Breast Cancer

CHICAGO – Patients with advanced breast cancer whose aromatase inhibitor therapy was supplemented with a cycline-dependent kinase inhibitor had better progression-free survival with no drop in quality of life. Health-related quality of life for patients on the combination therapy was equivalent to that of patients on monotherapy in most aspects, but patients receiving both therapies had a sustained and clinically meaningful decrease in pain.

Also, the time to definitive deterioration by 10% or more of the global health status/quality of life scale score was similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR] 0.944; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.720-1.237).

The MONALEESA-2 trial had previously shown that the CDK 4/6 inhibitor ribociclib, when added to the aromatase inhibitor letrozole, significantly improved progression-free survival for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative advanced breast cancer, when compared to letrozole in combination with placebo.

Sunil Verma, MD, reported on health-related quality of life and symptoms in the two arms of MONALEESA-2, reporting change from baseline, time to a definitive 10% deterioration, and the mean scores for on-treatment time compared to end of treatment on the global health status/quality of life subscale of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-30).

“During treatment, overall health-related quality of life was maintained from baseline and was similar in both arms,” said Dr. Verma, the study’s first author. Changes during treatment were not statistically significant, and did not reach the predetermined threshold for a clinically meaningful difference. The effect of such key symptoms as fatigue, nausea, and vomiting on quality of life was similar regardless of whether patients received ribociclib or placebo, he said; though symptom scores were slightly higher for patients in the active arm of the study, the results were not clinically significant.

Reporting validated, cancer-specific patient-reported outcomes from the trial, Dr. Verma, professor and head of the department of oncology at the University of Calgary, (Alta.), sought to “highlight the patient experience with a focus on health-related quality of life and symptoms,” he said during his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“A clinically meaningful – more than 5-point – improvement from baseline in pain score was maintained up to and including cycle 15 in the ribociclib plus letrozole arm,” said Dr. Verma. The placebo arm had a mild, clinically insignificant improvement at most assessment points. For both treatment arms, pain scores increased a bit above baseline levels at the time of disease progression or end of therapy, he said.

Patients completed the EORTC 30-item core quality of life questionnaire at their screening visit, and then every 8 weeks for the first 18 months. Then, they completed the questionnaires every 12 weeks until they experienced disease progression, died, were lost to follow-up or withdrew from the study, or stopped treatment.

Statistical analysis of the questionnaire results took into account the patients’ baseline scores, treatments received, and how they were stratified. Investigators assessed both statistical significance and the clinical meaningfulness of changes, defined as a change of 5-10 points.

In MONALEESA-2, 334 patients each were allocated to the ribociclib + letrozole arm and the placebo + letrozole arm. Patients in both arms, said Dr. Verma, were very compliant with questionnaire completion. Over 90% of patients who were eligible completed questionnaire through cycle 19 of ribociclib or placebo. He explained that the overall numbers completing the questionnaire declined with time, as more patients had disease progression.

It’s important to include these measures, he said, because patients and their families care about “the quality of the time gained,” so patient-reported outcomes should be a part of risk-benefit assessments for new cancer therapies. “While delaying disease progression may help to maintain patient quality of life, the addition of novel treatments to existing therapies can add toxicities, which may diminish quality of life,” said Dr. Verma.

Dr. Verma reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, which funded the study.
 

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

CHICAGO – Patients with advanced breast cancer whose aromatase inhibitor therapy was supplemented with a cycline-dependent kinase inhibitor had better progression-free survival with no drop in quality of life. Health-related quality of life for patients on the combination therapy was equivalent to that of patients on monotherapy in most aspects, but patients receiving both therapies had a sustained and clinically meaningful decrease in pain.

Also, the time to definitive deterioration by 10% or more of the global health status/quality of life scale score was similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR] 0.944; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.720-1.237).

The MONALEESA-2 trial had previously shown that the CDK 4/6 inhibitor ribociclib, when added to the aromatase inhibitor letrozole, significantly improved progression-free survival for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative advanced breast cancer, when compared to letrozole in combination with placebo.

Sunil Verma, MD, reported on health-related quality of life and symptoms in the two arms of MONALEESA-2, reporting change from baseline, time to a definitive 10% deterioration, and the mean scores for on-treatment time compared to end of treatment on the global health status/quality of life subscale of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-30).

“During treatment, overall health-related quality of life was maintained from baseline and was similar in both arms,” said Dr. Verma, the study’s first author. Changes during treatment were not statistically significant, and did not reach the predetermined threshold for a clinically meaningful difference. The effect of such key symptoms as fatigue, nausea, and vomiting on quality of life was similar regardless of whether patients received ribociclib or placebo, he said; though symptom scores were slightly higher for patients in the active arm of the study, the results were not clinically significant.

Reporting validated, cancer-specific patient-reported outcomes from the trial, Dr. Verma, professor and head of the department of oncology at the University of Calgary, (Alta.), sought to “highlight the patient experience with a focus on health-related quality of life and symptoms,” he said during his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“A clinically meaningful – more than 5-point – improvement from baseline in pain score was maintained up to and including cycle 15 in the ribociclib plus letrozole arm,” said Dr. Verma. The placebo arm had a mild, clinically insignificant improvement at most assessment points. For both treatment arms, pain scores increased a bit above baseline levels at the time of disease progression or end of therapy, he said.

Patients completed the EORTC 30-item core quality of life questionnaire at their screening visit, and then every 8 weeks for the first 18 months. Then, they completed the questionnaires every 12 weeks until they experienced disease progression, died, were lost to follow-up or withdrew from the study, or stopped treatment.

Statistical analysis of the questionnaire results took into account the patients’ baseline scores, treatments received, and how they were stratified. Investigators assessed both statistical significance and the clinical meaningfulness of changes, defined as a change of 5-10 points.

In MONALEESA-2, 334 patients each were allocated to the ribociclib + letrozole arm and the placebo + letrozole arm. Patients in both arms, said Dr. Verma, were very compliant with questionnaire completion. Over 90% of patients who were eligible completed questionnaire through cycle 19 of ribociclib or placebo. He explained that the overall numbers completing the questionnaire declined with time, as more patients had disease progression.

It’s important to include these measures, he said, because patients and their families care about “the quality of the time gained,” so patient-reported outcomes should be a part of risk-benefit assessments for new cancer therapies. “While delaying disease progression may help to maintain patient quality of life, the addition of novel treatments to existing therapies can add toxicities, which may diminish quality of life,” said Dr. Verma.

Dr. Verma reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, which funded the study.
 

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

CHICAGO – Patients with advanced breast cancer whose aromatase inhibitor therapy was supplemented with a cycline-dependent kinase inhibitor had better progression-free survival with no drop in quality of life. Health-related quality of life for patients on the combination therapy was equivalent to that of patients on monotherapy in most aspects, but patients receiving both therapies had a sustained and clinically meaningful decrease in pain.

Also, the time to definitive deterioration by 10% or more of the global health status/quality of life scale score was similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR] 0.944; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.720-1.237).

The MONALEESA-2 trial had previously shown that the CDK 4/6 inhibitor ribociclib, when added to the aromatase inhibitor letrozole, significantly improved progression-free survival for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative advanced breast cancer, when compared to letrozole in combination with placebo.

Sunil Verma, MD, reported on health-related quality of life and symptoms in the two arms of MONALEESA-2, reporting change from baseline, time to a definitive 10% deterioration, and the mean scores for on-treatment time compared to end of treatment on the global health status/quality of life subscale of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-30).

“During treatment, overall health-related quality of life was maintained from baseline and was similar in both arms,” said Dr. Verma, the study’s first author. Changes during treatment were not statistically significant, and did not reach the predetermined threshold for a clinically meaningful difference. The effect of such key symptoms as fatigue, nausea, and vomiting on quality of life was similar regardless of whether patients received ribociclib or placebo, he said; though symptom scores were slightly higher for patients in the active arm of the study, the results were not clinically significant.

Reporting validated, cancer-specific patient-reported outcomes from the trial, Dr. Verma, professor and head of the department of oncology at the University of Calgary, (Alta.), sought to “highlight the patient experience with a focus on health-related quality of life and symptoms,” he said during his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“A clinically meaningful – more than 5-point – improvement from baseline in pain score was maintained up to and including cycle 15 in the ribociclib plus letrozole arm,” said Dr. Verma. The placebo arm had a mild, clinically insignificant improvement at most assessment points. For both treatment arms, pain scores increased a bit above baseline levels at the time of disease progression or end of therapy, he said.

Patients completed the EORTC 30-item core quality of life questionnaire at their screening visit, and then every 8 weeks for the first 18 months. Then, they completed the questionnaires every 12 weeks until they experienced disease progression, died, were lost to follow-up or withdrew from the study, or stopped treatment.

Statistical analysis of the questionnaire results took into account the patients’ baseline scores, treatments received, and how they were stratified. Investigators assessed both statistical significance and the clinical meaningfulness of changes, defined as a change of 5-10 points.

In MONALEESA-2, 334 patients each were allocated to the ribociclib + letrozole arm and the placebo + letrozole arm. Patients in both arms, said Dr. Verma, were very compliant with questionnaire completion. Over 90% of patients who were eligible completed questionnaire through cycle 19 of ribociclib or placebo. He explained that the overall numbers completing the questionnaire declined with time, as more patients had disease progression.

It’s important to include these measures, he said, because patients and their families care about “the quality of the time gained,” so patient-reported outcomes should be a part of risk-benefit assessments for new cancer therapies. “While delaying disease progression may help to maintain patient quality of life, the addition of novel treatments to existing therapies can add toxicities, which may diminish quality of life,” said Dr. Verma.

Dr. Verma reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, which funded the study.
 

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

CHICAGO – Five years of extended intermittent letrozole provided no overall improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) when compared with continuous treatment with the aromatase inhibitor among postmenopausal women who received 4-6 years of endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive, lymph node–positive early breast cancer in the randomized phase III Study of Letrozole Extension (SOLE).

However, the similarities in DFS and adverse events incidence in the intermittent and continuous treatment groups – and improvements in a number of quality of life measures with intermittent treatment – suggest that temporary treatment breaks are acceptable in those who could benefit from them, Marco Colleoni, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The DFS among 2,425 women who received 5 years of intermittent letrozole after completing 4-6 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy was 85.8%, compared with 87.5% among 2,426 women who received 5 years of continuous letrozole after adjuvant therapy (hazard ratio, 1.08) said Dr. Colleoni of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.

Similar outcomes were observed for breast cancer–free interval (HR, 0.98), distant recurrence-free interval (HR, 0.88), and overall survival (HR, 0.85), he said.

Of note, trends toward greater improvement on both the primary and secondary endpoints were seen with continuous therapy among those who received prior selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) vs. aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy, but the differences did not reach statistical significance, he said.

Adjuvant extended endocrine therapy with letrozole has been recommended after initial tamoxifen for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer, but the magnitude of the beneficial effect of extended letrozole in women who previously received an aromatase inhibitor has been limited, Dr. Colleoni said.

“Therefore, based on available data, the use of an AI for 10 years should be discussed on an individualized basis,” he said.

However, there is rationale for the intermittent use of letrozole as a therapeutic option to prolong sensitivity to endocrine therapies,” he noted.

“Breast cancer cells, in fact, can develop resistance following antihormonal therapy. In particular, cells that are maintained estrogen-free for years start to grow spontaneously. It has been shown ... that minimal concentrations of estrogen, similar to those achievable through interruption of treatment with aromatase inhibitors, can produce a cytocidal effect on cells that are deprived of estrogen,” he explained. “Moreover, in breast cancer cells transplanted into animal models, a response to a 6-week withdrawal of letrozole was observed when the treatment was started again.”

Thus, the SOLE study was designed to look at the value of extended adjuvant therapy in patients with HR+ breast cancer, the role of intermittent administration of letrozole in patients previously treated with AIs, the impact of intermittent vs. continuous administration on the side effect profile and quality of life and adherence to intermittent administration, he said.

Study participants were women with a median age of 60 years who were enrolled from 240 centers in 22 countries between November 2007 and July 2012. They had HR+ invasive breast cancer, any HER2 status, and disease confined to the breast and axillary lymph nodes. All had received SERM, AI, or combination SERM and AI treatment for 4-6 years but must have discontinued that therapy within 1 year prior to randomization.

Women in the intermittent treatment group were treated for the first 9 months of years 1-4 and for 12 months in year 5. Those in the continuous treatment group received 2.5 mg of letrozole daily for 5 years.

The adverse events were as expected, with 36.2% and 34.5% of patients in the intermittent and continuous treatment groups experiencing grade 3 or 5 events, respectively, and were similar, Dr. Colleoni said.

Treatment was discontinued for DFS events in 8% of patients and for other reasons in 24% of patients. Treatment was completed by 39% of patients and currently is ongoing in 29%, he said.

“When we designed the SOLE study, we were worried about ... the treatment gap. We’re delighted to observe that more than 90% of the patients regularly resumed [treatment] after interruption, ... reassuring [us of] the feasibility of a treatment gap during extended adjuvant letrozole,” he said.

Additionally, a quality of life substudy of 955 patients from the SOLE trial, who were assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, showed a consistent pattern favoring intermittent therapy on patient-reported quality of life measures. Specifically, there was significantly less worsening from baseline with respect to vaginal problems, musculoskeletal pain, sleep disturbance, physical wellbeing, and mood at 12 months in the intermittent vs. continuous letrozole group and significantly greater improvement in hot flashes at 24 months in the intermittent vs. continuous group, he said.

“The results ... provide clinically relevant information on intermittent administration of extended letrozole for patients who could benefit from temporary treatment breaks,” he concluded, noting that translational studies are ongoing, such as measurement of estradiol levels during treatment gaps.

The SOLE trial was supported by Novartis. Dr. Colleoni reported receiving honoraria from Novartis, and serving as a consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca, Celldex, OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Puma Biotechnology.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Five years of extended intermittent letrozole provided no overall improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) when compared with continuous treatment with the aromatase inhibitor among postmenopausal women who received 4-6 years of endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive, lymph node–positive early breast cancer in the randomized phase III Study of Letrozole Extension (SOLE).

However, the similarities in DFS and adverse events incidence in the intermittent and continuous treatment groups – and improvements in a number of quality of life measures with intermittent treatment – suggest that temporary treatment breaks are acceptable in those who could benefit from them, Marco Colleoni, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The DFS among 2,425 women who received 5 years of intermittent letrozole after completing 4-6 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy was 85.8%, compared with 87.5% among 2,426 women who received 5 years of continuous letrozole after adjuvant therapy (hazard ratio, 1.08) said Dr. Colleoni of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.

Similar outcomes were observed for breast cancer–free interval (HR, 0.98), distant recurrence-free interval (HR, 0.88), and overall survival (HR, 0.85), he said.

Of note, trends toward greater improvement on both the primary and secondary endpoints were seen with continuous therapy among those who received prior selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) vs. aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy, but the differences did not reach statistical significance, he said.

Adjuvant extended endocrine therapy with letrozole has been recommended after initial tamoxifen for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer, but the magnitude of the beneficial effect of extended letrozole in women who previously received an aromatase inhibitor has been limited, Dr. Colleoni said.

“Therefore, based on available data, the use of an AI for 10 years should be discussed on an individualized basis,” he said.

However, there is rationale for the intermittent use of letrozole as a therapeutic option to prolong sensitivity to endocrine therapies,” he noted.

“Breast cancer cells, in fact, can develop resistance following antihormonal therapy. In particular, cells that are maintained estrogen-free for years start to grow spontaneously. It has been shown ... that minimal concentrations of estrogen, similar to those achievable through interruption of treatment with aromatase inhibitors, can produce a cytocidal effect on cells that are deprived of estrogen,” he explained. “Moreover, in breast cancer cells transplanted into animal models, a response to a 6-week withdrawal of letrozole was observed when the treatment was started again.”

Thus, the SOLE study was designed to look at the value of extended adjuvant therapy in patients with HR+ breast cancer, the role of intermittent administration of letrozole in patients previously treated with AIs, the impact of intermittent vs. continuous administration on the side effect profile and quality of life and adherence to intermittent administration, he said.

Study participants were women with a median age of 60 years who were enrolled from 240 centers in 22 countries between November 2007 and July 2012. They had HR+ invasive breast cancer, any HER2 status, and disease confined to the breast and axillary lymph nodes. All had received SERM, AI, or combination SERM and AI treatment for 4-6 years but must have discontinued that therapy within 1 year prior to randomization.

Women in the intermittent treatment group were treated for the first 9 months of years 1-4 and for 12 months in year 5. Those in the continuous treatment group received 2.5 mg of letrozole daily for 5 years.

The adverse events were as expected, with 36.2% and 34.5% of patients in the intermittent and continuous treatment groups experiencing grade 3 or 5 events, respectively, and were similar, Dr. Colleoni said.

Treatment was discontinued for DFS events in 8% of patients and for other reasons in 24% of patients. Treatment was completed by 39% of patients and currently is ongoing in 29%, he said.

“When we designed the SOLE study, we were worried about ... the treatment gap. We’re delighted to observe that more than 90% of the patients regularly resumed [treatment] after interruption, ... reassuring [us of] the feasibility of a treatment gap during extended adjuvant letrozole,” he said.

Additionally, a quality of life substudy of 955 patients from the SOLE trial, who were assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, showed a consistent pattern favoring intermittent therapy on patient-reported quality of life measures. Specifically, there was significantly less worsening from baseline with respect to vaginal problems, musculoskeletal pain, sleep disturbance, physical wellbeing, and mood at 12 months in the intermittent vs. continuous letrozole group and significantly greater improvement in hot flashes at 24 months in the intermittent vs. continuous group, he said.

“The results ... provide clinically relevant information on intermittent administration of extended letrozole for patients who could benefit from temporary treatment breaks,” he concluded, noting that translational studies are ongoing, such as measurement of estradiol levels during treatment gaps.

The SOLE trial was supported by Novartis. Dr. Colleoni reported receiving honoraria from Novartis, and serving as a consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca, Celldex, OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Puma Biotechnology.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Five years of extended intermittent letrozole provided no overall improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) when compared with continuous treatment with the aromatase inhibitor among postmenopausal women who received 4-6 years of endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive, lymph node–positive early breast cancer in the randomized phase III Study of Letrozole Extension (SOLE).

However, the similarities in DFS and adverse events incidence in the intermittent and continuous treatment groups – and improvements in a number of quality of life measures with intermittent treatment – suggest that temporary treatment breaks are acceptable in those who could benefit from them, Marco Colleoni, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The DFS among 2,425 women who received 5 years of intermittent letrozole after completing 4-6 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy was 85.8%, compared with 87.5% among 2,426 women who received 5 years of continuous letrozole after adjuvant therapy (hazard ratio, 1.08) said Dr. Colleoni of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.

Similar outcomes were observed for breast cancer–free interval (HR, 0.98), distant recurrence-free interval (HR, 0.88), and overall survival (HR, 0.85), he said.

Of note, trends toward greater improvement on both the primary and secondary endpoints were seen with continuous therapy among those who received prior selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) vs. aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy, but the differences did not reach statistical significance, he said.

Adjuvant extended endocrine therapy with letrozole has been recommended after initial tamoxifen for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer, but the magnitude of the beneficial effect of extended letrozole in women who previously received an aromatase inhibitor has been limited, Dr. Colleoni said.

“Therefore, based on available data, the use of an AI for 10 years should be discussed on an individualized basis,” he said.

However, there is rationale for the intermittent use of letrozole as a therapeutic option to prolong sensitivity to endocrine therapies,” he noted.

“Breast cancer cells, in fact, can develop resistance following antihormonal therapy. In particular, cells that are maintained estrogen-free for years start to grow spontaneously. It has been shown ... that minimal concentrations of estrogen, similar to those achievable through interruption of treatment with aromatase inhibitors, can produce a cytocidal effect on cells that are deprived of estrogen,” he explained. “Moreover, in breast cancer cells transplanted into animal models, a response to a 6-week withdrawal of letrozole was observed when the treatment was started again.”

Thus, the SOLE study was designed to look at the value of extended adjuvant therapy in patients with HR+ breast cancer, the role of intermittent administration of letrozole in patients previously treated with AIs, the impact of intermittent vs. continuous administration on the side effect profile and quality of life and adherence to intermittent administration, he said.

Study participants were women with a median age of 60 years who were enrolled from 240 centers in 22 countries between November 2007 and July 2012. They had HR+ invasive breast cancer, any HER2 status, and disease confined to the breast and axillary lymph nodes. All had received SERM, AI, or combination SERM and AI treatment for 4-6 years but must have discontinued that therapy within 1 year prior to randomization.

Women in the intermittent treatment group were treated for the first 9 months of years 1-4 and for 12 months in year 5. Those in the continuous treatment group received 2.5 mg of letrozole daily for 5 years.

The adverse events were as expected, with 36.2% and 34.5% of patients in the intermittent and continuous treatment groups experiencing grade 3 or 5 events, respectively, and were similar, Dr. Colleoni said.

Treatment was discontinued for DFS events in 8% of patients and for other reasons in 24% of patients. Treatment was completed by 39% of patients and currently is ongoing in 29%, he said.

“When we designed the SOLE study, we were worried about ... the treatment gap. We’re delighted to observe that more than 90% of the patients regularly resumed [treatment] after interruption, ... reassuring [us of] the feasibility of a treatment gap during extended adjuvant letrozole,” he said.

Additionally, a quality of life substudy of 955 patients from the SOLE trial, who were assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, showed a consistent pattern favoring intermittent therapy on patient-reported quality of life measures. Specifically, there was significantly less worsening from baseline with respect to vaginal problems, musculoskeletal pain, sleep disturbance, physical wellbeing, and mood at 12 months in the intermittent vs. continuous letrozole group and significantly greater improvement in hot flashes at 24 months in the intermittent vs. continuous group, he said.

“The results ... provide clinically relevant information on intermittent administration of extended letrozole for patients who could benefit from temporary treatment breaks,” he concluded, noting that translational studies are ongoing, such as measurement of estradiol levels during treatment gaps.

The SOLE trial was supported by Novartis. Dr. Colleoni reported receiving honoraria from Novartis, and serving as a consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca, Celldex, OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Puma Biotechnology.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – HER2-positive/HR-negative breast tumors may have a different biology than HER2+/HR+ tumors and may derive more benefit from dual HER2 blockade, according to 5-year results from the phase III ALTTO trial comparing 1 year of adjuvant anti-HER2 therapy with lapatinib and trastuzumab alone, sequentially, or in combination in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer.

The hazard ratios for this preplanned updated analysis at a median of 6.9 years of follow-up (when all patients had reached 5 years of follow-up) are similar to those from the primary analysis reported at the 2014 ASCO annual meeting and published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2015 (J Clin Oncol. 2015;34:1034-42) at a median clinical follow-up of 4.5 years, Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In the current analysis, the rate of disease-free survival was 85% with combined lapatinib and trastuzumab (L+T), 84% for sequential trastuzumab and lapatinib (T–L), and 82% with T (hazard ratio for disease-free survival was 0.86 for L+T vs. T and 0.93 for T–L vs. T alone,) said Dr. Moreno-Aspitia of Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla.

“So, at this time, as noted in the primary analysis, there’s no benefit on the primary endpoint in regard to dual HER2 blockade as provided in this clinical trial,” he said.

There also were no significant differences seen in disease-free survival based on chemotherapy timing, he said.

Notably, disease-free survival was similar across treatment groups among patients with HER2+/HR+ tumors (85% for L+T, 85% to T–L, and 83% for T; HRs, 0.91 and 0.90 vs. T, respectively), but, among those with HER2+/HR– tumors, the 6-year disease-free survival difference for L+T (84%) vs. T (80%) was slightly greater (HR, 0.80).

“This is a hypothesis generating observation that also holds that possibly these patients with hormone receptor–negative tumors may derive benefit from dual HER2 blockade,” Dr. Moreno-Aspitia said, noting that this has also been observed in several other trials.

The 6-year overall survival in ALTTO was 93%, 92%, and 91% for L+T, T–L, and T, respectively (HRs for overall survival, 0.86 for L+T vs. T and 0.88 for T–L).

“At this time, there is absolutely no [overall survival] benefit on dual HER2 blockade over single agent trastuzumab. However, it is very rewarding to see that over 90% of the patients who participated in this trial are alive at this longer-term follow-up,” he said.

As for cardiac events, the numbers remained low as in the primary ALTTO analysis, and no new safety signals had emerged.

ALTTO study subjects were 8,381 patients randomized from 946 sites in 44 countries between June 2007 and July 2011. Those in the L+T group received both agents together for 52 weeks; those in the sequential treatment group received T for 12 weeks followed by a 6-week wash-out period, followed by lapatinib for 34 weeks; and those in the trastuzumab arm (the control arm) and the lapatinib arm each received treatment for 52 weeks. In 2011 the lapatinib arm was closed because of futility, and results for that arm are not included in this analysis.

Long-term follow up of participants continues, a large number of correlative studies are ongoing, and final results will be reported when all patients have been followed for at least 10 years, Dr. Moreno-Aspitia said.

The ALTTO trial was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. Dr. Moreno-Aspitia reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – HER2-positive/HR-negative breast tumors may have a different biology than HER2+/HR+ tumors and may derive more benefit from dual HER2 blockade, according to 5-year results from the phase III ALTTO trial comparing 1 year of adjuvant anti-HER2 therapy with lapatinib and trastuzumab alone, sequentially, or in combination in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer.

The hazard ratios for this preplanned updated analysis at a median of 6.9 years of follow-up (when all patients had reached 5 years of follow-up) are similar to those from the primary analysis reported at the 2014 ASCO annual meeting and published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2015 (J Clin Oncol. 2015;34:1034-42) at a median clinical follow-up of 4.5 years, Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In the current analysis, the rate of disease-free survival was 85% with combined lapatinib and trastuzumab (L+T), 84% for sequential trastuzumab and lapatinib (T–L), and 82% with T (hazard ratio for disease-free survival was 0.86 for L+T vs. T and 0.93 for T–L vs. T alone,) said Dr. Moreno-Aspitia of Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla.

“So, at this time, as noted in the primary analysis, there’s no benefit on the primary endpoint in regard to dual HER2 blockade as provided in this clinical trial,” he said.

There also were no significant differences seen in disease-free survival based on chemotherapy timing, he said.

Notably, disease-free survival was similar across treatment groups among patients with HER2+/HR+ tumors (85% for L+T, 85% to T–L, and 83% for T; HRs, 0.91 and 0.90 vs. T, respectively), but, among those with HER2+/HR– tumors, the 6-year disease-free survival difference for L+T (84%) vs. T (80%) was slightly greater (HR, 0.80).

“This is a hypothesis generating observation that also holds that possibly these patients with hormone receptor–negative tumors may derive benefit from dual HER2 blockade,” Dr. Moreno-Aspitia said, noting that this has also been observed in several other trials.

The 6-year overall survival in ALTTO was 93%, 92%, and 91% for L+T, T–L, and T, respectively (HRs for overall survival, 0.86 for L+T vs. T and 0.88 for T–L).

“At this time, there is absolutely no [overall survival] benefit on dual HER2 blockade over single agent trastuzumab. However, it is very rewarding to see that over 90% of the patients who participated in this trial are alive at this longer-term follow-up,” he said.

As for cardiac events, the numbers remained low as in the primary ALTTO analysis, and no new safety signals had emerged.

ALTTO study subjects were 8,381 patients randomized from 946 sites in 44 countries between June 2007 and July 2011. Those in the L+T group received both agents together for 52 weeks; those in the sequential treatment group received T for 12 weeks followed by a 6-week wash-out period, followed by lapatinib for 34 weeks; and those in the trastuzumab arm (the control arm) and the lapatinib arm each received treatment for 52 weeks. In 2011 the lapatinib arm was closed because of futility, and results for that arm are not included in this analysis.

Long-term follow up of participants continues, a large number of correlative studies are ongoing, and final results will be reported when all patients have been followed for at least 10 years, Dr. Moreno-Aspitia said.

The ALTTO trial was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. Dr. Moreno-Aspitia reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – HER2-positive/HR-negative breast tumors may have a different biology than HER2+/HR+ tumors and may derive more benefit from dual HER2 blockade, according to 5-year results from the phase III ALTTO trial comparing 1 year of adjuvant anti-HER2 therapy with lapatinib and trastuzumab alone, sequentially, or in combination in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer.

The hazard ratios for this preplanned updated analysis at a median of 6.9 years of follow-up (when all patients had reached 5 years of follow-up) are similar to those from the primary analysis reported at the 2014 ASCO annual meeting and published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2015 (J Clin Oncol. 2015;34:1034-42) at a median clinical follow-up of 4.5 years, Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In the current analysis, the rate of disease-free survival was 85% with combined lapatinib and trastuzumab (L+T), 84% for sequential trastuzumab and lapatinib (T–L), and 82% with T (hazard ratio for disease-free survival was 0.86 for L+T vs. T and 0.93 for T–L vs. T alone,) said Dr. Moreno-Aspitia of Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla.

“So, at this time, as noted in the primary analysis, there’s no benefit on the primary endpoint in regard to dual HER2 blockade as provided in this clinical trial,” he said.

There also were no significant differences seen in disease-free survival based on chemotherapy timing, he said.

Notably, disease-free survival was similar across treatment groups among patients with HER2+/HR+ tumors (85% for L+T, 85% to T–L, and 83% for T; HRs, 0.91 and 0.90 vs. T, respectively), but, among those with HER2+/HR– tumors, the 6-year disease-free survival difference for L+T (84%) vs. T (80%) was slightly greater (HR, 0.80).

“This is a hypothesis generating observation that also holds that possibly these patients with hormone receptor–negative tumors may derive benefit from dual HER2 blockade,” Dr. Moreno-Aspitia said, noting that this has also been observed in several other trials.

The 6-year overall survival in ALTTO was 93%, 92%, and 91% for L+T, T–L, and T, respectively (HRs for overall survival, 0.86 for L+T vs. T and 0.88 for T–L).

“At this time, there is absolutely no [overall survival] benefit on dual HER2 blockade over single agent trastuzumab. However, it is very rewarding to see that over 90% of the patients who participated in this trial are alive at this longer-term follow-up,” he said.

As for cardiac events, the numbers remained low as in the primary ALTTO analysis, and no new safety signals had emerged.

ALTTO study subjects were 8,381 patients randomized from 946 sites in 44 countries between June 2007 and July 2011. Those in the L+T group received both agents together for 52 weeks; those in the sequential treatment group received T for 12 weeks followed by a 6-week wash-out period, followed by lapatinib for 34 weeks; and those in the trastuzumab arm (the control arm) and the lapatinib arm each received treatment for 52 weeks. In 2011 the lapatinib arm was closed because of futility, and results for that arm are not included in this analysis.

Long-term follow up of participants continues, a large number of correlative studies are ongoing, and final results will be reported when all patients have been followed for at least 10 years, Dr. Moreno-Aspitia said.

The ALTTO trial was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. Dr. Moreno-Aspitia reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Woman at average risk for breast cancer should be offered their first screening mammogram at age 40, with initiation of screening beginning no later than age 50, according to new recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

ACOG suggested a screening interval of 1-2 years based on patient values and preferences.

©John Foxx/Thinkstockphotos

Woman at average risk for breast cancer should be offered their first screening mammogram at age 40, with initiation of screening beginning no later than age 50, according to new recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

ACOG suggested a screening interval of 1-2 years based on patient values and preferences.

©John Foxx/Thinkstockphotos

Woman at average risk for breast cancer should be offered their first screening mammogram at age 40, with initiation of screening beginning no later than age 50, according to new recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

ACOG suggested a screening interval of 1-2 years based on patient values and preferences.

©John Foxx/Thinkstockphotos

CHICAGO – William J. Gradishar, MD, outlines key research on breast cancer treatment presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In a video interview, Dr. Gradishar, the Betsy Bramsen Professor of Breast Oncology at Northwestern University, Chicago, discusses the take-home messages on pertuzumab for HER2+ breast cancer, PARP inhibitors for BRCA-mutated breast cancer, and CDK4/6 inhibitors for ER+ breast cancers.

In another video interview, Katherine O’Brien of the Metastatic Breast Cancer Network provides the patient advocate view on this years’ meeting.

[email protected]

On Twitter @NikolaidesLaura

CHICAGO – William J. Gradishar, MD, outlines key research on breast cancer treatment presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In a video interview, Dr. Gradishar, the Betsy Bramsen Professor of Breast Oncology at Northwestern University, Chicago, discusses the take-home messages on pertuzumab for HER2+ breast cancer, PARP inhibitors for BRCA-mutated breast cancer, and CDK4/6 inhibitors for ER+ breast cancers.

In another video interview, Katherine O’Brien of the Metastatic Breast Cancer Network provides the patient advocate view on this years’ meeting.

[email protected]

On Twitter @NikolaidesLaura

CHICAGO – William J. Gradishar, MD, outlines key research on breast cancer treatment presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In a video interview, Dr. Gradishar, the Betsy Bramsen Professor of Breast Oncology at Northwestern University, Chicago, discusses the take-home messages on pertuzumab for HER2+ breast cancer, PARP inhibitors for BRCA-mutated breast cancer, and CDK4/6 inhibitors for ER+ breast cancers.

In another video interview, Katherine O’Brien of the Metastatic Breast Cancer Network provides the patient advocate view on this years’ meeting.

[email protected]

On Twitter @NikolaidesLaura

CHICAGO – Nine weeks of treatment with trastuzumab resulted in comparable disease-free and overall survival to that seen with the standard 12 months of trastuzumab – with about one-third of the rate of severe cardiac toxicity – in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer in the Italian phase III multicenter Short-HER study.

The 5-year disease-free survival rate in 626 patients who received 9 weeks of trastuzumab was 87.5%, compared with 85.4% in 627 patients who received 1 year of trastuzumab therapy (hazard ratio, 1.15), Pier F. Conte, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (0.91-1.46) crossed the noninferiority margin set at 1.29 for this frequentist analysis, Dr. Conte of the University of Padova, Italy, said, noting that a subgroup analysis showed that patients with stage III disease and those with four or more positive lymph nodes – who together represented about 15% of the study population – had a disease-free survival advantage with longer treatment (HR, 2.30 and 2.25, respectively), and an interaction test was statistically significant.

However, a preplanned Bayesian analysis showed a 78% probability that the shorter treatment is not inferior to longer treatment for disease-free survival, he said.

The secondary endpoint of overall survival was also similar in the two groups (95.1% vs. 95.0%; HR, 1.06).

As for the secondary endpoint of cardiac events, the rate was 5.1% with shorter treatment vs. 14.4% with longer treatment. Grade 2 cardiac events occurred in 11.2% vs. 3.5% of patients in the treatment arms, respectively, and the grade 3 cardiac vents occurred in 2.7% vs. 1.1%, respectively. The rate of grade 4 events was 0.5% in both groups.

The overall difference between the groups with respect to cardiac events was highly statistically significant in favor of shorter treatment (HR, 0.32), Dr. Conte said.

Multiple studies have demonstrated the superiority of combining trastuzumab and adjuvant chemotherapy for HER2+ early breast cancer, and, following the release of some of those findings at the ASCO annual meeting in 2005, the agent was granted accelerated approval for this indication, Dr. Conte said.

“It was, however, clear that there were a number of reasons to believe that further investigation was appropriate on the optimal duration of trastuzumab duration,” he said, explaining that the same magnitude of benefit was reported by the small FinHER study with 9 weeks of trastuzumab and that clinical data suggest synergism of trastuzumab with chemotherapy.

“Finally, in the real world, there are patients at lower risk of relapse (more node-negative, more small tumors) and at higher risk of cardiac toxicity because of age or comorbidities,” he said. “So, the hypotheses behind the Short-HER [study] was that a shorter duration of trastuzumab administered concomitantly with chemotherapy might produce comparable efficacy with significantly lower toxicities and, of course, costs.”

Short-HER study subjects, who had a mean age of 55 years, had either HER2-positive, node-positive, or high-risk node-negative disease and were randomized to receive either the shorter treatment, including three courses of docetaxel given three times weekly plus trastuzumab given weekly for 9 doses, followed by three courses of 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, or standard 12-month treatment with four courses of anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by four courses of docetaxel in combination with trastuzumab given three times weekly, followed by 14 additional courses of trastuzumab given three times weekly (for a total of 18 3-times-weekly doses). Radiation therapy was administered when indicated after chemotherapy, and hormonal therapy was started after completion of chemotherapy in patients with hormone-receptor–positive tumors.

Based on the frequentist analysis, noninferiority of the shorter treatment approach cannot be claimed, but, according to the preplanned Bayesian analysis, noninferiority is likely, Dr. Conte said.

“One year of trastuzumab is still standard. The Short-Her trial, however, reinforces the hypothesis that treatment deescalation retains efficacy with less toxicity. A shorter treatment might be an option for patients at low risk of relapse and/or higher risk of cardiac toxicity,” he said. “Moreover, these results might facilitate trastuzumab to patients in low/middle income countries.”

Individual patient meta-analysis with other trials testing different durations of trastuzumab administration is ongoing, he noted.

The Short-HER study was funded by the Italian Drug Agency, and drugs and insurance coverage were supplied by the National Health System. The study was sponsored by the University of Modena & Regio Emilia and the University of Padova. Dr. Conte has served on the speakers’ bureau for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech and has received research funding and/or travel or other expenses from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Novartis.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Nine weeks of treatment with trastuzumab resulted in comparable disease-free and overall survival to that seen with the standard 12 months of trastuzumab – with about one-third of the rate of severe cardiac toxicity – in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer in the Italian phase III multicenter Short-HER study.

The 5-year disease-free survival rate in 626 patients who received 9 weeks of trastuzumab was 87.5%, compared with 85.4% in 627 patients who received 1 year of trastuzumab therapy (hazard ratio, 1.15), Pier F. Conte, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (0.91-1.46) crossed the noninferiority margin set at 1.29 for this frequentist analysis, Dr. Conte of the University of Padova, Italy, said, noting that a subgroup analysis showed that patients with stage III disease and those with four or more positive lymph nodes – who together represented about 15% of the study population – had a disease-free survival advantage with longer treatment (HR, 2.30 and 2.25, respectively), and an interaction test was statistically significant.

However, a preplanned Bayesian analysis showed a 78% probability that the shorter treatment is not inferior to longer treatment for disease-free survival, he said.

The secondary endpoint of overall survival was also similar in the two groups (95.1% vs. 95.0%; HR, 1.06).

As for the secondary endpoint of cardiac events, the rate was 5.1% with shorter treatment vs. 14.4% with longer treatment. Grade 2 cardiac events occurred in 11.2% vs. 3.5% of patients in the treatment arms, respectively, and the grade 3 cardiac vents occurred in 2.7% vs. 1.1%, respectively. The rate of grade 4 events was 0.5% in both groups.

The overall difference between the groups with respect to cardiac events was highly statistically significant in favor of shorter treatment (HR, 0.32), Dr. Conte said.

Multiple studies have demonstrated the superiority of combining trastuzumab and adjuvant chemotherapy for HER2+ early breast cancer, and, following the release of some of those findings at the ASCO annual meeting in 2005, the agent was granted accelerated approval for this indication, Dr. Conte said.

“It was, however, clear that there were a number of reasons to believe that further investigation was appropriate on the optimal duration of trastuzumab duration,” he said, explaining that the same magnitude of benefit was reported by the small FinHER study with 9 weeks of trastuzumab and that clinical data suggest synergism of trastuzumab with chemotherapy.

“Finally, in the real world, there are patients at lower risk of relapse (more node-negative, more small tumors) and at higher risk of cardiac toxicity because of age or comorbidities,” he said. “So, the hypotheses behind the Short-HER [study] was that a shorter duration of trastuzumab administered concomitantly with chemotherapy might produce comparable efficacy with significantly lower toxicities and, of course, costs.”

Short-HER study subjects, who had a mean age of 55 years, had either HER2-positive, node-positive, or high-risk node-negative disease and were randomized to receive either the shorter treatment, including three courses of docetaxel given three times weekly plus trastuzumab given weekly for 9 doses, followed by three courses of 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, or standard 12-month treatment with four courses of anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by four courses of docetaxel in combination with trastuzumab given three times weekly, followed by 14 additional courses of trastuzumab given three times weekly (for a total of 18 3-times-weekly doses). Radiation therapy was administered when indicated after chemotherapy, and hormonal therapy was started after completion of chemotherapy in patients with hormone-receptor–positive tumors.

Based on the frequentist analysis, noninferiority of the shorter treatment approach cannot be claimed, but, according to the preplanned Bayesian analysis, noninferiority is likely, Dr. Conte said.

“One year of trastuzumab is still standard. The Short-Her trial, however, reinforces the hypothesis that treatment deescalation retains efficacy with less toxicity. A shorter treatment might be an option for patients at low risk of relapse and/or higher risk of cardiac toxicity,” he said. “Moreover, these results might facilitate trastuzumab to patients in low/middle income countries.”

Individual patient meta-analysis with other trials testing different durations of trastuzumab administration is ongoing, he noted.

The Short-HER study was funded by the Italian Drug Agency, and drugs and insurance coverage were supplied by the National Health System. The study was sponsored by the University of Modena & Regio Emilia and the University of Padova. Dr. Conte has served on the speakers’ bureau for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech and has received research funding and/or travel or other expenses from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Novartis.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Nine weeks of treatment with trastuzumab resulted in comparable disease-free and overall survival to that seen with the standard 12 months of trastuzumab – with about one-third of the rate of severe cardiac toxicity – in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer in the Italian phase III multicenter Short-HER study.

The 5-year disease-free survival rate in 626 patients who received 9 weeks of trastuzumab was 87.5%, compared with 85.4% in 627 patients who received 1 year of trastuzumab therapy (hazard ratio, 1.15), Pier F. Conte, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (0.91-1.46) crossed the noninferiority margin set at 1.29 for this frequentist analysis, Dr. Conte of the University of Padova, Italy, said, noting that a subgroup analysis showed that patients with stage III disease and those with four or more positive lymph nodes – who together represented about 15% of the study population – had a disease-free survival advantage with longer treatment (HR, 2.30 and 2.25, respectively), and an interaction test was statistically significant.

However, a preplanned Bayesian analysis showed a 78% probability that the shorter treatment is not inferior to longer treatment for disease-free survival, he said.

The secondary endpoint of overall survival was also similar in the two groups (95.1% vs. 95.0%; HR, 1.06).

As for the secondary endpoint of cardiac events, the rate was 5.1% with shorter treatment vs. 14.4% with longer treatment. Grade 2 cardiac events occurred in 11.2% vs. 3.5% of patients in the treatment arms, respectively, and the grade 3 cardiac vents occurred in 2.7% vs. 1.1%, respectively. The rate of grade 4 events was 0.5% in both groups.

The overall difference between the groups with respect to cardiac events was highly statistically significant in favor of shorter treatment (HR, 0.32), Dr. Conte said.

Multiple studies have demonstrated the superiority of combining trastuzumab and adjuvant chemotherapy for HER2+ early breast cancer, and, following the release of some of those findings at the ASCO annual meeting in 2005, the agent was granted accelerated approval for this indication, Dr. Conte said.

“It was, however, clear that there were a number of reasons to believe that further investigation was appropriate on the optimal duration of trastuzumab duration,” he said, explaining that the same magnitude of benefit was reported by the small FinHER study with 9 weeks of trastuzumab and that clinical data suggest synergism of trastuzumab with chemotherapy.

“Finally, in the real world, there are patients at lower risk of relapse (more node-negative, more small tumors) and at higher risk of cardiac toxicity because of age or comorbidities,” he said. “So, the hypotheses behind the Short-HER [study] was that a shorter duration of trastuzumab administered concomitantly with chemotherapy might produce comparable efficacy with significantly lower toxicities and, of course, costs.”

Short-HER study subjects, who had a mean age of 55 years, had either HER2-positive, node-positive, or high-risk node-negative disease and were randomized to receive either the shorter treatment, including three courses of docetaxel given three times weekly plus trastuzumab given weekly for 9 doses, followed by three courses of 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, or standard 12-month treatment with four courses of anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by four courses of docetaxel in combination with trastuzumab given three times weekly, followed by 14 additional courses of trastuzumab given three times weekly (for a total of 18 3-times-weekly doses). Radiation therapy was administered when indicated after chemotherapy, and hormonal therapy was started after completion of chemotherapy in patients with hormone-receptor–positive tumors.

Based on the frequentist analysis, noninferiority of the shorter treatment approach cannot be claimed, but, according to the preplanned Bayesian analysis, noninferiority is likely, Dr. Conte said.

“One year of trastuzumab is still standard. The Short-Her trial, however, reinforces the hypothesis that treatment deescalation retains efficacy with less toxicity. A shorter treatment might be an option for patients at low risk of relapse and/or higher risk of cardiac toxicity,” he said. “Moreover, these results might facilitate trastuzumab to patients in low/middle income countries.”

Individual patient meta-analysis with other trials testing different durations of trastuzumab administration is ongoing, he noted.

The Short-HER study was funded by the Italian Drug Agency, and drugs and insurance coverage were supplied by the National Health System. The study was sponsored by the University of Modena & Regio Emilia and the University of Padova. Dr. Conte has served on the speakers’ bureau for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech and has received research funding and/or travel or other expenses from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Novartis.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – After Shirley A. Mertz, JD, was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, she was surprised to learn the government wasn’t counting people like her in data gathered on the disease. Only a minority of women with the disease – those diagnosed de novo – are included in Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data, she said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A recently published report by a National Cancer Institute mathematician and her associates estimates that about 155,000 women are living with metastatic breast cancer and that three-quarters of those women were initially diagnosed with lower-stage disease that progressed to stage IV. Ms. Mertz, president of the Metastatic Breast Cancer Network, says the estimate is a good start, but it’s important to go further and include those diagnosed with a metastatic recurrence in SEER data to get an accurate view.

“If we are not counted, then it appears we don’t matter, and how can we know if we are doing better if we don’t know how many of us are out there,” she said.

[email protected]

On Twitter @NikolaidesLaura

CHICAGO – After Shirley A. Mertz, JD, was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, she was surprised to learn the government wasn’t counting people like her in data gathered on the disease. Only a minority of women with the disease – those diagnosed de novo – are included in Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data, she said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A recently published report by a National Cancer Institute mathematician and her associates estimates that about 155,000 women are living with metastatic breast cancer and that three-quarters of those women were initially diagnosed with lower-stage disease that progressed to stage IV. Ms. Mertz, president of the Metastatic Breast Cancer Network, says the estimate is a good start, but it’s important to go further and include those diagnosed with a metastatic recurrence in SEER data to get an accurate view.

“If we are not counted, then it appears we don’t matter, and how can we know if we are doing better if we don’t know how many of us are out there,” she said.

[email protected]

On Twitter @NikolaidesLaura

CHICAGO – After Shirley A. Mertz, JD, was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, she was surprised to learn the government wasn’t counting people like her in data gathered on the disease. Only a minority of women with the disease – those diagnosed de novo – are included in Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data, she said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A recently published report by a National Cancer Institute mathematician and her associates estimates that about 155,000 women are living with metastatic breast cancer and that three-quarters of those women were initially diagnosed with lower-stage disease that progressed to stage IV. Ms. Mertz, president of the Metastatic Breast Cancer Network, says the estimate is a good start, but it’s important to go further and include those diagnosed with a metastatic recurrence in SEER data to get an accurate view.

“If we are not counted, then it appears we don’t matter, and how can we know if we are doing better if we don’t know how many of us are out there,” she said.

[email protected]

On Twitter @NikolaidesLaura

CHICAGO – Metastatic Trial Search was launched in 2015 by ClinicalTrials.org to make it easier for patients with metastatic breast cancer to consider clinical trials as a routine option as they are making treatment decisions with their physicians.

In a video interview, Shirley A. Mertz, JD, president of the Metastatic Breast Cancer Network, describes the tool, the mixed response from physicians, the barriers to trial participation still faced by patients, and the tweaked version 2.0 of the search tool, expected to launch by the end of this year.

[email protected]

On Twitter @nikolaideslaura

CHICAGO – Metastatic Trial Search was launched in 2015 by ClinicalTrials.org to make it easier for patients with metastatic breast cancer to consider clinical trials as a routine option as they are making treatment decisions with their physicians.

In a video interview, Shirley A. Mertz, JD, president of the Metastatic Breast Cancer Network, describes the tool, the mixed response from physicians, the barriers to trial participation still faced by patients, and the tweaked version 2.0 of the search tool, expected to launch by the end of this year.

[email protected]

On Twitter @nikolaideslaura

CHICAGO – Metastatic Trial Search was launched in 2015 by ClinicalTrials.org to make it easier for patients with metastatic breast cancer to consider clinical trials as a routine option as they are making treatment decisions with their physicians.

In a video interview, Shirley A. Mertz, JD, president of the Metastatic Breast Cancer Network, describes the tool, the mixed response from physicians, the barriers to trial participation still faced by patients, and the tweaked version 2.0 of the search tool, expected to launch by the end of this year.

[email protected]

On Twitter @nikolaideslaura

CHICAGO – The oral PARP inhibitor olaparib likely offers a new treatment option for patients with BRCA-related HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, according to results of the randomized phase III OlympiAD trial reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Inhibitors of PARP, or poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, exploit defective DNA repair due to BRCA mutations, lead author Mark E. Robson, MD, clinic director of the clinical genetics service and medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted in a press briefing.

“PARP inhibitors have already been approved for the treatment of ovarian cancer in patients with mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2, and recently in other circumstances. And there have been a couple of small studies that have suggested that breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers could also be responsive to PARP inhibitors,” he said.

Findings going forward

Although the trial was positive, the absolute difference in progression-free survival was just 2.8 months, and the curves converged over time, raising questions about potentially more efficacious PARP inhibitors or strategies for getting greater benefit out of olaparib.

“There are three PARP inhibitors in the developmental stage in breast cancer, and there are noncomparative trials and no really good ways to make a decision about which one is better,” Dr. Robson commented.

Several strategies are being explored for enhancing the benefit of these drugs, he continued. “One is combining it with a conventional chemotherapy agent, which is hard to do because of overlapping bone marrow toxicity, so it’s tough to get full doses of chemotherapy and full doses of PARP inhibitor in. Another is to combine it with other targeted agents that interact with components of the DNA damage repair pathway … and there are certainly combination therapy trials that are underway. And then third is … a combination of olaparib with an immuno-oncology agent.”

Additionally, some studies are evaluating expansion of PARP inhibitors to populations such as patients with triple-negative breast cancer who do not have an identifiable BRCA mutation, on the assumption that they have similar, somatic DNA defects that might be susceptible to this class of agents, according to Dr. Robson.

“The studies have been small and at least the initial ones have not been particularly encouraging,” he said. “But as mentioned, combination approaches now are being evaluated as a way to potentially ‘soup up’ the effect in a broader group of patients.”

Expert perspective

The OlympiAD trial represents a “major step forward in breast cancer” in terms of both translational medicine and precision medicine, according to ASCO President Daniel F. Hayes, MD, FACP, FASCO.

Study details

OlympiAD, which was funded by AstraZeneca, enrolled patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and a centrally confirmed germline (inherited) BRCA mutation who had received anthracyclines and taxanes, and up to two lines of chemotherapy for metastases.

They were randomized 2:1 to open-label treatment with either olaparib (300 mg., twice daily) or single-agent chemotherapy of the treating physician’s choice among three options (capecitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine). A tablet formulation and dose of olaparib were used that differ from the currently approved capsule formulation and dose to reduce pill burden, Dr. Robson noted.

The patients were about equally split between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, and between hormone receptor–positive disease and triple-negative disease, he reported. The majority (71%) had received chemotherapy for metastases, and a sizable minority (28%) had received prior platinum in the (neo)adjuvant or metastatic setting.

With a median follow-up of about 14.5 months, median progression-free survival assessed by central radiologic review was 7.0 months with olaparib and 4.2 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .0009).

The median time to investigator-reported second progression or death was also longer with olaparib (13.2 vs. 9.3 months; HR, 0.57; P = .0033).

Median overall survival was about 19-20 months in each group and not significantly different in an interim analysis.

The olaparib group had lower rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events (36.6% vs. 50.5%) and treatment discontinuation because of adverse events (4.9% vs. 7.7%).

The main adverse event of any grade with olaparib was nausea, which was usually mild; only about a quarter of affected patients required antiemetics, according to Dr. Robson. Patients also commonly experienced anemia, requiring transfusion in some cases, and fatigue.

Dr. Robson disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with McKesson and AstraZeneca; receives honoraria, travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from AstraZeneca; rand receives research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Myriad Genetics, Biomarin, Medivation, and Tesaro.
 

CHICAGO – The oral PARP inhibitor olaparib likely offers a new treatment option for patients with BRCA-related HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, according to results of the randomized phase III OlympiAD trial reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Inhibitors of PARP, or poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, exploit defective DNA repair due to BRCA mutations, lead author Mark E. Robson, MD, clinic director of the clinical genetics service and medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted in a press briefing.

“PARP inhibitors have already been approved for the treatment of ovarian cancer in patients with mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2, and recently in other circumstances. And there have been a couple of small studies that have suggested that breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers could also be responsive to PARP inhibitors,” he said.

Findings going forward

Although the trial was positive, the absolute difference in progression-free survival was just 2.8 months, and the curves converged over time, raising questions about potentially more efficacious PARP inhibitors or strategies for getting greater benefit out of olaparib.

“There are three PARP inhibitors in the developmental stage in breast cancer, and there are noncomparative trials and no really good ways to make a decision about which one is better,” Dr. Robson commented.

Several strategies are being explored for enhancing the benefit of these drugs, he continued. “One is combining it with a conventional chemotherapy agent, which is hard to do because of overlapping bone marrow toxicity, so it’s tough to get full doses of chemotherapy and full doses of PARP inhibitor in. Another is to combine it with other targeted agents that interact with components of the DNA damage repair pathway … and there are certainly combination therapy trials that are underway. And then third is … a combination of olaparib with an immuno-oncology agent.”

Additionally, some studies are evaluating expansion of PARP inhibitors to populations such as patients with triple-negative breast cancer who do not have an identifiable BRCA mutation, on the assumption that they have similar, somatic DNA defects that might be susceptible to this class of agents, according to Dr. Robson.

“The studies have been small and at least the initial ones have not been particularly encouraging,” he said. “But as mentioned, combination approaches now are being evaluated as a way to potentially ‘soup up’ the effect in a broader group of patients.”

Expert perspective

The OlympiAD trial represents a “major step forward in breast cancer” in terms of both translational medicine and precision medicine, according to ASCO President Daniel F. Hayes, MD, FACP, FASCO.

Study details

OlympiAD, which was funded by AstraZeneca, enrolled patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and a centrally confirmed germline (inherited) BRCA mutation who had received anthracyclines and taxanes, and up to two lines of chemotherapy for metastases.

They were randomized 2:1 to open-label treatment with either olaparib (300 mg., twice daily) or single-agent chemotherapy of the treating physician’s choice among three options (capecitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine). A tablet formulation and dose of olaparib were used that differ from the currently approved capsule formulation and dose to reduce pill burden, Dr. Robson noted.

The patients were about equally split between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, and between hormone receptor–positive disease and triple-negative disease, he reported. The majority (71%) had received chemotherapy for metastases, and a sizable minority (28%) had received prior platinum in the (neo)adjuvant or metastatic setting.

With a median follow-up of about 14.5 months, median progression-free survival assessed by central radiologic review was 7.0 months with olaparib and 4.2 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .0009).

The median time to investigator-reported second progression or death was also longer with olaparib (13.2 vs. 9.3 months; HR, 0.57; P = .0033).

Median overall survival was about 19-20 months in each group and not significantly different in an interim analysis.

The olaparib group had lower rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events (36.6% vs. 50.5%) and treatment discontinuation because of adverse events (4.9% vs. 7.7%).

The main adverse event of any grade with olaparib was nausea, which was usually mild; only about a quarter of affected patients required antiemetics, according to Dr. Robson. Patients also commonly experienced anemia, requiring transfusion in some cases, and fatigue.

Dr. Robson disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with McKesson and AstraZeneca; receives honoraria, travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from AstraZeneca; rand receives research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Myriad Genetics, Biomarin, Medivation, and Tesaro.
 

CHICAGO – The oral PARP inhibitor olaparib likely offers a new treatment option for patients with BRCA-related HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, according to results of the randomized phase III OlympiAD trial reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Inhibitors of PARP, or poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, exploit defective DNA repair due to BRCA mutations, lead author Mark E. Robson, MD, clinic director of the clinical genetics service and medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted in a press briefing.

“PARP inhibitors have already been approved for the treatment of ovarian cancer in patients with mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2, and recently in other circumstances. And there have been a couple of small studies that have suggested that breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers could also be responsive to PARP inhibitors,” he said.

Findings going forward

Although the trial was positive, the absolute difference in progression-free survival was just 2.8 months, and the curves converged over time, raising questions about potentially more efficacious PARP inhibitors or strategies for getting greater benefit out of olaparib.

“There are three PARP inhibitors in the developmental stage in breast cancer, and there are noncomparative trials and no really good ways to make a decision about which one is better,” Dr. Robson commented.

Several strategies are being explored for enhancing the benefit of these drugs, he continued. “One is combining it with a conventional chemotherapy agent, which is hard to do because of overlapping bone marrow toxicity, so it’s tough to get full doses of chemotherapy and full doses of PARP inhibitor in. Another is to combine it with other targeted agents that interact with components of the DNA damage repair pathway … and there are certainly combination therapy trials that are underway. And then third is … a combination of olaparib with an immuno-oncology agent.”

Additionally, some studies are evaluating expansion of PARP inhibitors to populations such as patients with triple-negative breast cancer who do not have an identifiable BRCA mutation, on the assumption that they have similar, somatic DNA defects that might be susceptible to this class of agents, according to Dr. Robson.

“The studies have been small and at least the initial ones have not been particularly encouraging,” he said. “But as mentioned, combination approaches now are being evaluated as a way to potentially ‘soup up’ the effect in a broader group of patients.”

Expert perspective

The OlympiAD trial represents a “major step forward in breast cancer” in terms of both translational medicine and precision medicine, according to ASCO President Daniel F. Hayes, MD, FACP, FASCO.

Study details

OlympiAD, which was funded by AstraZeneca, enrolled patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and a centrally confirmed germline (inherited) BRCA mutation who had received anthracyclines and taxanes, and up to two lines of chemotherapy for metastases.

They were randomized 2:1 to open-label treatment with either olaparib (300 mg., twice daily) or single-agent chemotherapy of the treating physician’s choice among three options (capecitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine). A tablet formulation and dose of olaparib were used that differ from the currently approved capsule formulation and dose to reduce pill burden, Dr. Robson noted.

The patients were about equally split between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, and between hormone receptor–positive disease and triple-negative disease, he reported. The majority (71%) had received chemotherapy for metastases, and a sizable minority (28%) had received prior platinum in the (neo)adjuvant or metastatic setting.

With a median follow-up of about 14.5 months, median progression-free survival assessed by central radiologic review was 7.0 months with olaparib and 4.2 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .0009).

The median time to investigator-reported second progression or death was also longer with olaparib (13.2 vs. 9.3 months; HR, 0.57; P = .0033).

Median overall survival was about 19-20 months in each group and not significantly different in an interim analysis.

The olaparib group had lower rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events (36.6% vs. 50.5%) and treatment discontinuation because of adverse events (4.9% vs. 7.7%).

The main adverse event of any grade with olaparib was nausea, which was usually mild; only about a quarter of affected patients required antiemetics, according to Dr. Robson. Patients also commonly experienced anemia, requiring transfusion in some cases, and fatigue.

Dr. Robson disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with McKesson and AstraZeneca; receives honoraria, travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from AstraZeneca; rand receives research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Myriad Genetics, Biomarin, Medivation, and Tesaro.
 

CHICAGO – Adding the anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody pertuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab significantly improved invasive disease-free survival in the randomized, placebo-controlled Adjuvant Pertuzumab and Herceptin in Initial Therapy (APHINITY) study of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer.

At a median follow-up of 45.4 months, invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) events occurred in 171 of 2,400 patients (7.1%) who received pertuzumab, compared with 210 of 2,405 patients (8.7%) who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.81). This 19% reduction in risk of an IDFS event was statistically significant, Gunter von Minckwitz, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The estimated IDFS rate at 3 years was 94.1% in the pertuzumab arm, and 93.2% in the placebo arm, said Dr. von Minckwitz of the German Breast Group, Neu-Isenburg.

Study subjects were patients with adequately excised HER2-positive, pT1-3 early breast cancer. Patients were randomized to receive adjuvant chemotherapy plus 1 year of either trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, or trastuzumab plus placebo.

In a video interview, Dr. von Minckwitz discusses the study results, including outcomes in node-positive vs. node-negative patients, early overall survival findings, and safety.

“We are using pertuzumab right now in many countries for the neoadjuvant setting,” he said, explaining that existing approvals were granted conditionally in the absence of evidence regarding long-term benefits. “With the APHINITY study ... use of pertuzumab either in the neoadjuvant setting or in the higher-risk adjuvant setting is something that is supported now with evidence.”

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Adding the anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody pertuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab significantly improved invasive disease-free survival in the randomized, placebo-controlled Adjuvant Pertuzumab and Herceptin in Initial Therapy (APHINITY) study of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer.

At a median follow-up of 45.4 months, invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) events occurred in 171 of 2,400 patients (7.1%) who received pertuzumab, compared with 210 of 2,405 patients (8.7%) who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.81). This 19% reduction in risk of an IDFS event was statistically significant, Gunter von Minckwitz, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The estimated IDFS rate at 3 years was 94.1% in the pertuzumab arm, and 93.2% in the placebo arm, said Dr. von Minckwitz of the German Breast Group, Neu-Isenburg.

Study subjects were patients with adequately excised HER2-positive, pT1-3 early breast cancer. Patients were randomized to receive adjuvant chemotherapy plus 1 year of either trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, or trastuzumab plus placebo.

In a video interview, Dr. von Minckwitz discusses the study results, including outcomes in node-positive vs. node-negative patients, early overall survival findings, and safety.

“We are using pertuzumab right now in many countries for the neoadjuvant setting,” he said, explaining that existing approvals were granted conditionally in the absence of evidence regarding long-term benefits. “With the APHINITY study ... use of pertuzumab either in the neoadjuvant setting or in the higher-risk adjuvant setting is something that is supported now with evidence.”

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Adding the anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody pertuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab significantly improved invasive disease-free survival in the randomized, placebo-controlled Adjuvant Pertuzumab and Herceptin in Initial Therapy (APHINITY) study of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer.

At a median follow-up of 45.4 months, invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) events occurred in 171 of 2,400 patients (7.1%) who received pertuzumab, compared with 210 of 2,405 patients (8.7%) who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.81). This 19% reduction in risk of an IDFS event was statistically significant, Gunter von Minckwitz, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The estimated IDFS rate at 3 years was 94.1% in the pertuzumab arm, and 93.2% in the placebo arm, said Dr. von Minckwitz of the German Breast Group, Neu-Isenburg.

Study subjects were patients with adequately excised HER2-positive, pT1-3 early breast cancer. Patients were randomized to receive adjuvant chemotherapy plus 1 year of either trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, or trastuzumab plus placebo.

In a video interview, Dr. von Minckwitz discusses the study results, including outcomes in node-positive vs. node-negative patients, early overall survival findings, and safety.

“We are using pertuzumab right now in many countries for the neoadjuvant setting,” he said, explaining that existing approvals were granted conditionally in the absence of evidence regarding long-term benefits. “With the APHINITY study ... use of pertuzumab either in the neoadjuvant setting or in the higher-risk adjuvant setting is something that is supported now with evidence.”

[email protected]