in breast cancer, but that doesn’t seem to be the case in women with BRCA-associated tumors, according to a study presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.
The conclusion is based on a large international study on how hormone receptor status impacts breast cancer outcomes in young women with germline BRCA pathological variants (PVs).
Overall, “hormone receptor positivity did not seem to have a strong positive prognostic value in young BRCA carriers” with early breast cancer, lead investigator Luca Arecco, MD, an oncology resident at the University of Genoa, Italy, said at the meeting.
Investigators reviewed the records of 4709 women ages 40 years or younger with stage 1-3 BRCA-associated invasive breast cancer treated from 2000 to 2020 at 78 centers in 28 countries across four continents. Median follow-up was about 8 years.
Weaker Prognostic Value in Hormone Receptor Status
They found, in general, that hormone receptor–positive breast cancer appears to be biologically more aggressive in patients with BRCA PVs than in the general breast cancer population, generating outcomes similar to those with hormone receptor-negative BRCA tumors.
Specifically, among patients with germline BRCA PVs, while hormone receptor–positive patients had a higher distant recurrence rate (13.1% vs. 9.6%) than hormone receptor–negative patients, 8-year disease free survival (65.8% and 63.4% respectively) and overall survival (a bit under 90% in both groups) were similar.
Hormone receptor–positive patients did have a lower rate of second primary breast cancers (9.1% versus 14.7%).
In the formal write-up of the results published shortly after the meeting in Annals of Oncology, the investigators concluded that “in young BRCA carriers, differences in recurrence pattern and second primary breast cancer among hormone receptor–positive versus negative disease warrant consideration in counseling patients on treatment, follow-up, and risk-reducing surgery.”
The team also found other differences between BRCA-associated breast cancer and sporadic disease. For instance, in the BRCA cohort, luminal A-like breast cancer had a worse long-term prognosis in their BRCA cohort than triple-negative or HER2-positive disease. Luminal A-like tumors are generally considered less aggressive, but in patients with BRCA PVs, “improving neoadjuvant chemotherapy … could be worthwhile,” the investigators said.
Also, although the risk of recurrence for sporadic hormone receptor–negative tumors is highest in the first few years, the team found that the risk in the hormone negative BRCA cohort progressively increased with longer follow-up, driven by the occurrence of second primary breast cancers, especially in patients with BRCA 1 PVs.
Greater Clarity in Prognosis in BRCA-Associated Breast Cancer
Overall, study discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “we now know much more clearly the issues of prognosis in women who are very young and have germline BRCA-associated breast cancer,” about 12% of newly diagnosed cases.
“Young patients with germline BRCA-associated breast cancers have high relapse and high new primary risks, warranting comprehensive multimodality therapy,” she said.
A bit fewer than half of women in the study were hormone receptor–positive, and they tended to be patients with BRCA 2 PVs. The rest were hormone receptor–negative and tended to have BRCA 1 PVs.
Patients with hormone receptor–positive disease had grade 3 cancers in about 50% of cases, while patients with hormone receptor–negative disease had a grade 3 disease in over 80%.
Hormone receptor–positive patients were more likely to have nodal involvement and undergo mastectomies but less likely to receive chemotherapy than hormone receptor–negative patients. It’s likely that few patients in the review received PARP inhibitors, Dr. Carey noted.
Although overall survival at 8 years was similar in both groups, after that point “the prognosis of patients with hormone receptor–positive disease appeared to be worse … This appeared to occur earlier than that described in sporadic disease,” in which the worsening of survival in hormone receptor–positive disease occurs after a follow-up of at least 14-15 years, the investigators noted in their journal report.
The work was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, Institut Jules Bordet, Korea Health Industry Development Institute, Australian National Health and Medical Council, Cancer Australia, US National Institute of Health, and others. Dr. Arecco had no disclosures. Dr. Carey and other coauthors disclosed research funding, speaker honoraria, and other financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies.
CHICAGO — Being hormone receptor positive is generally a favorable prognostic factor in breast cancer, but that doesn’t seem to be the case in women with BRCA-associated tumors, according to a study presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.
The conclusion is based on a large international study on how hormone receptor status impacts breast cancer outcomes in young women with germline BRCA pathological variants (PVs).
Overall, “hormone receptor positivity did not seem to have a strong positive prognostic value in young BRCA carriers” with early breast cancer, lead investigator Luca Arecco, MD, an oncology resident at the University of Genoa, Italy, said at the meeting.
Investigators reviewed the records of 4709 women ages 40 years or younger with stage 1-3 BRCA-associated invasive breast cancer treated from 2000 to 2020 at 78 centers in 28 countries across four continents. Median follow-up was about 8 years.
Weaker Prognostic Value in Hormone Receptor Status
They found, in general, that hormone receptor–positive breast cancer appears to be biologically more aggressive in patients with BRCA PVs than in the general breast cancer population, generating outcomes similar to those with hormone receptor-negative BRCA tumors.
Specifically, among patients with germline BRCA PVs, while hormone receptor–positive patients had a higher distant recurrence rate (13.1% vs. 9.6%) than hormone receptor–negative patients, 8-year disease free survival (65.8% and 63.4% respectively) and overall survival (a bit under 90% in both groups) were similar.
Hormone receptor–positive patients did have a lower rate of second primary breast cancers (9.1% versus 14.7%).
In the formal write-up of the results published shortly after the meeting in Annals of Oncology, the investigators concluded that “in young BRCA carriers, differences in recurrence pattern and second primary breast cancer among hormone receptor–positive versus negative disease warrant consideration in counseling patients on treatment, follow-up, and risk-reducing surgery.”
The team also found other differences between BRCA-associated breast cancer and sporadic disease. For instance, in the BRCA cohort, luminal A-like breast cancer had a worse long-term prognosis in their BRCA cohort than triple-negative or HER2-positive disease. Luminal A-like tumors are generally considered less aggressive, but in patients with BRCA PVs, “improving neoadjuvant chemotherapy … could be worthwhile,” the investigators said.
Also, although the risk of recurrence for sporadic hormone receptor–negative tumors is highest in the first few years, the team found that the risk in the hormone negative BRCA cohort progressively increased with longer follow-up, driven by the occurrence of second primary breast cancers, especially in patients with BRCA 1 PVs.
Greater Clarity in Prognosis in BRCA-Associated Breast Cancer
Overall, study discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “we now know much more clearly the issues of prognosis in women who are very young and have germline BRCA-associated breast cancer,” about 12% of newly diagnosed cases.
“Young patients with germline BRCA-associated breast cancers have high relapse and high new primary risks, warranting comprehensive multimodality therapy,” she said.
A bit fewer than half of women in the study were hormone receptor–positive, and they tended to be patients with BRCA 2 PVs. The rest were hormone receptor–negative and tended to have BRCA 1 PVs.
Patients with hormone receptor–positive disease had grade 3 cancers in about 50% of cases, while patients with hormone receptor–negative disease had a grade 3 disease in over 80%.
Hormone receptor–positive patients were more likely to have nodal involvement and undergo mastectomies but less likely to receive chemotherapy than hormone receptor–negative patients. It’s likely that few patients in the review received PARP inhibitors, Dr. Carey noted.
Although overall survival at 8 years was similar in both groups, after that point “the prognosis of patients with hormone receptor–positive disease appeared to be worse … This appeared to occur earlier than that described in sporadic disease,” in which the worsening of survival in hormone receptor–positive disease occurs after a follow-up of at least 14-15 years, the investigators noted in their journal report.
The work was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, Institut Jules Bordet, Korea Health Industry Development Institute, Australian National Health and Medical Council, Cancer Australia, US National Institute of Health, and others. Dr. Arecco had no disclosures. Dr. Carey and other coauthors disclosed research funding, speaker honoraria, and other financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies.
CHICAGO — Being hormone receptor positive is generally a favorable prognostic factor in breast cancer, but that doesn’t seem to be the case in women with BRCA-associated tumors, according to a study presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.
The conclusion is based on a large international study on how hormone receptor status impacts breast cancer outcomes in young women with germline BRCA pathological variants (PVs).
Overall, “hormone receptor positivity did not seem to have a strong positive prognostic value in young BRCA carriers” with early breast cancer, lead investigator Luca Arecco, MD, an oncology resident at the University of Genoa, Italy, said at the meeting.
Investigators reviewed the records of 4709 women ages 40 years or younger with stage 1-3 BRCA-associated invasive breast cancer treated from 2000 to 2020 at 78 centers in 28 countries across four continents. Median follow-up was about 8 years.
Weaker Prognostic Value in Hormone Receptor Status
They found, in general, that hormone receptor–positive breast cancer appears to be biologically more aggressive in patients with BRCA PVs than in the general breast cancer population, generating outcomes similar to those with hormone receptor-negative BRCA tumors.
Specifically, among patients with germline BRCA PVs, while hormone receptor–positive patients had a higher distant recurrence rate (13.1% vs. 9.6%) than hormone receptor–negative patients, 8-year disease free survival (65.8% and 63.4% respectively) and overall survival (a bit under 90% in both groups) were similar.
Hormone receptor–positive patients did have a lower rate of second primary breast cancers (9.1% versus 14.7%).
In the formal write-up of the results published shortly after the meeting in Annals of Oncology, the investigators concluded that “in young BRCA carriers, differences in recurrence pattern and second primary breast cancer among hormone receptor–positive versus negative disease warrant consideration in counseling patients on treatment, follow-up, and risk-reducing surgery.”
The team also found other differences between BRCA-associated breast cancer and sporadic disease. For instance, in the BRCA cohort, luminal A-like breast cancer had a worse long-term prognosis in their BRCA cohort than triple-negative or HER2-positive disease. Luminal A-like tumors are generally considered less aggressive, but in patients with BRCA PVs, “improving neoadjuvant chemotherapy … could be worthwhile,” the investigators said.
Also, although the risk of recurrence for sporadic hormone receptor–negative tumors is highest in the first few years, the team found that the risk in the hormone negative BRCA cohort progressively increased with longer follow-up, driven by the occurrence of second primary breast cancers, especially in patients with BRCA 1 PVs.
Greater Clarity in Prognosis in BRCA-Associated Breast Cancer
Overall, study discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “we now know much more clearly the issues of prognosis in women who are very young and have germline BRCA-associated breast cancer,” about 12% of newly diagnosed cases.
“Young patients with germline BRCA-associated breast cancers have high relapse and high new primary risks, warranting comprehensive multimodality therapy,” she said.
A bit fewer than half of women in the study were hormone receptor–positive, and they tended to be patients with BRCA 2 PVs. The rest were hormone receptor–negative and tended to have BRCA 1 PVs.
Patients with hormone receptor–positive disease had grade 3 cancers in about 50% of cases, while patients with hormone receptor–negative disease had a grade 3 disease in over 80%.
Hormone receptor–positive patients were more likely to have nodal involvement and undergo mastectomies but less likely to receive chemotherapy than hormone receptor–negative patients. It’s likely that few patients in the review received PARP inhibitors, Dr. Carey noted.
Although overall survival at 8 years was similar in both groups, after that point “the prognosis of patients with hormone receptor–positive disease appeared to be worse … This appeared to occur earlier than that described in sporadic disease,” in which the worsening of survival in hormone receptor–positive disease occurs after a follow-up of at least 14-15 years, the investigators noted in their journal report.
The work was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, Institut Jules Bordet, Korea Health Industry Development Institute, Australian National Health and Medical Council, Cancer Australia, US National Institute of Health, and others. Dr. Arecco had no disclosures. Dr. Carey and other coauthors disclosed research funding, speaker honoraria, and other financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies.
FROM ASCO 2024
Black Women With Breast Cancer Face Clinical Inequities
Black metastatic breast cancer patients with PIK3CA mutations were less likely to receive targeted therapy and less likely to be enrolled in clinical trials than White patients and had shorter overall survival, according to a retrospective cohort study. Black and White patients were equally likely to receive other drugs that did not require genomic testing.
“These clinical inequities in the use of targeted therapies and clinical trials ... must be a focus going forward,” said lead investigator Emily Podany, MD, a clinical fellow in hematology-oncology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. “Our consortium is looking for paths forward in order to try and decrease these striking inequities. And it’s a focus of future research for us and future implementation [of] science interventions, hopefully, across the country.”
The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Black Women Underrepresented
Black women are generally underrepresented in clinical trials, noted Dr. Podany. “They make up about 2%-5% of the patients in breast cancer clinical trials, and there are documented inequities in treatment and in outcomes for Black patients with metastatic breast cancer. This includes longer treatment delays, it includes fewer sentinel lymph node biopsies, and unfortunately, they’re more likely to discontinue treatment early.”
In terms of PI3K inhibition, PIK3CA mutations are found in about 40% of patients with HR-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Alpelisib is FDA-approved as a targeted therapy for these patients, she said.
The study evaluated records of 1327 patients with metastatic breast cancer who also had circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) results and were treated at Washington University, Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and Northwestern University in Chicago. Of these, 795 had an ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype and were included in the analysis. Most (89%) of the patients were White (n = 708), while 11% (n = 87) were Black, and the only baseline difference between patients was that Black patients had significantly more de novo metastatic breast cancer (31% versus 22%).
Use of PI3K, CDK4/6, or mTOR inhibitors was evaluated using manual electronic medical review, and genomic differences were evaluated using logistic regression.
The analysis showed inequities in both treatment and clinical trial enrollment. There were no differences between groups in the use of CDK4/6 or mTOR inhibitors, which do not require a genomic profile, the researchers noted, but Black patients with PIK3CA single nucleotide variants (SNV) were significantly less likely than White patients to use PI3K inhibitors (5.9% versus 28.8%; P = .045), despite no difference in PIK3CA mutations between groups (36% and 34% respectively). Similarly, 11% of White patients with PIK3CA mutations were enrolled in clinical trials, but none of the Black patients was.
Genomic differences were also found, Dr. Podany reported. Black patients with estrogen/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) positive, HER2-negative disease were more likely to have a CCND1 copy number variant. And for ER-positive PR-negative HER2-negative patients, Black patients were more likely to have a GATA3 SNV, while White patients were more likely to have a KRAS copy number variant.
Black Survival Less Than Half
The analysis also found significant differences in overall survival from the time of the first liquid biopsy, with White ER-positive, PR-negative, HER2-negative patients living a median of 21 months, versus 9.1 months for Black patients.
There were several limitations to the study beyond its retrospective nature, “so, we may be underestimating the true inequity,” noted Dr. Podany. “These are large urban academic centers, so our patients have access to these treatments. They have access to care. They have access to ctDNA liquid biopsy testing. And the timing of ctDNA, especially the first ctDNA test, is variable and provider-dependant. We were also unable to assess receipt of PI3 kinase inhibitors at future time points after the end of this cohort study.”
Asked for comment, Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, MPH, from Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, approved of the study design “with subjects limited to three distinctive institutions. That parameter alone can control for several unknown variables among the studied comparison groups, ie, Black women versus others.”
However, Dr. Del Priore, who is adjunct professor of obstetrics and gynecology, with a specialty in oncology, added, “retrospective studies are not reliable except for generating hypotheses. Therefore, I would like to see a rapid implementation of an intervention trial at these same institutions to ensure equal consideration of, and access to, targeted therapies. Too often a retrospective correlation is reported, but the solution is elusive due to unknown factors. In this case, knowing there is a mutation is far from alleviating the disproportionate burden of disease that many communities face.”
Dr. Podany had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Del Priore reported no conflicts of interest and disclosed that he is chief medical officer at BriaCell.
Black metastatic breast cancer patients with PIK3CA mutations were less likely to receive targeted therapy and less likely to be enrolled in clinical trials than White patients and had shorter overall survival, according to a retrospective cohort study. Black and White patients were equally likely to receive other drugs that did not require genomic testing.
“These clinical inequities in the use of targeted therapies and clinical trials ... must be a focus going forward,” said lead investigator Emily Podany, MD, a clinical fellow in hematology-oncology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. “Our consortium is looking for paths forward in order to try and decrease these striking inequities. And it’s a focus of future research for us and future implementation [of] science interventions, hopefully, across the country.”
The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Black Women Underrepresented
Black women are generally underrepresented in clinical trials, noted Dr. Podany. “They make up about 2%-5% of the patients in breast cancer clinical trials, and there are documented inequities in treatment and in outcomes for Black patients with metastatic breast cancer. This includes longer treatment delays, it includes fewer sentinel lymph node biopsies, and unfortunately, they’re more likely to discontinue treatment early.”
In terms of PI3K inhibition, PIK3CA mutations are found in about 40% of patients with HR-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Alpelisib is FDA-approved as a targeted therapy for these patients, she said.
The study evaluated records of 1327 patients with metastatic breast cancer who also had circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) results and were treated at Washington University, Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and Northwestern University in Chicago. Of these, 795 had an ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype and were included in the analysis. Most (89%) of the patients were White (n = 708), while 11% (n = 87) were Black, and the only baseline difference between patients was that Black patients had significantly more de novo metastatic breast cancer (31% versus 22%).
Use of PI3K, CDK4/6, or mTOR inhibitors was evaluated using manual electronic medical review, and genomic differences were evaluated using logistic regression.
The analysis showed inequities in both treatment and clinical trial enrollment. There were no differences between groups in the use of CDK4/6 or mTOR inhibitors, which do not require a genomic profile, the researchers noted, but Black patients with PIK3CA single nucleotide variants (SNV) were significantly less likely than White patients to use PI3K inhibitors (5.9% versus 28.8%; P = .045), despite no difference in PIK3CA mutations between groups (36% and 34% respectively). Similarly, 11% of White patients with PIK3CA mutations were enrolled in clinical trials, but none of the Black patients was.
Genomic differences were also found, Dr. Podany reported. Black patients with estrogen/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) positive, HER2-negative disease were more likely to have a CCND1 copy number variant. And for ER-positive PR-negative HER2-negative patients, Black patients were more likely to have a GATA3 SNV, while White patients were more likely to have a KRAS copy number variant.
Black Survival Less Than Half
The analysis also found significant differences in overall survival from the time of the first liquid biopsy, with White ER-positive, PR-negative, HER2-negative patients living a median of 21 months, versus 9.1 months for Black patients.
There were several limitations to the study beyond its retrospective nature, “so, we may be underestimating the true inequity,” noted Dr. Podany. “These are large urban academic centers, so our patients have access to these treatments. They have access to care. They have access to ctDNA liquid biopsy testing. And the timing of ctDNA, especially the first ctDNA test, is variable and provider-dependant. We were also unable to assess receipt of PI3 kinase inhibitors at future time points after the end of this cohort study.”
Asked for comment, Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, MPH, from Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, approved of the study design “with subjects limited to three distinctive institutions. That parameter alone can control for several unknown variables among the studied comparison groups, ie, Black women versus others.”
However, Dr. Del Priore, who is adjunct professor of obstetrics and gynecology, with a specialty in oncology, added, “retrospective studies are not reliable except for generating hypotheses. Therefore, I would like to see a rapid implementation of an intervention trial at these same institutions to ensure equal consideration of, and access to, targeted therapies. Too often a retrospective correlation is reported, but the solution is elusive due to unknown factors. In this case, knowing there is a mutation is far from alleviating the disproportionate burden of disease that many communities face.”
Dr. Podany had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Del Priore reported no conflicts of interest and disclosed that he is chief medical officer at BriaCell.
Black metastatic breast cancer patients with PIK3CA mutations were less likely to receive targeted therapy and less likely to be enrolled in clinical trials than White patients and had shorter overall survival, according to a retrospective cohort study. Black and White patients were equally likely to receive other drugs that did not require genomic testing.
“These clinical inequities in the use of targeted therapies and clinical trials ... must be a focus going forward,” said lead investigator Emily Podany, MD, a clinical fellow in hematology-oncology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. “Our consortium is looking for paths forward in order to try and decrease these striking inequities. And it’s a focus of future research for us and future implementation [of] science interventions, hopefully, across the country.”
The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Black Women Underrepresented
Black women are generally underrepresented in clinical trials, noted Dr. Podany. “They make up about 2%-5% of the patients in breast cancer clinical trials, and there are documented inequities in treatment and in outcomes for Black patients with metastatic breast cancer. This includes longer treatment delays, it includes fewer sentinel lymph node biopsies, and unfortunately, they’re more likely to discontinue treatment early.”
In terms of PI3K inhibition, PIK3CA mutations are found in about 40% of patients with HR-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Alpelisib is FDA-approved as a targeted therapy for these patients, she said.
The study evaluated records of 1327 patients with metastatic breast cancer who also had circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) results and were treated at Washington University, Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and Northwestern University in Chicago. Of these, 795 had an ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype and were included in the analysis. Most (89%) of the patients were White (n = 708), while 11% (n = 87) were Black, and the only baseline difference between patients was that Black patients had significantly more de novo metastatic breast cancer (31% versus 22%).
Use of PI3K, CDK4/6, or mTOR inhibitors was evaluated using manual electronic medical review, and genomic differences were evaluated using logistic regression.
The analysis showed inequities in both treatment and clinical trial enrollment. There were no differences between groups in the use of CDK4/6 or mTOR inhibitors, which do not require a genomic profile, the researchers noted, but Black patients with PIK3CA single nucleotide variants (SNV) were significantly less likely than White patients to use PI3K inhibitors (5.9% versus 28.8%; P = .045), despite no difference in PIK3CA mutations between groups (36% and 34% respectively). Similarly, 11% of White patients with PIK3CA mutations were enrolled in clinical trials, but none of the Black patients was.
Genomic differences were also found, Dr. Podany reported. Black patients with estrogen/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) positive, HER2-negative disease were more likely to have a CCND1 copy number variant. And for ER-positive PR-negative HER2-negative patients, Black patients were more likely to have a GATA3 SNV, while White patients were more likely to have a KRAS copy number variant.
Black Survival Less Than Half
The analysis also found significant differences in overall survival from the time of the first liquid biopsy, with White ER-positive, PR-negative, HER2-negative patients living a median of 21 months, versus 9.1 months for Black patients.
There were several limitations to the study beyond its retrospective nature, “so, we may be underestimating the true inequity,” noted Dr. Podany. “These are large urban academic centers, so our patients have access to these treatments. They have access to care. They have access to ctDNA liquid biopsy testing. And the timing of ctDNA, especially the first ctDNA test, is variable and provider-dependant. We were also unable to assess receipt of PI3 kinase inhibitors at future time points after the end of this cohort study.”
Asked for comment, Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, MPH, from Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, approved of the study design “with subjects limited to three distinctive institutions. That parameter alone can control for several unknown variables among the studied comparison groups, ie, Black women versus others.”
However, Dr. Del Priore, who is adjunct professor of obstetrics and gynecology, with a specialty in oncology, added, “retrospective studies are not reliable except for generating hypotheses. Therefore, I would like to see a rapid implementation of an intervention trial at these same institutions to ensure equal consideration of, and access to, targeted therapies. Too often a retrospective correlation is reported, but the solution is elusive due to unknown factors. In this case, knowing there is a mutation is far from alleviating the disproportionate burden of disease that many communities face.”
Dr. Podany had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Del Priore reported no conflicts of interest and disclosed that he is chief medical officer at BriaCell.
FROM ASCO 2024
Circulating Tumor DNA Hints at BC Recurrence Risk
CHICAGO — Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can predict relapse risk in some cases of early, high-risk breast cancer, but it’s too soon to use it to guide adjuvant therapy decisions, according to a study presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.
Detectable ctDNA is “highly prognostic of worse outcomes, particularly in patients who [remain] persistently positive,” but the correlation isn’t perfect, said lead investigator Sherene Loi, MMBS, PhD, a breast cancer specialist at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
Although less likely, relapses also occurred in the study among women without ctDNA elevation. Conversely, there were women with elevated ctDNA who did not relapse, she said. The study was a subanalysis of the monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, a CDK 4/6 inhibitor.
Eventually, “we would like to use” ctDNA to guide adjuvant treatment decisions, but the research isn’t there yet, Dr. Loi said. It’s possible, for instance, that persistently detectable ctDNA indicates early treatment failure and the need for treatment intensification. Future research should tackle the issue.
Study discussant Francois-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist at Institut Curie, Paris, agreed that ctDNA isn’t ready for primetime in adjuvant early, high-risk breast cancer.
“There is no clinical evidence to suggest that there is clinical utility in this setting. There are several trials that are ongoing,” he said, but for now “you shouldn’t,” for example, “use ctDNA to de-escalate adjuvant CDK4/6 [inhibitors]. It could be in the future that we could have data on this, but at the moment, [the] clear clinical message [is] no way.”
At 5-year follow-up, the monarchE trial found a 7.6% invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) improvement when abemaciclib was added to the first 2 years of endocrine therapy in women with HR+, HER2-, node positive, high-risk early breast cancer. The combination is now a standard adjuvant option for the disease.
The ctDNA study focused on a subset of 910 subjects with adequate ctDNA testing to run the analysis. The study population was also selected to be enriched for overall IDFS events (27% versus 18% across the trial’s 5,637 subjects). An IDFS event was defined as a local, regional, contralateral or distant invasive recurrence; a new primary tumor; or death from any cause.
Testing was performed using the Signatera ctDNA assay. Baseline samples were taken after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy, then again at 3, 6, or 24 months.
Overall, ctDNA detection was infrequent. Just 8% of patients were positive at baseline and 17% were positive at any point during the trial. Even so, ctDNA detection at any point was adversely prognostic.
Patients who were ctDNA positive at baseline were more likely to experience an IDFS event, compared with those who were ctDNA negative at baseline (80% at 4 years follow-up versus 23%).
Similarly, those who remained positive or became positive during testing were more likely to experience an IDFS event compared with those who became negative or remained negative throughout testing.
For instance, all 34 patients who were positive at baseline and remained positive had an IDFS event by year 4, versus just 40% who started positive but then cleared their ctDNA.
Among women who were negative at baseline and remained negative, 13% had an IDFS event versus 89% who started negative but then turned positive. Subjects who turned positive also had the shortest time to an IDFS event, a median of 7 months.
Among women who recurred, those who were ctDNA negative tended to have local, regional, or contralateral recurrences, while ctDNA positive patients tended to have distant recurrences.
The finding “really highlights that ctDNA antedates the metastatic clinical relapse. What the ctDNA is telling you is that the metastatic process has been completed, and metastases are about to grow,” Dr. Bidard said.
The work was funded by Eli Lilly, maker of abemaciclib, with collaboration from Natera, maker of the Signatera assay. Dr. Loi is an adviser and researcher for Lilly, among other industry ties. Dr. Bidard is a speaker and consultant for Lilly, among other ties.
CHICAGO — Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can predict relapse risk in some cases of early, high-risk breast cancer, but it’s too soon to use it to guide adjuvant therapy decisions, according to a study presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.
Detectable ctDNA is “highly prognostic of worse outcomes, particularly in patients who [remain] persistently positive,” but the correlation isn’t perfect, said lead investigator Sherene Loi, MMBS, PhD, a breast cancer specialist at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
Although less likely, relapses also occurred in the study among women without ctDNA elevation. Conversely, there were women with elevated ctDNA who did not relapse, she said. The study was a subanalysis of the monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, a CDK 4/6 inhibitor.
Eventually, “we would like to use” ctDNA to guide adjuvant treatment decisions, but the research isn’t there yet, Dr. Loi said. It’s possible, for instance, that persistently detectable ctDNA indicates early treatment failure and the need for treatment intensification. Future research should tackle the issue.
Study discussant Francois-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist at Institut Curie, Paris, agreed that ctDNA isn’t ready for primetime in adjuvant early, high-risk breast cancer.
“There is no clinical evidence to suggest that there is clinical utility in this setting. There are several trials that are ongoing,” he said, but for now “you shouldn’t,” for example, “use ctDNA to de-escalate adjuvant CDK4/6 [inhibitors]. It could be in the future that we could have data on this, but at the moment, [the] clear clinical message [is] no way.”
At 5-year follow-up, the monarchE trial found a 7.6% invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) improvement when abemaciclib was added to the first 2 years of endocrine therapy in women with HR+, HER2-, node positive, high-risk early breast cancer. The combination is now a standard adjuvant option for the disease.
The ctDNA study focused on a subset of 910 subjects with adequate ctDNA testing to run the analysis. The study population was also selected to be enriched for overall IDFS events (27% versus 18% across the trial’s 5,637 subjects). An IDFS event was defined as a local, regional, contralateral or distant invasive recurrence; a new primary tumor; or death from any cause.
Testing was performed using the Signatera ctDNA assay. Baseline samples were taken after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy, then again at 3, 6, or 24 months.
Overall, ctDNA detection was infrequent. Just 8% of patients were positive at baseline and 17% were positive at any point during the trial. Even so, ctDNA detection at any point was adversely prognostic.
Patients who were ctDNA positive at baseline were more likely to experience an IDFS event, compared with those who were ctDNA negative at baseline (80% at 4 years follow-up versus 23%).
Similarly, those who remained positive or became positive during testing were more likely to experience an IDFS event compared with those who became negative or remained negative throughout testing.
For instance, all 34 patients who were positive at baseline and remained positive had an IDFS event by year 4, versus just 40% who started positive but then cleared their ctDNA.
Among women who were negative at baseline and remained negative, 13% had an IDFS event versus 89% who started negative but then turned positive. Subjects who turned positive also had the shortest time to an IDFS event, a median of 7 months.
Among women who recurred, those who were ctDNA negative tended to have local, regional, or contralateral recurrences, while ctDNA positive patients tended to have distant recurrences.
The finding “really highlights that ctDNA antedates the metastatic clinical relapse. What the ctDNA is telling you is that the metastatic process has been completed, and metastases are about to grow,” Dr. Bidard said.
The work was funded by Eli Lilly, maker of abemaciclib, with collaboration from Natera, maker of the Signatera assay. Dr. Loi is an adviser and researcher for Lilly, among other industry ties. Dr. Bidard is a speaker and consultant for Lilly, among other ties.
CHICAGO — Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can predict relapse risk in some cases of early, high-risk breast cancer, but it’s too soon to use it to guide adjuvant therapy decisions, according to a study presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.
Detectable ctDNA is “highly prognostic of worse outcomes, particularly in patients who [remain] persistently positive,” but the correlation isn’t perfect, said lead investigator Sherene Loi, MMBS, PhD, a breast cancer specialist at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
Although less likely, relapses also occurred in the study among women without ctDNA elevation. Conversely, there were women with elevated ctDNA who did not relapse, she said. The study was a subanalysis of the monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, a CDK 4/6 inhibitor.
Eventually, “we would like to use” ctDNA to guide adjuvant treatment decisions, but the research isn’t there yet, Dr. Loi said. It’s possible, for instance, that persistently detectable ctDNA indicates early treatment failure and the need for treatment intensification. Future research should tackle the issue.
Study discussant Francois-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist at Institut Curie, Paris, agreed that ctDNA isn’t ready for primetime in adjuvant early, high-risk breast cancer.
“There is no clinical evidence to suggest that there is clinical utility in this setting. There are several trials that are ongoing,” he said, but for now “you shouldn’t,” for example, “use ctDNA to de-escalate adjuvant CDK4/6 [inhibitors]. It could be in the future that we could have data on this, but at the moment, [the] clear clinical message [is] no way.”
At 5-year follow-up, the monarchE trial found a 7.6% invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) improvement when abemaciclib was added to the first 2 years of endocrine therapy in women with HR+, HER2-, node positive, high-risk early breast cancer. The combination is now a standard adjuvant option for the disease.
The ctDNA study focused on a subset of 910 subjects with adequate ctDNA testing to run the analysis. The study population was also selected to be enriched for overall IDFS events (27% versus 18% across the trial’s 5,637 subjects). An IDFS event was defined as a local, regional, contralateral or distant invasive recurrence; a new primary tumor; or death from any cause.
Testing was performed using the Signatera ctDNA assay. Baseline samples were taken after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy, then again at 3, 6, or 24 months.
Overall, ctDNA detection was infrequent. Just 8% of patients were positive at baseline and 17% were positive at any point during the trial. Even so, ctDNA detection at any point was adversely prognostic.
Patients who were ctDNA positive at baseline were more likely to experience an IDFS event, compared with those who were ctDNA negative at baseline (80% at 4 years follow-up versus 23%).
Similarly, those who remained positive or became positive during testing were more likely to experience an IDFS event compared with those who became negative or remained negative throughout testing.
For instance, all 34 patients who were positive at baseline and remained positive had an IDFS event by year 4, versus just 40% who started positive but then cleared their ctDNA.
Among women who were negative at baseline and remained negative, 13% had an IDFS event versus 89% who started negative but then turned positive. Subjects who turned positive also had the shortest time to an IDFS event, a median of 7 months.
Among women who recurred, those who were ctDNA negative tended to have local, regional, or contralateral recurrences, while ctDNA positive patients tended to have distant recurrences.
The finding “really highlights that ctDNA antedates the metastatic clinical relapse. What the ctDNA is telling you is that the metastatic process has been completed, and metastases are about to grow,” Dr. Bidard said.
The work was funded by Eli Lilly, maker of abemaciclib, with collaboration from Natera, maker of the Signatera assay. Dr. Loi is an adviser and researcher for Lilly, among other industry ties. Dr. Bidard is a speaker and consultant for Lilly, among other ties.
FROM ASCO 2024
Cognitive Decline Minimal After Endocrine + CDK4/6 Inhibition in BC
“Patients who are diagnosed with advanced breast cancer and start their first-line treatment already show cognitive impairments due to their previous treatments. And luckily, our results show that during first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer with endocrine therapy, with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor, further cognitive decline is minimal,” lead investigator Maryse Luijendijk, said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
“It is well known that cancer patients can experience cognitive problems, such as memory loss, problems with concentration or with planning, during or following their treatment,” explained Ms. Luijendijk, a PhD candidate in the department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, in Amsterdam. “Much is known about the effects of chemotherapy or irradiation to the brain, but evidence into endocrine therapy is scarce, which is surprising because cognitive effects are biologically plausible.
“We know that estrogen plays an important role in neuronal functioning and that certain types of endocrine therapies are able to cross the blood-brain barrier, where they may interact with estrogen receptors distributed widely throughout the brain … We know that CDK4/6 inhibitors may either negatively affect cognitive function by increased fatigue due to cytokine release or by interrupting the cell cycle of healthy cells, or positively, as they have been associated with reduced inflammation and remyelination.”
Initial results of the SONIA trial, reported at ASCO last year, examined overall and progression-free survival in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and no prior treatment for advanced disease. Findings for those who were randomized to treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibition either with or without the addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors showed no between-group differences, explained Ms. Luijendijk.
The new results, described as being from the SONIA-EfFECT (Evaluation of cognitive functioning in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with endocrine or combined therapy) trial, were based on the authors investigating cognitive functioning in the same cohort used in the SONIA trial plus a control group.
In SONIA-EfFECT, patients who participated in SONIA were asked to identify a female relative or friend without cancer to serve as a cancer-free control. Members of the 130-patient control group were matched for age, education, and computer use.
Participants in the SONIA trial and control group were asked to complete the Amsterdam Cognition Scan, an online neuropsychological test battery at baseline and again after 9 months of treatment. Of those patients from SONIA, 130 had received first-line treatment with aromatase inhibitors with CDK4/6 inhibition (Arm A) and 130 had received aromatase inhibitors without CDK4/6 inhibition (Arm B).
Baseline assessments for SONIA-EfFECT were completed for 260 patients from SONIA and the full 130-person control group. Follow-up assessments were completed for 119 members of the control group and 199 patients from the original SONIA trial (108 from Arm A, and 91 from Arm B). Patients from SONIA who switched to second-line treatment within 9 months were not retested.
Patients in both SONIA arms performed significantly worse than the controls on the domains of verbal memory, working memory, processing speed, executive function, and motor function. In both patient arms and the controls, standardized regression-based change scores showed limited decline in cognitive function over the 9-month interval. Minimal differences in cognitive change were observed between the patients treated with and without CDK4/6 inhibitors, and between patients and the controls, according to the abstract for SONIA-EfFECT, published in the program for the annual meeting of ASCO.
“At baseline, patients show worse cognitive function across all domains compared to the controls. And as expected, there were no differences between the two treatment arms,” Ms. Luijendijk explained. After 9 months of treatment, the testing showed limited further decline among patients, “and even some improvement on some tests,” with minimal differences between treatment arms “implying that cognitive function does not need to be an aspect when deciding on treatment.”
Ms. Luijendijk reported no relevant disclosures.
“Patients who are diagnosed with advanced breast cancer and start their first-line treatment already show cognitive impairments due to their previous treatments. And luckily, our results show that during first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer with endocrine therapy, with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor, further cognitive decline is minimal,” lead investigator Maryse Luijendijk, said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
“It is well known that cancer patients can experience cognitive problems, such as memory loss, problems with concentration or with planning, during or following their treatment,” explained Ms. Luijendijk, a PhD candidate in the department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, in Amsterdam. “Much is known about the effects of chemotherapy or irradiation to the brain, but evidence into endocrine therapy is scarce, which is surprising because cognitive effects are biologically plausible.
“We know that estrogen plays an important role in neuronal functioning and that certain types of endocrine therapies are able to cross the blood-brain barrier, where they may interact with estrogen receptors distributed widely throughout the brain … We know that CDK4/6 inhibitors may either negatively affect cognitive function by increased fatigue due to cytokine release or by interrupting the cell cycle of healthy cells, or positively, as they have been associated with reduced inflammation and remyelination.”
Initial results of the SONIA trial, reported at ASCO last year, examined overall and progression-free survival in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and no prior treatment for advanced disease. Findings for those who were randomized to treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibition either with or without the addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors showed no between-group differences, explained Ms. Luijendijk.
The new results, described as being from the SONIA-EfFECT (Evaluation of cognitive functioning in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with endocrine or combined therapy) trial, were based on the authors investigating cognitive functioning in the same cohort used in the SONIA trial plus a control group.
In SONIA-EfFECT, patients who participated in SONIA were asked to identify a female relative or friend without cancer to serve as a cancer-free control. Members of the 130-patient control group were matched for age, education, and computer use.
Participants in the SONIA trial and control group were asked to complete the Amsterdam Cognition Scan, an online neuropsychological test battery at baseline and again after 9 months of treatment. Of those patients from SONIA, 130 had received first-line treatment with aromatase inhibitors with CDK4/6 inhibition (Arm A) and 130 had received aromatase inhibitors without CDK4/6 inhibition (Arm B).
Baseline assessments for SONIA-EfFECT were completed for 260 patients from SONIA and the full 130-person control group. Follow-up assessments were completed for 119 members of the control group and 199 patients from the original SONIA trial (108 from Arm A, and 91 from Arm B). Patients from SONIA who switched to second-line treatment within 9 months were not retested.
Patients in both SONIA arms performed significantly worse than the controls on the domains of verbal memory, working memory, processing speed, executive function, and motor function. In both patient arms and the controls, standardized regression-based change scores showed limited decline in cognitive function over the 9-month interval. Minimal differences in cognitive change were observed between the patients treated with and without CDK4/6 inhibitors, and between patients and the controls, according to the abstract for SONIA-EfFECT, published in the program for the annual meeting of ASCO.
“At baseline, patients show worse cognitive function across all domains compared to the controls. And as expected, there were no differences between the two treatment arms,” Ms. Luijendijk explained. After 9 months of treatment, the testing showed limited further decline among patients, “and even some improvement on some tests,” with minimal differences between treatment arms “implying that cognitive function does not need to be an aspect when deciding on treatment.”
Ms. Luijendijk reported no relevant disclosures.
“Patients who are diagnosed with advanced breast cancer and start their first-line treatment already show cognitive impairments due to their previous treatments. And luckily, our results show that during first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer with endocrine therapy, with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor, further cognitive decline is minimal,” lead investigator Maryse Luijendijk, said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
“It is well known that cancer patients can experience cognitive problems, such as memory loss, problems with concentration or with planning, during or following their treatment,” explained Ms. Luijendijk, a PhD candidate in the department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, in Amsterdam. “Much is known about the effects of chemotherapy or irradiation to the brain, but evidence into endocrine therapy is scarce, which is surprising because cognitive effects are biologically plausible.
“We know that estrogen plays an important role in neuronal functioning and that certain types of endocrine therapies are able to cross the blood-brain barrier, where they may interact with estrogen receptors distributed widely throughout the brain … We know that CDK4/6 inhibitors may either negatively affect cognitive function by increased fatigue due to cytokine release or by interrupting the cell cycle of healthy cells, or positively, as they have been associated with reduced inflammation and remyelination.”
Initial results of the SONIA trial, reported at ASCO last year, examined overall and progression-free survival in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and no prior treatment for advanced disease. Findings for those who were randomized to treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibition either with or without the addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors showed no between-group differences, explained Ms. Luijendijk.
The new results, described as being from the SONIA-EfFECT (Evaluation of cognitive functioning in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with endocrine or combined therapy) trial, were based on the authors investigating cognitive functioning in the same cohort used in the SONIA trial plus a control group.
In SONIA-EfFECT, patients who participated in SONIA were asked to identify a female relative or friend without cancer to serve as a cancer-free control. Members of the 130-patient control group were matched for age, education, and computer use.
Participants in the SONIA trial and control group were asked to complete the Amsterdam Cognition Scan, an online neuropsychological test battery at baseline and again after 9 months of treatment. Of those patients from SONIA, 130 had received first-line treatment with aromatase inhibitors with CDK4/6 inhibition (Arm A) and 130 had received aromatase inhibitors without CDK4/6 inhibition (Arm B).
Baseline assessments for SONIA-EfFECT were completed for 260 patients from SONIA and the full 130-person control group. Follow-up assessments were completed for 119 members of the control group and 199 patients from the original SONIA trial (108 from Arm A, and 91 from Arm B). Patients from SONIA who switched to second-line treatment within 9 months were not retested.
Patients in both SONIA arms performed significantly worse than the controls on the domains of verbal memory, working memory, processing speed, executive function, and motor function. In both patient arms and the controls, standardized regression-based change scores showed limited decline in cognitive function over the 9-month interval. Minimal differences in cognitive change were observed between the patients treated with and without CDK4/6 inhibitors, and between patients and the controls, according to the abstract for SONIA-EfFECT, published in the program for the annual meeting of ASCO.
“At baseline, patients show worse cognitive function across all domains compared to the controls. And as expected, there were no differences between the two treatment arms,” Ms. Luijendijk explained. After 9 months of treatment, the testing showed limited further decline among patients, “and even some improvement on some tests,” with minimal differences between treatment arms “implying that cognitive function does not need to be an aspect when deciding on treatment.”
Ms. Luijendijk reported no relevant disclosures.
FROM ASCO 2024
Eribulin Similar to Taxane When Paired With Dual HER2 Blockade in BC
The results of this multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 Japanese trial suggest that patients who cannot tolerate the standard taxane-based regimen have a new option for treatment.
“Our study is the first to show the non-inferiority of eribulin to a taxane, when used in combination with dual HER2 blockade as first-line treatment for this population,” lead author Toshinari Yamashita, MD, PhD, from the Kanagawa Cancer Center, in Kanagawa, Japan, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“To our knowledge, noninferiority of eribulin to a taxane when used in combination with dual HER2 blockade has not been investigated,” Dr. Yamashita said.
“The combination of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and taxane is a current standard first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer,” explained Dr. Yamashita. “However, because of taxane-induced toxicity, the development of less toxic but equally effective alternatives are needed.
“Because its efficacy is comparable to that of the current standard regimen, the combination of eribulin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab is one of the options for first-line treatment of how to fight locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer,” he continued.
Study Results and Methods
The trial enrolled 446 patients, mean age 56 years, all of whom had locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and no prior use of chemotherapy, excluding T-DM1. Patients who had received hormonal or HER2 therapy alone or the combination, as treatment for recurrence, were also eligible.
They were randomized 1:1 to receive a 21-day chemotherapy cycle of either (i) eribulin (1.4 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8), or (ii) a taxane (docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15), each being administered in combination with a dual HER2 blockade of trastuzumab plus pertuzumab.
Baseline characteristics of both groups were well balanced, with 257 (57.6%) having ER-positive disease, 292 (65.5%) visceral metastasis, and 263 (59%) with de novo stage 4 disease, explained Dr. Yamashita.
For the primary endpoint, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14 versus 12.9 months in the eribulin and taxane group, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, P = .6817), confirming non-inferiority of the study regimen, he reported.
The clinical benefit rate was similar between the two groups, with an objective response rate of 76.8% in the eribulin group and 75.2% in the taxane group.
Median OS was 65.3 months in the taxane group, but has not been reached in the study group (HR 1.09).
In terms of side-effects, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the eribulin and taxane groups (58.9% vs 59.2%, respectively, for grade 3 or higher).
“Skin-related adverse events (62.4% vs 40.6%), diarrhea (54.1% vs 36.6%), and edema (42.2% vs 8.5%) tend to be more common with taxane, whereas neutropenia (61.6% vs 30.7%) and peripheral neuropathy (61.2% vs 52.8%) tend to be more common with eribulin use,” he said.
Overall, “these results suggest that eribulin is less toxic chemotherapeutic partner for dual HER2 blockade and can be used for a longer,” he said.
Findings Are a ‘Clinical Pearl’
Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast cancer expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, described the findings as “a nice clinical pearl,” because some patients do not tolerate taxane therapy. “In such cases, you can substitute eribulin, which is usually tolerated without allergic hypersensitivity issues,” he said in an interview.
Eribulin has specific properties that “could make it a perfect candidate” as an adjunct to standard treatment regimens across different breast cancer subtypes, observed Wynne Wijaya, MD an oncology researcher at the University of Oxford, England, and Universitas Gadjah Mada, in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in a recent review (World J Exp Med. 2024;14[2]:92558).
Dr. Wijaya, who was not involved in this study, said in an interview that the findings have important implications.
“This encouraging result adds eribulin as another option in the first line treatment regimen for patients with HER2-positive, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, especially in terms of side effects/toxicities,” she said. “As clinicians, we can offer to tailor the choice of therapy between eribulin versus taxane in the regimen based on [which side effects patients are better able to tolerate]. It would also be interesting and worthwhile to conduct similar trials in different types of populations to provide more robust evidence.”
Eisai Co. funded the research. Dr. Yamashita disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Kyowa Hakko Kiri, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Taiho, Gilead Sciences, Nihonkayaku, Ono Yakuhin, and Seagen. Dr. Burstein disclosed a research grant from National Cancer Institute. Dr. Wijaya had no relevant disclosures.
The results of this multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 Japanese trial suggest that patients who cannot tolerate the standard taxane-based regimen have a new option for treatment.
“Our study is the first to show the non-inferiority of eribulin to a taxane, when used in combination with dual HER2 blockade as first-line treatment for this population,” lead author Toshinari Yamashita, MD, PhD, from the Kanagawa Cancer Center, in Kanagawa, Japan, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“To our knowledge, noninferiority of eribulin to a taxane when used in combination with dual HER2 blockade has not been investigated,” Dr. Yamashita said.
“The combination of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and taxane is a current standard first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer,” explained Dr. Yamashita. “However, because of taxane-induced toxicity, the development of less toxic but equally effective alternatives are needed.
“Because its efficacy is comparable to that of the current standard regimen, the combination of eribulin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab is one of the options for first-line treatment of how to fight locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer,” he continued.
Study Results and Methods
The trial enrolled 446 patients, mean age 56 years, all of whom had locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and no prior use of chemotherapy, excluding T-DM1. Patients who had received hormonal or HER2 therapy alone or the combination, as treatment for recurrence, were also eligible.
They were randomized 1:1 to receive a 21-day chemotherapy cycle of either (i) eribulin (1.4 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8), or (ii) a taxane (docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15), each being administered in combination with a dual HER2 blockade of trastuzumab plus pertuzumab.
Baseline characteristics of both groups were well balanced, with 257 (57.6%) having ER-positive disease, 292 (65.5%) visceral metastasis, and 263 (59%) with de novo stage 4 disease, explained Dr. Yamashita.
For the primary endpoint, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14 versus 12.9 months in the eribulin and taxane group, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, P = .6817), confirming non-inferiority of the study regimen, he reported.
The clinical benefit rate was similar between the two groups, with an objective response rate of 76.8% in the eribulin group and 75.2% in the taxane group.
Median OS was 65.3 months in the taxane group, but has not been reached in the study group (HR 1.09).
In terms of side-effects, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the eribulin and taxane groups (58.9% vs 59.2%, respectively, for grade 3 or higher).
“Skin-related adverse events (62.4% vs 40.6%), diarrhea (54.1% vs 36.6%), and edema (42.2% vs 8.5%) tend to be more common with taxane, whereas neutropenia (61.6% vs 30.7%) and peripheral neuropathy (61.2% vs 52.8%) tend to be more common with eribulin use,” he said.
Overall, “these results suggest that eribulin is less toxic chemotherapeutic partner for dual HER2 blockade and can be used for a longer,” he said.
Findings Are a ‘Clinical Pearl’
Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast cancer expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, described the findings as “a nice clinical pearl,” because some patients do not tolerate taxane therapy. “In such cases, you can substitute eribulin, which is usually tolerated without allergic hypersensitivity issues,” he said in an interview.
Eribulin has specific properties that “could make it a perfect candidate” as an adjunct to standard treatment regimens across different breast cancer subtypes, observed Wynne Wijaya, MD an oncology researcher at the University of Oxford, England, and Universitas Gadjah Mada, in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in a recent review (World J Exp Med. 2024;14[2]:92558).
Dr. Wijaya, who was not involved in this study, said in an interview that the findings have important implications.
“This encouraging result adds eribulin as another option in the first line treatment regimen for patients with HER2-positive, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, especially in terms of side effects/toxicities,” she said. “As clinicians, we can offer to tailor the choice of therapy between eribulin versus taxane in the regimen based on [which side effects patients are better able to tolerate]. It would also be interesting and worthwhile to conduct similar trials in different types of populations to provide more robust evidence.”
Eisai Co. funded the research. Dr. Yamashita disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Kyowa Hakko Kiri, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Taiho, Gilead Sciences, Nihonkayaku, Ono Yakuhin, and Seagen. Dr. Burstein disclosed a research grant from National Cancer Institute. Dr. Wijaya had no relevant disclosures.
The results of this multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 Japanese trial suggest that patients who cannot tolerate the standard taxane-based regimen have a new option for treatment.
“Our study is the first to show the non-inferiority of eribulin to a taxane, when used in combination with dual HER2 blockade as first-line treatment for this population,” lead author Toshinari Yamashita, MD, PhD, from the Kanagawa Cancer Center, in Kanagawa, Japan, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“To our knowledge, noninferiority of eribulin to a taxane when used in combination with dual HER2 blockade has not been investigated,” Dr. Yamashita said.
“The combination of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and taxane is a current standard first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer,” explained Dr. Yamashita. “However, because of taxane-induced toxicity, the development of less toxic but equally effective alternatives are needed.
“Because its efficacy is comparable to that of the current standard regimen, the combination of eribulin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab is one of the options for first-line treatment of how to fight locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer,” he continued.
Study Results and Methods
The trial enrolled 446 patients, mean age 56 years, all of whom had locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and no prior use of chemotherapy, excluding T-DM1. Patients who had received hormonal or HER2 therapy alone or the combination, as treatment for recurrence, were also eligible.
They were randomized 1:1 to receive a 21-day chemotherapy cycle of either (i) eribulin (1.4 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8), or (ii) a taxane (docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15), each being administered in combination with a dual HER2 blockade of trastuzumab plus pertuzumab.
Baseline characteristics of both groups were well balanced, with 257 (57.6%) having ER-positive disease, 292 (65.5%) visceral metastasis, and 263 (59%) with de novo stage 4 disease, explained Dr. Yamashita.
For the primary endpoint, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14 versus 12.9 months in the eribulin and taxane group, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, P = .6817), confirming non-inferiority of the study regimen, he reported.
The clinical benefit rate was similar between the two groups, with an objective response rate of 76.8% in the eribulin group and 75.2% in the taxane group.
Median OS was 65.3 months in the taxane group, but has not been reached in the study group (HR 1.09).
In terms of side-effects, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the eribulin and taxane groups (58.9% vs 59.2%, respectively, for grade 3 or higher).
“Skin-related adverse events (62.4% vs 40.6%), diarrhea (54.1% vs 36.6%), and edema (42.2% vs 8.5%) tend to be more common with taxane, whereas neutropenia (61.6% vs 30.7%) and peripheral neuropathy (61.2% vs 52.8%) tend to be more common with eribulin use,” he said.
Overall, “these results suggest that eribulin is less toxic chemotherapeutic partner for dual HER2 blockade and can be used for a longer,” he said.
Findings Are a ‘Clinical Pearl’
Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast cancer expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, described the findings as “a nice clinical pearl,” because some patients do not tolerate taxane therapy. “In such cases, you can substitute eribulin, which is usually tolerated without allergic hypersensitivity issues,” he said in an interview.
Eribulin has specific properties that “could make it a perfect candidate” as an adjunct to standard treatment regimens across different breast cancer subtypes, observed Wynne Wijaya, MD an oncology researcher at the University of Oxford, England, and Universitas Gadjah Mada, in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in a recent review (World J Exp Med. 2024;14[2]:92558).
Dr. Wijaya, who was not involved in this study, said in an interview that the findings have important implications.
“This encouraging result adds eribulin as another option in the first line treatment regimen for patients with HER2-positive, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, especially in terms of side effects/toxicities,” she said. “As clinicians, we can offer to tailor the choice of therapy between eribulin versus taxane in the regimen based on [which side effects patients are better able to tolerate]. It would also be interesting and worthwhile to conduct similar trials in different types of populations to provide more robust evidence.”
Eisai Co. funded the research. Dr. Yamashita disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Kyowa Hakko Kiri, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Taiho, Gilead Sciences, Nihonkayaku, Ono Yakuhin, and Seagen. Dr. Burstein disclosed a research grant from National Cancer Institute. Dr. Wijaya had no relevant disclosures.
FROM ASCO 2024
PFS Benefits Seen With Palbociclib + Endocrine Therapy in Breast Cancer
“The combination of palbociclib plus exemestane plus leuprolide showed a consistent significant improvement in PFS [progression-free survival] compared to the capecitabine arm,” Yeon Hee Park, MD, PhD, from Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Study Methods and Results
Young-PEARL, a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 study, included 184 patients, median age 44 years, who had relapsed or progressed during previous tamoxifen therapy, with one line of previous chemotherapy for mBC allowed. Patients were randomized to palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (oral palbociclib 125 mg per day for 21 days every 4 weeks, oral exemestane 25 mg per day for 28 days, plus leuprolide 3.75 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks) or chemotherapy (oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m2, twice daily for 2 weeks every 3 weeks).
Previously published initial results (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec;20[12]:1750-1759) for the primary endpoint showed a median PFS of 20.1 months in the palbociclib group versus 14.4 months in the capecitabine group, (hazard ratio [HR] 0.659, P = .0235) after median follow-up of 17 months.
Updated results showed this benefit was maintained after a median of 54 months, with a PFS of 19.5 months in the palbociclib arm, versus 14 months in capecitabine arm (HR 0.744, P = .0357), Dr. Park reported. However, this PFS benefit did not lead to an overall survival (OS) benefit, with median OS being similar: 54.8 versus 57.8 months in the palbociclib and capecitabine groups, respectively (HR = 1.02, P = .92).
To explore why PFS — but not OS — was better in the palbociclib arm, the researchers conducted a multivariate analysis which showed that going on to an additional CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment after the end of the study was as an independent variable favoring OS. Because more patients in the capecitabine arm received a post-study CDK4/6 inhibitor (49.3%) compared with in the palbociclib group (15%), this weighted the OS to the capecitabine arm, Dr. Park explained in an interview.
“In the capecitabine arm, excluding post-study CDK4/6 inhibitor use, the median OS was 38.8 months.” This was inferior to the 49 months OS seen in the palbociclib arm (P = .065), she said.
“As expected, hematologic toxicity was more common in the palbociclib arm compared with in the capecitabine arm,” Dr. Park said (92% vs 86%), with neutropenia topping the list [of all adverse events] (65.2% vs 27.9%, all grades). However, “most [adverse events] were not that serious,” Dr. Park said. Arthralgia was more common in the palbociclib arm (25% vs 7%), and diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome were more common in the capecitabine arm (15.2% vs 39.5% and 79.1% vs 2.2%).
Study Validates Endocrine Therapy + CDK4/6 Inhibitor as First Line
Commenting on Young-PEARL in an interview, Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, said, “The point of this study was to compare whether upfront chemotherapy would be better than upfront hormonal therapy for patients who had metastatic ER positive breast cancer.”
“This is the first study in probably 20 years that has compared these two approaches, and it validated that for the vast majority of patients with ER positive metastatic breast cancer, the appropriate first treatment is endocrine therapy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor,” continued Dr. Burstein, a breast cancer expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Dr. Park disclosed honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Boryung, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; research funding from AstraZeneca, Gencurix, Genome Insight, NGeneBio, Pfizer; and Roche; and travel/accommodations/expenses from Gilead. Dr. Burstein disclosed a research grant from the National Cancer Institute.
“The combination of palbociclib plus exemestane plus leuprolide showed a consistent significant improvement in PFS [progression-free survival] compared to the capecitabine arm,” Yeon Hee Park, MD, PhD, from Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Study Methods and Results
Young-PEARL, a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 study, included 184 patients, median age 44 years, who had relapsed or progressed during previous tamoxifen therapy, with one line of previous chemotherapy for mBC allowed. Patients were randomized to palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (oral palbociclib 125 mg per day for 21 days every 4 weeks, oral exemestane 25 mg per day for 28 days, plus leuprolide 3.75 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks) or chemotherapy (oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m2, twice daily for 2 weeks every 3 weeks).
Previously published initial results (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec;20[12]:1750-1759) for the primary endpoint showed a median PFS of 20.1 months in the palbociclib group versus 14.4 months in the capecitabine group, (hazard ratio [HR] 0.659, P = .0235) after median follow-up of 17 months.
Updated results showed this benefit was maintained after a median of 54 months, with a PFS of 19.5 months in the palbociclib arm, versus 14 months in capecitabine arm (HR 0.744, P = .0357), Dr. Park reported. However, this PFS benefit did not lead to an overall survival (OS) benefit, with median OS being similar: 54.8 versus 57.8 months in the palbociclib and capecitabine groups, respectively (HR = 1.02, P = .92).
To explore why PFS — but not OS — was better in the palbociclib arm, the researchers conducted a multivariate analysis which showed that going on to an additional CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment after the end of the study was as an independent variable favoring OS. Because more patients in the capecitabine arm received a post-study CDK4/6 inhibitor (49.3%) compared with in the palbociclib group (15%), this weighted the OS to the capecitabine arm, Dr. Park explained in an interview.
“In the capecitabine arm, excluding post-study CDK4/6 inhibitor use, the median OS was 38.8 months.” This was inferior to the 49 months OS seen in the palbociclib arm (P = .065), she said.
“As expected, hematologic toxicity was more common in the palbociclib arm compared with in the capecitabine arm,” Dr. Park said (92% vs 86%), with neutropenia topping the list [of all adverse events] (65.2% vs 27.9%, all grades). However, “most [adverse events] were not that serious,” Dr. Park said. Arthralgia was more common in the palbociclib arm (25% vs 7%), and diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome were more common in the capecitabine arm (15.2% vs 39.5% and 79.1% vs 2.2%).
Study Validates Endocrine Therapy + CDK4/6 Inhibitor as First Line
Commenting on Young-PEARL in an interview, Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, said, “The point of this study was to compare whether upfront chemotherapy would be better than upfront hormonal therapy for patients who had metastatic ER positive breast cancer.”
“This is the first study in probably 20 years that has compared these two approaches, and it validated that for the vast majority of patients with ER positive metastatic breast cancer, the appropriate first treatment is endocrine therapy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor,” continued Dr. Burstein, a breast cancer expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Dr. Park disclosed honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Boryung, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; research funding from AstraZeneca, Gencurix, Genome Insight, NGeneBio, Pfizer; and Roche; and travel/accommodations/expenses from Gilead. Dr. Burstein disclosed a research grant from the National Cancer Institute.
“The combination of palbociclib plus exemestane plus leuprolide showed a consistent significant improvement in PFS [progression-free survival] compared to the capecitabine arm,” Yeon Hee Park, MD, PhD, from Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Study Methods and Results
Young-PEARL, a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 study, included 184 patients, median age 44 years, who had relapsed or progressed during previous tamoxifen therapy, with one line of previous chemotherapy for mBC allowed. Patients were randomized to palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (oral palbociclib 125 mg per day for 21 days every 4 weeks, oral exemestane 25 mg per day for 28 days, plus leuprolide 3.75 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks) or chemotherapy (oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m2, twice daily for 2 weeks every 3 weeks).
Previously published initial results (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec;20[12]:1750-1759) for the primary endpoint showed a median PFS of 20.1 months in the palbociclib group versus 14.4 months in the capecitabine group, (hazard ratio [HR] 0.659, P = .0235) after median follow-up of 17 months.
Updated results showed this benefit was maintained after a median of 54 months, with a PFS of 19.5 months in the palbociclib arm, versus 14 months in capecitabine arm (HR 0.744, P = .0357), Dr. Park reported. However, this PFS benefit did not lead to an overall survival (OS) benefit, with median OS being similar: 54.8 versus 57.8 months in the palbociclib and capecitabine groups, respectively (HR = 1.02, P = .92).
To explore why PFS — but not OS — was better in the palbociclib arm, the researchers conducted a multivariate analysis which showed that going on to an additional CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment after the end of the study was as an independent variable favoring OS. Because more patients in the capecitabine arm received a post-study CDK4/6 inhibitor (49.3%) compared with in the palbociclib group (15%), this weighted the OS to the capecitabine arm, Dr. Park explained in an interview.
“In the capecitabine arm, excluding post-study CDK4/6 inhibitor use, the median OS was 38.8 months.” This was inferior to the 49 months OS seen in the palbociclib arm (P = .065), she said.
“As expected, hematologic toxicity was more common in the palbociclib arm compared with in the capecitabine arm,” Dr. Park said (92% vs 86%), with neutropenia topping the list [of all adverse events] (65.2% vs 27.9%, all grades). However, “most [adverse events] were not that serious,” Dr. Park said. Arthralgia was more common in the palbociclib arm (25% vs 7%), and diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome were more common in the capecitabine arm (15.2% vs 39.5% and 79.1% vs 2.2%).
Study Validates Endocrine Therapy + CDK4/6 Inhibitor as First Line
Commenting on Young-PEARL in an interview, Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, said, “The point of this study was to compare whether upfront chemotherapy would be better than upfront hormonal therapy for patients who had metastatic ER positive breast cancer.”
“This is the first study in probably 20 years that has compared these two approaches, and it validated that for the vast majority of patients with ER positive metastatic breast cancer, the appropriate first treatment is endocrine therapy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor,” continued Dr. Burstein, a breast cancer expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Dr. Park disclosed honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Boryung, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; research funding from AstraZeneca, Gencurix, Genome Insight, NGeneBio, Pfizer; and Roche; and travel/accommodations/expenses from Gilead. Dr. Burstein disclosed a research grant from the National Cancer Institute.
FROM ASCO 2024
New ADC results mixed in metastatic breast cancer
CHICAGO — Indications are expanding, new agents are emerging, combinations with other drug classes are being tested, and many patients with this disease are now receiving more than one ADC.
ADCs use antibodies to bind to the surface proteins of cancer cells to deliver a potent payload of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Three are approved for use in pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer: sacituzumab govitecan, or SG, for patients with triple-negative disease; trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, for patients with HER2-positive and HER2-low disease; and trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1, for patients with HER2-positive disease. A fourth agent, datopotamab deruxtecan, or Dato-DXd, is being assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in pretreated HR-positive, HER2-negative patients, and others, including sacituzumab tirumotecan, are being tested in clinical trials.At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) showed better progression free survival than chemotherapy in people with HR-positive, HER 2-low metastatic breast cancers. These findings, from the DESTINY Breast-06 trial, were among the most talked-about at ASCO, and are likely to change clinical practice (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1000]).
But other ADC results presented at ASCO showed that there is still much to be worked out about the timing and sequencing of these agents, as well as their synergy with other drug classes, in metastatic breast cancer.
An ADC gets its first test, and falls short
Antonio Giordano, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented findings from an open-label phase 2 study of the ADC enfortumab vedotin (EV), an agent currently approved for use in advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, at ASCO. This study included two cohorts of previously treated metastatic breast cancer patients: one with triple-negative disease (n = 42) and the other with HR-positive HER2-negative (n = 45).
Dr. Giordano and his colleagues’ study is the first to look at this ADC in breast cancer. EV’s antibody targets the cell adhesion molecule Nectin-4.
The researchers found that though EV demonstrated anti-tumor activity in both cohorts — with 19% of the triple-negative patients and 15.6% of the HR-positive/HER2-negative patients responding — the results did not meet the prespecified response thresholds for either cohort. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 16; abstr 1005]).
In an interview, Dr. Giordano said that studies in urothelial cancer had shown better response to EV associated with more expression of Nectin-4, but this study did not see such clear associations between expression and response. While there is no question that Nectin-4 is highly expressed in breast cancer and therefore a viable target, he said, “it may need to be looked at a little more deeply.”
It could also be the case, Dr. Giordano said, that the effect of EV’s payload may have been less robust in participants who had been previously treated with taxane chemotherapy, as nearly all patients in the two cohorts were.
“Taxanes are microtubule disruptors. And with this drug we had a payload with pretty much the same mechanism of action,” Dr. Giordano said. Ideally, he said, he would like to test the agent in a first-line setting, possibly in combination with an immunotherapy agent.
The timing of ADCs is as important as their targets and their payloads — and something that investigators are still struggling to figure out, he said.
A third of the patients in the triple-negative cohort of his study had been previously treated with SG, and a handful of individuals with T-Dxd, he noted.
“We’re in the middle of an ADC revolution,” he said. “It’s really key to figure out the best sequencing for a patient and if it’s actually worth it to do it. Very often we see patients respond best to the first ADC. But sometimes we see patients that do not respond to the first ADC and then they respond to the second one. It’s not very frequent, but it happens.”
Hint of Benefit from Adding Immunotherapy to SG
In a separate presentation at ASCO, Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, also of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, presented results from the SACI-IO HR+ trial, a randomized phase 2 study of SG (Trodelvy, Gilead) with and without pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) in 104 patients with metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer who received prior endocrine therapy and up to one chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease. SACI-IO HR+ is the first randomized trial to report the efficacy of a topoisomerase I-inhibitor ADC with an immune checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of breast cancer.
The addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor did not result in a significant improvement in median progression-free survival in the overall population, Dr. Garrido-Castro reported. Median PFS was 8.1 vs 6.2 months with the combination of SG plus pembrolizumab or sacituzumab govitecan alone, respectively. At a median follow-up of 12.5 months, there was also no significant difference seen in median overall survival (OS): 18.5 vs 18.0 months.
About 40% of participants were found to have PD-L1-positive tumors and, among this subgroup, there was a 4.4-month increase in median PFS and 6.0-month increase in median OS with the addition of pembrolizumab to SG, although this did not reach statistical significance. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1004]).
“While the study did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit with the addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the ADC, there is an interesting signal for potential synergistic activity between the two agents, particularly in those patients with PD-L1 positive tumors,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said in an interview. She noted that the sample sizes for the PD-L1 subgroup were relatively small, and overall survival data are not yet mature.
A separate phase 3 study is looking at the experimental ADC called sacituzumab tirumotecan with and without pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who have received prior endocrine therapy and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, she said.
Similar to SG, sacituzumab tirumotecan is a TROP2-directed ADC with a topoisomerase I-inhibitor payload. With an estimated enrollment of 1,200 patients, this trial may help shed light on whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the topoisomerase I-inhibitor TROP2-directed ADC improves outcomes in the subgroup of patients with PD-L1 positive tumors, Dr. Garrido-Castro said.
Unlocking the Order and Timing of ADCs
Dr. Garrido-Castro is also leading a study that will evaluate the sequential use of ADCs in metastatic breast cancer. That trial, to be called TRADE-DXd, will enroll patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who have received up to one prior line of chemotherapy and no previous topoisomerase I-inhibitors. Participants will receive either T-DXd or Dato-DXd as the first ADC, and then switch to the other ADC (Dato-DXd or T-DXd, respectively) at the time of progression, thus switching the target of the ADC from HER2 to TROP2 or vice versa.
“In real-world practice now, there are patients who receive sequential ADCs, because they are candidates for both,” Dr. Garrido-Castro explained. However, more robust data are needed to refine the selection of the initial antibody drug conjugate and to determine who is more likely to benefit from a second — or maybe even third — ADC.
“One potential mechanism of resistance to antibody drug conjugates is the downregulation of the target of the antibody drug conjugate,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said. “Thus, an important question is, if you modify the target of the ADC, is it possible to overcome that mechanism of resistance?” Another possible mechanism of resistance is to the chemotherapy payload of the ADCs, she said.
Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study will collect tumor samples and blood samples for the purposes of planned correlative analyses to try to better understand the mechanisms that drive response and resistance to these agents.
Dr. Giordano commented that Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study was likely to result in a much better understanding of ADCs and how to use them strategically.
At Dana-Farber, “we collect a lot of samples of patients receiving ADCs. And we are trying to do all kinds of work on circulating tumor DNA, immunohistochemistry expression, and protein expression,” he said. “We are trying to figure out how ADCs really work, and why they stop working.”
Dr. Giordano and colleagues’ study was funded by Astellas Pharma and by Seagen, which was bought by Pfizer in 2023. Dr. Giordano disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, and several of his coauthors reported relationships with this and other companies. Two were Astellas employees.
Dr. Garrido-Castro and colleagues’ study was funded by Merck and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Garrido-Castro disclosed receiving research support from Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Zenith Epigenetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Biovica, Foundation Medicine, 4D Path, Precede Biosciences; scientific advisory board/consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; and other support from Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Merck, while her coauthors reported similar relationships.
CHICAGO — Indications are expanding, new agents are emerging, combinations with other drug classes are being tested, and many patients with this disease are now receiving more than one ADC.
ADCs use antibodies to bind to the surface proteins of cancer cells to deliver a potent payload of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Three are approved for use in pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer: sacituzumab govitecan, or SG, for patients with triple-negative disease; trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, for patients with HER2-positive and HER2-low disease; and trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1, for patients with HER2-positive disease. A fourth agent, datopotamab deruxtecan, or Dato-DXd, is being assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in pretreated HR-positive, HER2-negative patients, and others, including sacituzumab tirumotecan, are being tested in clinical trials.At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) showed better progression free survival than chemotherapy in people with HR-positive, HER 2-low metastatic breast cancers. These findings, from the DESTINY Breast-06 trial, were among the most talked-about at ASCO, and are likely to change clinical practice (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1000]).
But other ADC results presented at ASCO showed that there is still much to be worked out about the timing and sequencing of these agents, as well as their synergy with other drug classes, in metastatic breast cancer.
An ADC gets its first test, and falls short
Antonio Giordano, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented findings from an open-label phase 2 study of the ADC enfortumab vedotin (EV), an agent currently approved for use in advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, at ASCO. This study included two cohorts of previously treated metastatic breast cancer patients: one with triple-negative disease (n = 42) and the other with HR-positive HER2-negative (n = 45).
Dr. Giordano and his colleagues’ study is the first to look at this ADC in breast cancer. EV’s antibody targets the cell adhesion molecule Nectin-4.
The researchers found that though EV demonstrated anti-tumor activity in both cohorts — with 19% of the triple-negative patients and 15.6% of the HR-positive/HER2-negative patients responding — the results did not meet the prespecified response thresholds for either cohort. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 16; abstr 1005]).
In an interview, Dr. Giordano said that studies in urothelial cancer had shown better response to EV associated with more expression of Nectin-4, but this study did not see such clear associations between expression and response. While there is no question that Nectin-4 is highly expressed in breast cancer and therefore a viable target, he said, “it may need to be looked at a little more deeply.”
It could also be the case, Dr. Giordano said, that the effect of EV’s payload may have been less robust in participants who had been previously treated with taxane chemotherapy, as nearly all patients in the two cohorts were.
“Taxanes are microtubule disruptors. And with this drug we had a payload with pretty much the same mechanism of action,” Dr. Giordano said. Ideally, he said, he would like to test the agent in a first-line setting, possibly in combination with an immunotherapy agent.
The timing of ADCs is as important as their targets and their payloads — and something that investigators are still struggling to figure out, he said.
A third of the patients in the triple-negative cohort of his study had been previously treated with SG, and a handful of individuals with T-Dxd, he noted.
“We’re in the middle of an ADC revolution,” he said. “It’s really key to figure out the best sequencing for a patient and if it’s actually worth it to do it. Very often we see patients respond best to the first ADC. But sometimes we see patients that do not respond to the first ADC and then they respond to the second one. It’s not very frequent, but it happens.”
Hint of Benefit from Adding Immunotherapy to SG
In a separate presentation at ASCO, Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, also of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, presented results from the SACI-IO HR+ trial, a randomized phase 2 study of SG (Trodelvy, Gilead) with and without pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) in 104 patients with metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer who received prior endocrine therapy and up to one chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease. SACI-IO HR+ is the first randomized trial to report the efficacy of a topoisomerase I-inhibitor ADC with an immune checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of breast cancer.
The addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor did not result in a significant improvement in median progression-free survival in the overall population, Dr. Garrido-Castro reported. Median PFS was 8.1 vs 6.2 months with the combination of SG plus pembrolizumab or sacituzumab govitecan alone, respectively. At a median follow-up of 12.5 months, there was also no significant difference seen in median overall survival (OS): 18.5 vs 18.0 months.
About 40% of participants were found to have PD-L1-positive tumors and, among this subgroup, there was a 4.4-month increase in median PFS and 6.0-month increase in median OS with the addition of pembrolizumab to SG, although this did not reach statistical significance. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1004]).
“While the study did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit with the addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the ADC, there is an interesting signal for potential synergistic activity between the two agents, particularly in those patients with PD-L1 positive tumors,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said in an interview. She noted that the sample sizes for the PD-L1 subgroup were relatively small, and overall survival data are not yet mature.
A separate phase 3 study is looking at the experimental ADC called sacituzumab tirumotecan with and without pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who have received prior endocrine therapy and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, she said.
Similar to SG, sacituzumab tirumotecan is a TROP2-directed ADC with a topoisomerase I-inhibitor payload. With an estimated enrollment of 1,200 patients, this trial may help shed light on whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the topoisomerase I-inhibitor TROP2-directed ADC improves outcomes in the subgroup of patients with PD-L1 positive tumors, Dr. Garrido-Castro said.
Unlocking the Order and Timing of ADCs
Dr. Garrido-Castro is also leading a study that will evaluate the sequential use of ADCs in metastatic breast cancer. That trial, to be called TRADE-DXd, will enroll patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who have received up to one prior line of chemotherapy and no previous topoisomerase I-inhibitors. Participants will receive either T-DXd or Dato-DXd as the first ADC, and then switch to the other ADC (Dato-DXd or T-DXd, respectively) at the time of progression, thus switching the target of the ADC from HER2 to TROP2 or vice versa.
“In real-world practice now, there are patients who receive sequential ADCs, because they are candidates for both,” Dr. Garrido-Castro explained. However, more robust data are needed to refine the selection of the initial antibody drug conjugate and to determine who is more likely to benefit from a second — or maybe even third — ADC.
“One potential mechanism of resistance to antibody drug conjugates is the downregulation of the target of the antibody drug conjugate,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said. “Thus, an important question is, if you modify the target of the ADC, is it possible to overcome that mechanism of resistance?” Another possible mechanism of resistance is to the chemotherapy payload of the ADCs, she said.
Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study will collect tumor samples and blood samples for the purposes of planned correlative analyses to try to better understand the mechanisms that drive response and resistance to these agents.
Dr. Giordano commented that Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study was likely to result in a much better understanding of ADCs and how to use them strategically.
At Dana-Farber, “we collect a lot of samples of patients receiving ADCs. And we are trying to do all kinds of work on circulating tumor DNA, immunohistochemistry expression, and protein expression,” he said. “We are trying to figure out how ADCs really work, and why they stop working.”
Dr. Giordano and colleagues’ study was funded by Astellas Pharma and by Seagen, which was bought by Pfizer in 2023. Dr. Giordano disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, and several of his coauthors reported relationships with this and other companies. Two were Astellas employees.
Dr. Garrido-Castro and colleagues’ study was funded by Merck and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Garrido-Castro disclosed receiving research support from Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Zenith Epigenetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Biovica, Foundation Medicine, 4D Path, Precede Biosciences; scientific advisory board/consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; and other support from Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Merck, while her coauthors reported similar relationships.
CHICAGO — Indications are expanding, new agents are emerging, combinations with other drug classes are being tested, and many patients with this disease are now receiving more than one ADC.
ADCs use antibodies to bind to the surface proteins of cancer cells to deliver a potent payload of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Three are approved for use in pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer: sacituzumab govitecan, or SG, for patients with triple-negative disease; trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, for patients with HER2-positive and HER2-low disease; and trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1, for patients with HER2-positive disease. A fourth agent, datopotamab deruxtecan, or Dato-DXd, is being assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in pretreated HR-positive, HER2-negative patients, and others, including sacituzumab tirumotecan, are being tested in clinical trials.At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) showed better progression free survival than chemotherapy in people with HR-positive, HER 2-low metastatic breast cancers. These findings, from the DESTINY Breast-06 trial, were among the most talked-about at ASCO, and are likely to change clinical practice (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1000]).
But other ADC results presented at ASCO showed that there is still much to be worked out about the timing and sequencing of these agents, as well as their synergy with other drug classes, in metastatic breast cancer.
An ADC gets its first test, and falls short
Antonio Giordano, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented findings from an open-label phase 2 study of the ADC enfortumab vedotin (EV), an agent currently approved for use in advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, at ASCO. This study included two cohorts of previously treated metastatic breast cancer patients: one with triple-negative disease (n = 42) and the other with HR-positive HER2-negative (n = 45).
Dr. Giordano and his colleagues’ study is the first to look at this ADC in breast cancer. EV’s antibody targets the cell adhesion molecule Nectin-4.
The researchers found that though EV demonstrated anti-tumor activity in both cohorts — with 19% of the triple-negative patients and 15.6% of the HR-positive/HER2-negative patients responding — the results did not meet the prespecified response thresholds for either cohort. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 16; abstr 1005]).
In an interview, Dr. Giordano said that studies in urothelial cancer had shown better response to EV associated with more expression of Nectin-4, but this study did not see such clear associations between expression and response. While there is no question that Nectin-4 is highly expressed in breast cancer and therefore a viable target, he said, “it may need to be looked at a little more deeply.”
It could also be the case, Dr. Giordano said, that the effect of EV’s payload may have been less robust in participants who had been previously treated with taxane chemotherapy, as nearly all patients in the two cohorts were.
“Taxanes are microtubule disruptors. And with this drug we had a payload with pretty much the same mechanism of action,” Dr. Giordano said. Ideally, he said, he would like to test the agent in a first-line setting, possibly in combination with an immunotherapy agent.
The timing of ADCs is as important as their targets and their payloads — and something that investigators are still struggling to figure out, he said.
A third of the patients in the triple-negative cohort of his study had been previously treated with SG, and a handful of individuals with T-Dxd, he noted.
“We’re in the middle of an ADC revolution,” he said. “It’s really key to figure out the best sequencing for a patient and if it’s actually worth it to do it. Very often we see patients respond best to the first ADC. But sometimes we see patients that do not respond to the first ADC and then they respond to the second one. It’s not very frequent, but it happens.”
Hint of Benefit from Adding Immunotherapy to SG
In a separate presentation at ASCO, Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, also of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, presented results from the SACI-IO HR+ trial, a randomized phase 2 study of SG (Trodelvy, Gilead) with and without pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) in 104 patients with metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer who received prior endocrine therapy and up to one chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease. SACI-IO HR+ is the first randomized trial to report the efficacy of a topoisomerase I-inhibitor ADC with an immune checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of breast cancer.
The addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor did not result in a significant improvement in median progression-free survival in the overall population, Dr. Garrido-Castro reported. Median PFS was 8.1 vs 6.2 months with the combination of SG plus pembrolizumab or sacituzumab govitecan alone, respectively. At a median follow-up of 12.5 months, there was also no significant difference seen in median overall survival (OS): 18.5 vs 18.0 months.
About 40% of participants were found to have PD-L1-positive tumors and, among this subgroup, there was a 4.4-month increase in median PFS and 6.0-month increase in median OS with the addition of pembrolizumab to SG, although this did not reach statistical significance. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1004]).
“While the study did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit with the addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the ADC, there is an interesting signal for potential synergistic activity between the two agents, particularly in those patients with PD-L1 positive tumors,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said in an interview. She noted that the sample sizes for the PD-L1 subgroup were relatively small, and overall survival data are not yet mature.
A separate phase 3 study is looking at the experimental ADC called sacituzumab tirumotecan with and without pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who have received prior endocrine therapy and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, she said.
Similar to SG, sacituzumab tirumotecan is a TROP2-directed ADC with a topoisomerase I-inhibitor payload. With an estimated enrollment of 1,200 patients, this trial may help shed light on whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the topoisomerase I-inhibitor TROP2-directed ADC improves outcomes in the subgroup of patients with PD-L1 positive tumors, Dr. Garrido-Castro said.
Unlocking the Order and Timing of ADCs
Dr. Garrido-Castro is also leading a study that will evaluate the sequential use of ADCs in metastatic breast cancer. That trial, to be called TRADE-DXd, will enroll patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who have received up to one prior line of chemotherapy and no previous topoisomerase I-inhibitors. Participants will receive either T-DXd or Dato-DXd as the first ADC, and then switch to the other ADC (Dato-DXd or T-DXd, respectively) at the time of progression, thus switching the target of the ADC from HER2 to TROP2 or vice versa.
“In real-world practice now, there are patients who receive sequential ADCs, because they are candidates for both,” Dr. Garrido-Castro explained. However, more robust data are needed to refine the selection of the initial antibody drug conjugate and to determine who is more likely to benefit from a second — or maybe even third — ADC.
“One potential mechanism of resistance to antibody drug conjugates is the downregulation of the target of the antibody drug conjugate,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said. “Thus, an important question is, if you modify the target of the ADC, is it possible to overcome that mechanism of resistance?” Another possible mechanism of resistance is to the chemotherapy payload of the ADCs, she said.
Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study will collect tumor samples and blood samples for the purposes of planned correlative analyses to try to better understand the mechanisms that drive response and resistance to these agents.
Dr. Giordano commented that Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study was likely to result in a much better understanding of ADCs and how to use them strategically.
At Dana-Farber, “we collect a lot of samples of patients receiving ADCs. And we are trying to do all kinds of work on circulating tumor DNA, immunohistochemistry expression, and protein expression,” he said. “We are trying to figure out how ADCs really work, and why they stop working.”
Dr. Giordano and colleagues’ study was funded by Astellas Pharma and by Seagen, which was bought by Pfizer in 2023. Dr. Giordano disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, and several of his coauthors reported relationships with this and other companies. Two were Astellas employees.
Dr. Garrido-Castro and colleagues’ study was funded by Merck and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Garrido-Castro disclosed receiving research support from Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Zenith Epigenetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Biovica, Foundation Medicine, 4D Path, Precede Biosciences; scientific advisory board/consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; and other support from Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Merck, while her coauthors reported similar relationships.
FROM ASCO 2024
Adjuvant Avelumab Benefits Seen in High Risk, Triple Negative BC
“The 30% reduction in the risk of distant metastasis, and 34% reduction in the risk of death suggests that avelumab may have a role in early triple negative breast cancer patients at high risk of relapse after primary surgery or with invasive residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Pierfranco Conte, MD, from the department of surgery, oncology, and gastroenterology at the University of Padua, Italy, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
A-BRAVE is the first randomized phase 3 trial patients with TNBC, treated with adjuvant avelumab, explained Dr. Conte. “Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for stage cT1c or larger, or cN+ disease. However, in case of invasive residual disease at surgery, prognosis is still very poor.”
TNBC is more immunogenic compared with other breast cancer subtypes, suggesting a role for immune checkpoint inhibitors such as avelumab in this setting, he said.
A-BRAVE Methods and Results
The trial enrolled 477 patients, median age 51 years, between June 2016 and October 2020, after their disease had progressed following initial treatment. There were two strata of patients: those who had received upfront surgery and then adjuvant chemotherapy before disease progression (stratum A, 18%); and those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and then adjuvant chemo, but still had residual disease (stratum B, 82%).
Patients were randomized to either observation (n = 239) or treatment with avelumab (n = 238), at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks for one year.
At a median follow-up of 52.1 months, avelumab did not show an advantage for the primary endpoint of 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), with 68.3% of treated patients meeting this endpoint, compared to 63.2% of observed patients (hazard ratio [HR 0.81, P = .172].
However, the treatment did show statistically significant benefits for the secondary 3-year OS endpoint (84.8% vs 76.3%, HR 0.66, P = .035).
“Trying to understand why we did observe a greater benefit with avelumab in overall survival compared to disease-free survival, we also made a post-hoc exploratory analysis on distant disease-free survival,” explained Dr. Conte.
There was a statistically significant 3-year distant disease-free survival (DDFS) benefit for treated patients compared with controls (75.4% vs 67.9%, HR 0.7, P = .0277), translating to a 30% reduction in the risk of distant metastasis, he noted.
Findings Are ‘Hypothesis-Generating’
The results are “hypothesis-generating at this point,” Alexandra Thomas, MD, a breast medical oncologist who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “These results suggest that the story on how to best utilize checkpoint blockade as adjuvant therapy in triple negative breast cancer may not yet be fully written.”
She emphasized the study did not meet its primary endpoint, “though the results for secondary endpoints OS and the exploratory endpoint DDFS are intriguing.
“A-BRAVE is a smaller study, especially relative to Impassion030 (ALEXANDRA), which enrolled over 2,000 patients,” she explained. “It is notable that avelumab has slightly different properties than atezolizumab, which was used in Impassion030.”
“Avelumab is also a weak PD-L2 inhibitor. Could this be important? Notably, today most patients with clinical stage II-III triple negative breast cancer will receive pembrolizumab as per KEYNOTE-522, so the potential for clinical impact is greatly reduced,” added Dr. Thomas, professor and assistant director in the department of internal medicine at Duke Cancer Institute, in Durham, North Carolina.
SWOG1814, which has not been reported yet, “also looks at pembrolizumab in patients with residual disease post neoadjuvant chemotherapy and will provide further important information on in this space,” she said.
Merck KGaA funded the study.
Dr. Conte disclosed consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Reveal Genomics; a HER2Dx patient; and providing expert testimony for AstraZeneca.
Dr. Thomas disclosed research grants from Sanofi and Merck.
“The 30% reduction in the risk of distant metastasis, and 34% reduction in the risk of death suggests that avelumab may have a role in early triple negative breast cancer patients at high risk of relapse after primary surgery or with invasive residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Pierfranco Conte, MD, from the department of surgery, oncology, and gastroenterology at the University of Padua, Italy, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
A-BRAVE is the first randomized phase 3 trial patients with TNBC, treated with adjuvant avelumab, explained Dr. Conte. “Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for stage cT1c or larger, or cN+ disease. However, in case of invasive residual disease at surgery, prognosis is still very poor.”
TNBC is more immunogenic compared with other breast cancer subtypes, suggesting a role for immune checkpoint inhibitors such as avelumab in this setting, he said.
A-BRAVE Methods and Results
The trial enrolled 477 patients, median age 51 years, between June 2016 and October 2020, after their disease had progressed following initial treatment. There were two strata of patients: those who had received upfront surgery and then adjuvant chemotherapy before disease progression (stratum A, 18%); and those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and then adjuvant chemo, but still had residual disease (stratum B, 82%).
Patients were randomized to either observation (n = 239) or treatment with avelumab (n = 238), at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks for one year.
At a median follow-up of 52.1 months, avelumab did not show an advantage for the primary endpoint of 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), with 68.3% of treated patients meeting this endpoint, compared to 63.2% of observed patients (hazard ratio [HR 0.81, P = .172].
However, the treatment did show statistically significant benefits for the secondary 3-year OS endpoint (84.8% vs 76.3%, HR 0.66, P = .035).
“Trying to understand why we did observe a greater benefit with avelumab in overall survival compared to disease-free survival, we also made a post-hoc exploratory analysis on distant disease-free survival,” explained Dr. Conte.
There was a statistically significant 3-year distant disease-free survival (DDFS) benefit for treated patients compared with controls (75.4% vs 67.9%, HR 0.7, P = .0277), translating to a 30% reduction in the risk of distant metastasis, he noted.
Findings Are ‘Hypothesis-Generating’
The results are “hypothesis-generating at this point,” Alexandra Thomas, MD, a breast medical oncologist who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “These results suggest that the story on how to best utilize checkpoint blockade as adjuvant therapy in triple negative breast cancer may not yet be fully written.”
She emphasized the study did not meet its primary endpoint, “though the results for secondary endpoints OS and the exploratory endpoint DDFS are intriguing.
“A-BRAVE is a smaller study, especially relative to Impassion030 (ALEXANDRA), which enrolled over 2,000 patients,” she explained. “It is notable that avelumab has slightly different properties than atezolizumab, which was used in Impassion030.”
“Avelumab is also a weak PD-L2 inhibitor. Could this be important? Notably, today most patients with clinical stage II-III triple negative breast cancer will receive pembrolizumab as per KEYNOTE-522, so the potential for clinical impact is greatly reduced,” added Dr. Thomas, professor and assistant director in the department of internal medicine at Duke Cancer Institute, in Durham, North Carolina.
SWOG1814, which has not been reported yet, “also looks at pembrolizumab in patients with residual disease post neoadjuvant chemotherapy and will provide further important information on in this space,” she said.
Merck KGaA funded the study.
Dr. Conte disclosed consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Reveal Genomics; a HER2Dx patient; and providing expert testimony for AstraZeneca.
Dr. Thomas disclosed research grants from Sanofi and Merck.
“The 30% reduction in the risk of distant metastasis, and 34% reduction in the risk of death suggests that avelumab may have a role in early triple negative breast cancer patients at high risk of relapse after primary surgery or with invasive residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Pierfranco Conte, MD, from the department of surgery, oncology, and gastroenterology at the University of Padua, Italy, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
A-BRAVE is the first randomized phase 3 trial patients with TNBC, treated with adjuvant avelumab, explained Dr. Conte. “Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for stage cT1c or larger, or cN+ disease. However, in case of invasive residual disease at surgery, prognosis is still very poor.”
TNBC is more immunogenic compared with other breast cancer subtypes, suggesting a role for immune checkpoint inhibitors such as avelumab in this setting, he said.
A-BRAVE Methods and Results
The trial enrolled 477 patients, median age 51 years, between June 2016 and October 2020, after their disease had progressed following initial treatment. There were two strata of patients: those who had received upfront surgery and then adjuvant chemotherapy before disease progression (stratum A, 18%); and those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and then adjuvant chemo, but still had residual disease (stratum B, 82%).
Patients were randomized to either observation (n = 239) or treatment with avelumab (n = 238), at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks for one year.
At a median follow-up of 52.1 months, avelumab did not show an advantage for the primary endpoint of 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), with 68.3% of treated patients meeting this endpoint, compared to 63.2% of observed patients (hazard ratio [HR 0.81, P = .172].
However, the treatment did show statistically significant benefits for the secondary 3-year OS endpoint (84.8% vs 76.3%, HR 0.66, P = .035).
“Trying to understand why we did observe a greater benefit with avelumab in overall survival compared to disease-free survival, we also made a post-hoc exploratory analysis on distant disease-free survival,” explained Dr. Conte.
There was a statistically significant 3-year distant disease-free survival (DDFS) benefit for treated patients compared with controls (75.4% vs 67.9%, HR 0.7, P = .0277), translating to a 30% reduction in the risk of distant metastasis, he noted.
Findings Are ‘Hypothesis-Generating’
The results are “hypothesis-generating at this point,” Alexandra Thomas, MD, a breast medical oncologist who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “These results suggest that the story on how to best utilize checkpoint blockade as adjuvant therapy in triple negative breast cancer may not yet be fully written.”
She emphasized the study did not meet its primary endpoint, “though the results for secondary endpoints OS and the exploratory endpoint DDFS are intriguing.
“A-BRAVE is a smaller study, especially relative to Impassion030 (ALEXANDRA), which enrolled over 2,000 patients,” she explained. “It is notable that avelumab has slightly different properties than atezolizumab, which was used in Impassion030.”
“Avelumab is also a weak PD-L2 inhibitor. Could this be important? Notably, today most patients with clinical stage II-III triple negative breast cancer will receive pembrolizumab as per KEYNOTE-522, so the potential for clinical impact is greatly reduced,” added Dr. Thomas, professor and assistant director in the department of internal medicine at Duke Cancer Institute, in Durham, North Carolina.
SWOG1814, which has not been reported yet, “also looks at pembrolizumab in patients with residual disease post neoadjuvant chemotherapy and will provide further important information on in this space,” she said.
Merck KGaA funded the study.
Dr. Conte disclosed consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Reveal Genomics; a HER2Dx patient; and providing expert testimony for AstraZeneca.
Dr. Thomas disclosed research grants from Sanofi and Merck.
FROM ASCO 2024