User login
Divergent findings with paclitaxel and nab-paclitaxel in TNBC
The trials, IMpassion130 and IMpassion131, both enrolled patients with metastatic or unresectable, locally advanced TNBC.
In IMpassion131, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.
In IMpassion130, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel did not improve OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population but did provide a “clinically meaningful” improvement in OS among PD-L1-positive patients, according to investigators.
IMpassion130 and IMpassion131 were presented during the same session at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Virtual Congress 2020.
Potential reasons for the different outcomes in the two studies require further exploration, according to David Miles, MD, of Mount Vernon Cancer Centre in Northwood, England, who presented the findings from IMpassion131.
ESMO discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, posited three possible explanations for the divergent findings. The steroids necessary with paclitaxel dosing may have had a negative effect on immune checkpoint inhibitor activity, differences in study populations may have played a role, or the divergent findings could be caused by chance.
Steroid use in IMpassion131 could have played a negative role because of its lympholytic activity, but other indications with steroid use have not demonstrated attenuated benefits, said Leisha A. Emens, MD, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who presented the findings from IMpassion130 at ESMO 2020.
“If I were a patient, based on the data to date, I would want nab-paclitaxel with atezolizumab,” Dr. Emens said.
Trial details
Both trials are phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of women with metastatic or unresectable locally advanced TNBC who had received no prior therapy for advanced TNBC.
IMpassion130 included 451 patients randomized to atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and 451 randomized to placebo plus nab-paclitaxel. Patients received nab-paclitaxel at a starting dose of 100 mg/m2 via IV infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle for at least six cycles.
In both studies, patients received atezolizumab at 840 mg on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle in their active treatment arms.
IMpassion131 included 651 patients randomized 2:1 to atezolizumab plus paclitaxel (n = 431) or placebo plus paclitaxel (n = 220). Patients received paclitaxel at 90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms in both studies. Less than half of patients – 45% in IMpassion131 and 41% in IMpassion130 – were PD-L1 positive.
Results of IMpassion131
The primary endpoint in IMpassion131 was PFS, and there was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms.
“The primary objective of IMpassion131 was not met,” Dr. Miles said. “[The] addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not significantly improve PFS in patients with PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.”
In the PD-L1-positive population, the median PFS was 5.7 months in the placebo arm and 6.0 months in the atezolizumab arm (stratified hazard ratio, 0.82, P = .20).
In the ITT population, the median PFS was 5.6 months in the control arm and 5.7 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.86).
In subgroup analyses, Dr. Miles noted, “There was no clue about adverse or beneficial effects in any subgroup.”
The updated OS analysis demonstrated no benefit with atezolizumab in the ITT population or the PD-L1-positive population. In fact, there was a trend toward better OS for the control group in the latter analysis.
In the PD-L1-positive population, the median OS was 28.3 months in the control arm and 22.1 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 1.12). The 2-year OS rates were 51% and 49%, respectively.
In the ITT population, the median OS was 22.8 months in the control arm and 19.2 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 1.11). The 2-year OS rates were 45% and 42%, respectively.
The safety profile of the atezolizumab-paclitaxel combination was consistent with known side effects of the individual drugs, Dr. Miles said. There were four fatal treatment-related adverse events in the atezolizumab arm.
Results of IMpassion130
Presenting the final OS analysis from IMpassion130, Dr. Emens noted that the study’s findings have led to recommendations for atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive TNBC in international guidelines.
The median OS in the ITT population was 18.7 months in the placebo arm and 21.0 months in the atezolizumab arm (stratified HR, 0.87, P = .077). The 3-year OS rates were 25% and 28%, respectively.
The median OS in the PD-L1-positive population was 17.9 months in the placebo arm and 25.4 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.67). The 3-year OS rates were 22% and 36%, respectively.
A P value is not available for the between-arm OS comparison in the PD-L1-positive population. OS was not formally tested in this group because the OS boundary for statistical significance was not crossed in the ITT population. However, Dr. Emens said there was a “clinically meaningful” OS benefit observed with atezolizumab in the PD-L1-positive patients.
Treatment withdrawals caused by adverse events were more common in the atezolizumab arm (19% vs. 8%). The most common of these was neuropathy, Dr. Emens said. However, she noted that atezolizumab-related adverse events were generally low grade and easily managed.
“These results support a positive benefit-risk profile for atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line therapy in patients with PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Emens concluded.
Both studies were funded by F. Hoffman–La Roche. Dr. Miles, Dr. Emens, and Dr. Carey disclosed financial relationships with Roche and other companies.
SOURCES: Miles D et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA15; Emens LA et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA16.
The trials, IMpassion130 and IMpassion131, both enrolled patients with metastatic or unresectable, locally advanced TNBC.
In IMpassion131, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.
In IMpassion130, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel did not improve OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population but did provide a “clinically meaningful” improvement in OS among PD-L1-positive patients, according to investigators.
IMpassion130 and IMpassion131 were presented during the same session at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Virtual Congress 2020.
Potential reasons for the different outcomes in the two studies require further exploration, according to David Miles, MD, of Mount Vernon Cancer Centre in Northwood, England, who presented the findings from IMpassion131.
ESMO discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, posited three possible explanations for the divergent findings. The steroids necessary with paclitaxel dosing may have had a negative effect on immune checkpoint inhibitor activity, differences in study populations may have played a role, or the divergent findings could be caused by chance.
Steroid use in IMpassion131 could have played a negative role because of its lympholytic activity, but other indications with steroid use have not demonstrated attenuated benefits, said Leisha A. Emens, MD, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who presented the findings from IMpassion130 at ESMO 2020.
“If I were a patient, based on the data to date, I would want nab-paclitaxel with atezolizumab,” Dr. Emens said.
Trial details
Both trials are phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of women with metastatic or unresectable locally advanced TNBC who had received no prior therapy for advanced TNBC.
IMpassion130 included 451 patients randomized to atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and 451 randomized to placebo plus nab-paclitaxel. Patients received nab-paclitaxel at a starting dose of 100 mg/m2 via IV infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle for at least six cycles.
In both studies, patients received atezolizumab at 840 mg on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle in their active treatment arms.
IMpassion131 included 651 patients randomized 2:1 to atezolizumab plus paclitaxel (n = 431) or placebo plus paclitaxel (n = 220). Patients received paclitaxel at 90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms in both studies. Less than half of patients – 45% in IMpassion131 and 41% in IMpassion130 – were PD-L1 positive.
Results of IMpassion131
The primary endpoint in IMpassion131 was PFS, and there was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms.
“The primary objective of IMpassion131 was not met,” Dr. Miles said. “[The] addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not significantly improve PFS in patients with PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.”
In the PD-L1-positive population, the median PFS was 5.7 months in the placebo arm and 6.0 months in the atezolizumab arm (stratified hazard ratio, 0.82, P = .20).
In the ITT population, the median PFS was 5.6 months in the control arm and 5.7 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.86).
In subgroup analyses, Dr. Miles noted, “There was no clue about adverse or beneficial effects in any subgroup.”
The updated OS analysis demonstrated no benefit with atezolizumab in the ITT population or the PD-L1-positive population. In fact, there was a trend toward better OS for the control group in the latter analysis.
In the PD-L1-positive population, the median OS was 28.3 months in the control arm and 22.1 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 1.12). The 2-year OS rates were 51% and 49%, respectively.
In the ITT population, the median OS was 22.8 months in the control arm and 19.2 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 1.11). The 2-year OS rates were 45% and 42%, respectively.
The safety profile of the atezolizumab-paclitaxel combination was consistent with known side effects of the individual drugs, Dr. Miles said. There were four fatal treatment-related adverse events in the atezolizumab arm.
Results of IMpassion130
Presenting the final OS analysis from IMpassion130, Dr. Emens noted that the study’s findings have led to recommendations for atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive TNBC in international guidelines.
The median OS in the ITT population was 18.7 months in the placebo arm and 21.0 months in the atezolizumab arm (stratified HR, 0.87, P = .077). The 3-year OS rates were 25% and 28%, respectively.
The median OS in the PD-L1-positive population was 17.9 months in the placebo arm and 25.4 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.67). The 3-year OS rates were 22% and 36%, respectively.
A P value is not available for the between-arm OS comparison in the PD-L1-positive population. OS was not formally tested in this group because the OS boundary for statistical significance was not crossed in the ITT population. However, Dr. Emens said there was a “clinically meaningful” OS benefit observed with atezolizumab in the PD-L1-positive patients.
Treatment withdrawals caused by adverse events were more common in the atezolizumab arm (19% vs. 8%). The most common of these was neuropathy, Dr. Emens said. However, she noted that atezolizumab-related adverse events were generally low grade and easily managed.
“These results support a positive benefit-risk profile for atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line therapy in patients with PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Emens concluded.
Both studies were funded by F. Hoffman–La Roche. Dr. Miles, Dr. Emens, and Dr. Carey disclosed financial relationships with Roche and other companies.
SOURCES: Miles D et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA15; Emens LA et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA16.
The trials, IMpassion130 and IMpassion131, both enrolled patients with metastatic or unresectable, locally advanced TNBC.
In IMpassion131, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.
In IMpassion130, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel did not improve OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population but did provide a “clinically meaningful” improvement in OS among PD-L1-positive patients, according to investigators.
IMpassion130 and IMpassion131 were presented during the same session at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Virtual Congress 2020.
Potential reasons for the different outcomes in the two studies require further exploration, according to David Miles, MD, of Mount Vernon Cancer Centre in Northwood, England, who presented the findings from IMpassion131.
ESMO discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, posited three possible explanations for the divergent findings. The steroids necessary with paclitaxel dosing may have had a negative effect on immune checkpoint inhibitor activity, differences in study populations may have played a role, or the divergent findings could be caused by chance.
Steroid use in IMpassion131 could have played a negative role because of its lympholytic activity, but other indications with steroid use have not demonstrated attenuated benefits, said Leisha A. Emens, MD, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who presented the findings from IMpassion130 at ESMO 2020.
“If I were a patient, based on the data to date, I would want nab-paclitaxel with atezolizumab,” Dr. Emens said.
Trial details
Both trials are phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of women with metastatic or unresectable locally advanced TNBC who had received no prior therapy for advanced TNBC.
IMpassion130 included 451 patients randomized to atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and 451 randomized to placebo plus nab-paclitaxel. Patients received nab-paclitaxel at a starting dose of 100 mg/m2 via IV infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle for at least six cycles.
In both studies, patients received atezolizumab at 840 mg on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle in their active treatment arms.
IMpassion131 included 651 patients randomized 2:1 to atezolizumab plus paclitaxel (n = 431) or placebo plus paclitaxel (n = 220). Patients received paclitaxel at 90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms in both studies. Less than half of patients – 45% in IMpassion131 and 41% in IMpassion130 – were PD-L1 positive.
Results of IMpassion131
The primary endpoint in IMpassion131 was PFS, and there was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms.
“The primary objective of IMpassion131 was not met,” Dr. Miles said. “[The] addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not significantly improve PFS in patients with PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.”
In the PD-L1-positive population, the median PFS was 5.7 months in the placebo arm and 6.0 months in the atezolizumab arm (stratified hazard ratio, 0.82, P = .20).
In the ITT population, the median PFS was 5.6 months in the control arm and 5.7 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.86).
In subgroup analyses, Dr. Miles noted, “There was no clue about adverse or beneficial effects in any subgroup.”
The updated OS analysis demonstrated no benefit with atezolizumab in the ITT population or the PD-L1-positive population. In fact, there was a trend toward better OS for the control group in the latter analysis.
In the PD-L1-positive population, the median OS was 28.3 months in the control arm and 22.1 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 1.12). The 2-year OS rates were 51% and 49%, respectively.
In the ITT population, the median OS was 22.8 months in the control arm and 19.2 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 1.11). The 2-year OS rates were 45% and 42%, respectively.
The safety profile of the atezolizumab-paclitaxel combination was consistent with known side effects of the individual drugs, Dr. Miles said. There were four fatal treatment-related adverse events in the atezolizumab arm.
Results of IMpassion130
Presenting the final OS analysis from IMpassion130, Dr. Emens noted that the study’s findings have led to recommendations for atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive TNBC in international guidelines.
The median OS in the ITT population was 18.7 months in the placebo arm and 21.0 months in the atezolizumab arm (stratified HR, 0.87, P = .077). The 3-year OS rates were 25% and 28%, respectively.
The median OS in the PD-L1-positive population was 17.9 months in the placebo arm and 25.4 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.67). The 3-year OS rates were 22% and 36%, respectively.
A P value is not available for the between-arm OS comparison in the PD-L1-positive population. OS was not formally tested in this group because the OS boundary for statistical significance was not crossed in the ITT population. However, Dr. Emens said there was a “clinically meaningful” OS benefit observed with atezolizumab in the PD-L1-positive patients.
Treatment withdrawals caused by adverse events were more common in the atezolizumab arm (19% vs. 8%). The most common of these was neuropathy, Dr. Emens said. However, she noted that atezolizumab-related adverse events were generally low grade and easily managed.
“These results support a positive benefit-risk profile for atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line therapy in patients with PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Emens concluded.
Both studies were funded by F. Hoffman–La Roche. Dr. Miles, Dr. Emens, and Dr. Carey disclosed financial relationships with Roche and other companies.
SOURCES: Miles D et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA15; Emens LA et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA16.
FROM ESMO 2020
First-in-class ADC ups survival in mTNBC
The first-in-class drug is directed at trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2), which is highly expressed in breast cancer. Research on the drug was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
ASCENT randomly assigned more than 500 patients who had metastatic TNBC and who had experienced disease progression after a median of four lines of therapy to receive either SG or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. SG significantly improved median progression-free survival (5.6 vs 1.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; P < .0001) and median overall survival (12.1 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.48; P < .0001).
The response rate was 35% for SG vs 5% for chemotherapy (P < .0001).
The study was presented by Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
He said that because the safety profile of SG is consistent with previous reports and the treatment discontinuation rate was low, the clinical benefit “confirms the use of sacituzumab govitecan” in metastatic TNBC. This was a reference to the fact that the drug previously received accelerated approval on the basis of early data.
Bardia added that ongoing studies are evaluating the use of SG in earlier lines of therapy, including neoadjuvant settings in combination with other targeted agents, as well as in hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer. One such study is the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 study, which is actively accruing patients.
Invited discussant Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal, said the treatment algorithm for the management of TNBC will need to be updated in light of these results.
“In my opinion, we should now add sacituzumab govitecan as a new treatment option for patients treated with two or more lines of therapy,” she said.
She noted that the study design raised some questions over the way such trials should be conducted and the future sequencing of treatments.
Objections to study design and execution
Discussant Cardoso said the choice of progression-free survival as the primary endpoint for the trial was not ideal.
“In the metastatic setting, and particularly for triple-negative breast cancer, where the median survival is quite low and where each line of treatment, particularly after the second line, has a short duration, the primary endpoint should have been overall survival,” she commented.
“Luckily, we saw some results, but we could have missed it,” Cardoso said. She made “a plea to make sure that overall survival is at least the co–primary endpoint” in the future.
Cardoso also said it was not clear to her why the trial had to be stopped. “For the current patients, if there is no crossover, there is no benefit in stopping the trial,” she said.
She went on: “For future patients, it’s better to have the final results sufficiently powered.” She noted that the benefit seen in ASCENT was “moderate” and “so not a substantial breakthrough.” She added that it was “important not to stop trials too early.”
On the positive side, Cardoso said the median number of previous lines of therapy was “quite remarkable for this subtype, and it is important then for us to discuss sequencing,” particularly given that so many patients received checkpoint inhibitors before entering the trial.
Safety and a focus on diarrhea
Investigator Bardia explained that SG is an antibody-drug conjugate directed at Trop-2, which is highly expressed in breast cancer.
The antibody is linked to SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan, via a hydrolyzable linker that makes internalization and enzymatic cleavage by tumor cells unnecessary.
Hydrolysis of the linker releases SN-38 both within the tumor cell and extracellularly to induce a so-called bystander effect, in which neighboring tumors cells may be killed even if they do not express Trop-2.
On the basis of positive results from phase 1/2 trial data, SG was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with metastatic TNBC who experience disease progression after at least two prior therapies.
ASCENT was therefore a phase 3 confirmatory study. Patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous SG on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or to receive physician’s choice of treatment.
Physicians could choose eribulin, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.
The patients continued receiving treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. On the unanimous recommendation of the data safety monitoring committee, the trial was ended early because of “compelling evidence of efficacy.”
In all, 267 patients were randomly assigned to receive SG. Of those patients, 15 remain on treatment. Treatment was discontinued for 199 patients who experienced disease progression. In the control arm, 262 patients were included, none of whom are still on treatment; 166 discontinued because of disease progression.
The current analysis is limited to 235 patients in the SG group and, in the control arm, 233 patients who did not have brain metastases. Patients with brain metastases will be the subject of a later analysis.
All but one patient in both treatment groups were women. The median age was approximately 54 years. The median number of prior treatment regimens was four. All patients had previously received chemotherapy, and between 26% and 29% have taken checkpoint inhibitors.
By the data cutoff of March 11, 2020, patients had received a median of seven treatment cycles with SG. Progression-free survival was adjudicated by blind, independent central review. The median duration of response was of borderline significance, at 6.3 months vs 3.6 months (P = .057).
Bardia showed that the results were consistent among all subgroups, including subgroups determined on the basis of age, number of prior therapies, whether patients had received prior immune checkpoint therapy, and the presence of liver metastases.
With respect to safety, the important grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (seen in 51% of SG patients vs 33% of patients in the control arm), diarrhea (10% vs <1%), leukopenia (10% vs 5%), anemia (8% vs 5%), and febrile neutropenia (6% vs 2%).
Despite the fact that the adverse event rate was higher with SG than with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, the percentage of such events that led to treatment discontinuation was numerically lower, at 4.7% vs 5.4%.
Cardoso highlighted the “substantial percentage” of patients with diarrhea and nausea in the trial and noted that “all grades” of these adverse events “affect quality of life.”
The focus therefore should be on patient education, prophylaxis, and “the early management of side effects,” she said.
This point was taken up in the postpresentation debate. Bardia said the high rate of diarrhea “likely relates to the toxic payload, which is SN-38, which is known to cause diarrhea.
“Loperamide or immodium prophylaxis can be used in patients who receive this drug, and in general, our experience with the use of sacituzumab govitecan is you can control the diarrhea,” Bardia said.
He added: “There is also a different side effect that occurs during the infusion of SG, which is abdominal cramping and diarrhea, and that’s more of a cholinergic reaction. For that, atropine is the best medication to use.”
The study was funded by Immunomedics Inc. Bardia has disclosed financial ties with Immunomedics and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Cardoso has disclosed financial ties to multiple drug companies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first-in-class drug is directed at trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2), which is highly expressed in breast cancer. Research on the drug was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
ASCENT randomly assigned more than 500 patients who had metastatic TNBC and who had experienced disease progression after a median of four lines of therapy to receive either SG or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. SG significantly improved median progression-free survival (5.6 vs 1.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; P < .0001) and median overall survival (12.1 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.48; P < .0001).
The response rate was 35% for SG vs 5% for chemotherapy (P < .0001).
The study was presented by Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
He said that because the safety profile of SG is consistent with previous reports and the treatment discontinuation rate was low, the clinical benefit “confirms the use of sacituzumab govitecan” in metastatic TNBC. This was a reference to the fact that the drug previously received accelerated approval on the basis of early data.
Bardia added that ongoing studies are evaluating the use of SG in earlier lines of therapy, including neoadjuvant settings in combination with other targeted agents, as well as in hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer. One such study is the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 study, which is actively accruing patients.
Invited discussant Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal, said the treatment algorithm for the management of TNBC will need to be updated in light of these results.
“In my opinion, we should now add sacituzumab govitecan as a new treatment option for patients treated with two or more lines of therapy,” she said.
She noted that the study design raised some questions over the way such trials should be conducted and the future sequencing of treatments.
Objections to study design and execution
Discussant Cardoso said the choice of progression-free survival as the primary endpoint for the trial was not ideal.
“In the metastatic setting, and particularly for triple-negative breast cancer, where the median survival is quite low and where each line of treatment, particularly after the second line, has a short duration, the primary endpoint should have been overall survival,” she commented.
“Luckily, we saw some results, but we could have missed it,” Cardoso said. She made “a plea to make sure that overall survival is at least the co–primary endpoint” in the future.
Cardoso also said it was not clear to her why the trial had to be stopped. “For the current patients, if there is no crossover, there is no benefit in stopping the trial,” she said.
She went on: “For future patients, it’s better to have the final results sufficiently powered.” She noted that the benefit seen in ASCENT was “moderate” and “so not a substantial breakthrough.” She added that it was “important not to stop trials too early.”
On the positive side, Cardoso said the median number of previous lines of therapy was “quite remarkable for this subtype, and it is important then for us to discuss sequencing,” particularly given that so many patients received checkpoint inhibitors before entering the trial.
Safety and a focus on diarrhea
Investigator Bardia explained that SG is an antibody-drug conjugate directed at Trop-2, which is highly expressed in breast cancer.
The antibody is linked to SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan, via a hydrolyzable linker that makes internalization and enzymatic cleavage by tumor cells unnecessary.
Hydrolysis of the linker releases SN-38 both within the tumor cell and extracellularly to induce a so-called bystander effect, in which neighboring tumors cells may be killed even if they do not express Trop-2.
On the basis of positive results from phase 1/2 trial data, SG was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with metastatic TNBC who experience disease progression after at least two prior therapies.
ASCENT was therefore a phase 3 confirmatory study. Patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous SG on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or to receive physician’s choice of treatment.
Physicians could choose eribulin, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.
The patients continued receiving treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. On the unanimous recommendation of the data safety monitoring committee, the trial was ended early because of “compelling evidence of efficacy.”
In all, 267 patients were randomly assigned to receive SG. Of those patients, 15 remain on treatment. Treatment was discontinued for 199 patients who experienced disease progression. In the control arm, 262 patients were included, none of whom are still on treatment; 166 discontinued because of disease progression.
The current analysis is limited to 235 patients in the SG group and, in the control arm, 233 patients who did not have brain metastases. Patients with brain metastases will be the subject of a later analysis.
All but one patient in both treatment groups were women. The median age was approximately 54 years. The median number of prior treatment regimens was four. All patients had previously received chemotherapy, and between 26% and 29% have taken checkpoint inhibitors.
By the data cutoff of March 11, 2020, patients had received a median of seven treatment cycles with SG. Progression-free survival was adjudicated by blind, independent central review. The median duration of response was of borderline significance, at 6.3 months vs 3.6 months (P = .057).
Bardia showed that the results were consistent among all subgroups, including subgroups determined on the basis of age, number of prior therapies, whether patients had received prior immune checkpoint therapy, and the presence of liver metastases.
With respect to safety, the important grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (seen in 51% of SG patients vs 33% of patients in the control arm), diarrhea (10% vs <1%), leukopenia (10% vs 5%), anemia (8% vs 5%), and febrile neutropenia (6% vs 2%).
Despite the fact that the adverse event rate was higher with SG than with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, the percentage of such events that led to treatment discontinuation was numerically lower, at 4.7% vs 5.4%.
Cardoso highlighted the “substantial percentage” of patients with diarrhea and nausea in the trial and noted that “all grades” of these adverse events “affect quality of life.”
The focus therefore should be on patient education, prophylaxis, and “the early management of side effects,” she said.
This point was taken up in the postpresentation debate. Bardia said the high rate of diarrhea “likely relates to the toxic payload, which is SN-38, which is known to cause diarrhea.
“Loperamide or immodium prophylaxis can be used in patients who receive this drug, and in general, our experience with the use of sacituzumab govitecan is you can control the diarrhea,” Bardia said.
He added: “There is also a different side effect that occurs during the infusion of SG, which is abdominal cramping and diarrhea, and that’s more of a cholinergic reaction. For that, atropine is the best medication to use.”
The study was funded by Immunomedics Inc. Bardia has disclosed financial ties with Immunomedics and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Cardoso has disclosed financial ties to multiple drug companies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first-in-class drug is directed at trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2), which is highly expressed in breast cancer. Research on the drug was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
ASCENT randomly assigned more than 500 patients who had metastatic TNBC and who had experienced disease progression after a median of four lines of therapy to receive either SG or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. SG significantly improved median progression-free survival (5.6 vs 1.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; P < .0001) and median overall survival (12.1 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.48; P < .0001).
The response rate was 35% for SG vs 5% for chemotherapy (P < .0001).
The study was presented by Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
He said that because the safety profile of SG is consistent with previous reports and the treatment discontinuation rate was low, the clinical benefit “confirms the use of sacituzumab govitecan” in metastatic TNBC. This was a reference to the fact that the drug previously received accelerated approval on the basis of early data.
Bardia added that ongoing studies are evaluating the use of SG in earlier lines of therapy, including neoadjuvant settings in combination with other targeted agents, as well as in hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer. One such study is the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 study, which is actively accruing patients.
Invited discussant Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal, said the treatment algorithm for the management of TNBC will need to be updated in light of these results.
“In my opinion, we should now add sacituzumab govitecan as a new treatment option for patients treated with two or more lines of therapy,” she said.
She noted that the study design raised some questions over the way such trials should be conducted and the future sequencing of treatments.
Objections to study design and execution
Discussant Cardoso said the choice of progression-free survival as the primary endpoint for the trial was not ideal.
“In the metastatic setting, and particularly for triple-negative breast cancer, where the median survival is quite low and where each line of treatment, particularly after the second line, has a short duration, the primary endpoint should have been overall survival,” she commented.
“Luckily, we saw some results, but we could have missed it,” Cardoso said. She made “a plea to make sure that overall survival is at least the co–primary endpoint” in the future.
Cardoso also said it was not clear to her why the trial had to be stopped. “For the current patients, if there is no crossover, there is no benefit in stopping the trial,” she said.
She went on: “For future patients, it’s better to have the final results sufficiently powered.” She noted that the benefit seen in ASCENT was “moderate” and “so not a substantial breakthrough.” She added that it was “important not to stop trials too early.”
On the positive side, Cardoso said the median number of previous lines of therapy was “quite remarkable for this subtype, and it is important then for us to discuss sequencing,” particularly given that so many patients received checkpoint inhibitors before entering the trial.
Safety and a focus on diarrhea
Investigator Bardia explained that SG is an antibody-drug conjugate directed at Trop-2, which is highly expressed in breast cancer.
The antibody is linked to SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan, via a hydrolyzable linker that makes internalization and enzymatic cleavage by tumor cells unnecessary.
Hydrolysis of the linker releases SN-38 both within the tumor cell and extracellularly to induce a so-called bystander effect, in which neighboring tumors cells may be killed even if they do not express Trop-2.
On the basis of positive results from phase 1/2 trial data, SG was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with metastatic TNBC who experience disease progression after at least two prior therapies.
ASCENT was therefore a phase 3 confirmatory study. Patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous SG on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or to receive physician’s choice of treatment.
Physicians could choose eribulin, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.
The patients continued receiving treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. On the unanimous recommendation of the data safety monitoring committee, the trial was ended early because of “compelling evidence of efficacy.”
In all, 267 patients were randomly assigned to receive SG. Of those patients, 15 remain on treatment. Treatment was discontinued for 199 patients who experienced disease progression. In the control arm, 262 patients were included, none of whom are still on treatment; 166 discontinued because of disease progression.
The current analysis is limited to 235 patients in the SG group and, in the control arm, 233 patients who did not have brain metastases. Patients with brain metastases will be the subject of a later analysis.
All but one patient in both treatment groups were women. The median age was approximately 54 years. The median number of prior treatment regimens was four. All patients had previously received chemotherapy, and between 26% and 29% have taken checkpoint inhibitors.
By the data cutoff of March 11, 2020, patients had received a median of seven treatment cycles with SG. Progression-free survival was adjudicated by blind, independent central review. The median duration of response was of borderline significance, at 6.3 months vs 3.6 months (P = .057).
Bardia showed that the results were consistent among all subgroups, including subgroups determined on the basis of age, number of prior therapies, whether patients had received prior immune checkpoint therapy, and the presence of liver metastases.
With respect to safety, the important grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (seen in 51% of SG patients vs 33% of patients in the control arm), diarrhea (10% vs <1%), leukopenia (10% vs 5%), anemia (8% vs 5%), and febrile neutropenia (6% vs 2%).
Despite the fact that the adverse event rate was higher with SG than with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, the percentage of such events that led to treatment discontinuation was numerically lower, at 4.7% vs 5.4%.
Cardoso highlighted the “substantial percentage” of patients with diarrhea and nausea in the trial and noted that “all grades” of these adverse events “affect quality of life.”
The focus therefore should be on patient education, prophylaxis, and “the early management of side effects,” she said.
This point was taken up in the postpresentation debate. Bardia said the high rate of diarrhea “likely relates to the toxic payload, which is SN-38, which is known to cause diarrhea.
“Loperamide or immodium prophylaxis can be used in patients who receive this drug, and in general, our experience with the use of sacituzumab govitecan is you can control the diarrhea,” Bardia said.
He added: “There is also a different side effect that occurs during the infusion of SG, which is abdominal cramping and diarrhea, and that’s more of a cholinergic reaction. For that, atropine is the best medication to use.”
The study was funded by Immunomedics Inc. Bardia has disclosed financial ties with Immunomedics and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Cardoso has disclosed financial ties to multiple drug companies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESMO 2020
Survey quantifies COVID-19’s impact on oncology
An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.
The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).
Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.
The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.
The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.
The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).
The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
Impact on treatment
The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).
Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).
Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.
On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.
Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.
“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.
“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.
Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
Telehealth, meetings, and trials
The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).
Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).
While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.
Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.
Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.
He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”
This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.
An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.
The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).
Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.
The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.
The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.
The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).
The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
Impact on treatment
The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).
Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).
Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.
On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.
Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.
“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.
“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.
Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
Telehealth, meetings, and trials
The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).
Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).
While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.
Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.
Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.
He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”
This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.
An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.
The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).
Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.
The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.
The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.
The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).
The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
Impact on treatment
The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).
Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).
Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.
On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.
Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.
“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.
“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.
Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
Telehealth, meetings, and trials
The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).
Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).
While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.
Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.
Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.
He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”
This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.
FROM ESMO 2020
Atezolizumab TNBC indication ‘in jeopardy’ because of phase 3 results
The FDA said the phase 3 IMpassion131 trial showed that atezolizumab plus paclitaxel did not significantly reduce the risk of cancer progression and death, when compared with paclitaxel plus placebo, in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive patients.
“Additionally, interim overall survival results favored paclitaxel plus placebo over paclitaxel plus atezolizumab in both the PD-L1-positive population and total population,” the FDA noted.
As a result, “health care professionals should not replace paclitaxel protein-bound (Abraxane) with paclitaxel in clinical practice,” the FDA advised.
Atezolizumab is approved for use in combination with protein-bound paclitaxel, also known as nanoparticle albumin–bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel), to treat patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1, as detected by an FDA-approved test. The combination was granted accelerated approval for this indication last year.
Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel is the combination most often used in PD-L1-positive TNBC, as opposed to atezolizumab and unbound paclitaxel, said Melinda L. Telli, MD, an associate professor of medicine and director of the Stanford Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Program at Stanford (Calif.) University.
However, as the FDA noted, “continued approval of atezolizumab in combination with [nab-paclitaxel] may be contingent on proven benefit of the treatment in additional trials.”
Dr. Telli explained that atezolizumab was granted accelerated approval for the treatment of PD-L1-positive TNBC based on results of the phase 3 IMpassion130 trial, which compared nab-paclitaxel plus atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel plus placebo.
“Additional data from IMpassion131 was hoped to be used to support the conversion of the accelerated approval to a full approval. Since IMpassion131 was negative, it unfortunately places the status of atezolizumab in [TNBC] in jeopardy as the benefits were not corroborated. The FDA may move to revoke the approval of atezolizumab for [TNBC],” Dr. Telli said.
In its alert, the FDA stated that it “will review the findings of IMpassion131 and will communicate new information regarding the IMpassion131 results and any potential changes to prescribing information.”
“We need to wait for full presentation and publication of the study results, but, in my assessment, the negative results in IMpassion131 are most likely due to differences in patient selection [from IMpassion130],” Dr. Telli said.
Results from IMpassion131 are scheduled to be presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020.
The IMpassion trials were funded by Roche, maker of atezolizumab. Dr. Telli disclosed relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Merck, PharmaMar, Pfizer, and Tesaro.
The FDA said the phase 3 IMpassion131 trial showed that atezolizumab plus paclitaxel did not significantly reduce the risk of cancer progression and death, when compared with paclitaxel plus placebo, in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive patients.
“Additionally, interim overall survival results favored paclitaxel plus placebo over paclitaxel plus atezolizumab in both the PD-L1-positive population and total population,” the FDA noted.
As a result, “health care professionals should not replace paclitaxel protein-bound (Abraxane) with paclitaxel in clinical practice,” the FDA advised.
Atezolizumab is approved for use in combination with protein-bound paclitaxel, also known as nanoparticle albumin–bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel), to treat patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1, as detected by an FDA-approved test. The combination was granted accelerated approval for this indication last year.
Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel is the combination most often used in PD-L1-positive TNBC, as opposed to atezolizumab and unbound paclitaxel, said Melinda L. Telli, MD, an associate professor of medicine and director of the Stanford Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Program at Stanford (Calif.) University.
However, as the FDA noted, “continued approval of atezolizumab in combination with [nab-paclitaxel] may be contingent on proven benefit of the treatment in additional trials.”
Dr. Telli explained that atezolizumab was granted accelerated approval for the treatment of PD-L1-positive TNBC based on results of the phase 3 IMpassion130 trial, which compared nab-paclitaxel plus atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel plus placebo.
“Additional data from IMpassion131 was hoped to be used to support the conversion of the accelerated approval to a full approval. Since IMpassion131 was negative, it unfortunately places the status of atezolizumab in [TNBC] in jeopardy as the benefits were not corroborated. The FDA may move to revoke the approval of atezolizumab for [TNBC],” Dr. Telli said.
In its alert, the FDA stated that it “will review the findings of IMpassion131 and will communicate new information regarding the IMpassion131 results and any potential changes to prescribing information.”
“We need to wait for full presentation and publication of the study results, but, in my assessment, the negative results in IMpassion131 are most likely due to differences in patient selection [from IMpassion130],” Dr. Telli said.
Results from IMpassion131 are scheduled to be presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020.
The IMpassion trials were funded by Roche, maker of atezolizumab. Dr. Telli disclosed relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Merck, PharmaMar, Pfizer, and Tesaro.
The FDA said the phase 3 IMpassion131 trial showed that atezolizumab plus paclitaxel did not significantly reduce the risk of cancer progression and death, when compared with paclitaxel plus placebo, in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive patients.
“Additionally, interim overall survival results favored paclitaxel plus placebo over paclitaxel plus atezolizumab in both the PD-L1-positive population and total population,” the FDA noted.
As a result, “health care professionals should not replace paclitaxel protein-bound (Abraxane) with paclitaxel in clinical practice,” the FDA advised.
Atezolizumab is approved for use in combination with protein-bound paclitaxel, also known as nanoparticle albumin–bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel), to treat patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1, as detected by an FDA-approved test. The combination was granted accelerated approval for this indication last year.
Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel is the combination most often used in PD-L1-positive TNBC, as opposed to atezolizumab and unbound paclitaxel, said Melinda L. Telli, MD, an associate professor of medicine and director of the Stanford Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Program at Stanford (Calif.) University.
However, as the FDA noted, “continued approval of atezolizumab in combination with [nab-paclitaxel] may be contingent on proven benefit of the treatment in additional trials.”
Dr. Telli explained that atezolizumab was granted accelerated approval for the treatment of PD-L1-positive TNBC based on results of the phase 3 IMpassion130 trial, which compared nab-paclitaxel plus atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel plus placebo.
“Additional data from IMpassion131 was hoped to be used to support the conversion of the accelerated approval to a full approval. Since IMpassion131 was negative, it unfortunately places the status of atezolizumab in [TNBC] in jeopardy as the benefits were not corroborated. The FDA may move to revoke the approval of atezolizumab for [TNBC],” Dr. Telli said.
In its alert, the FDA stated that it “will review the findings of IMpassion131 and will communicate new information regarding the IMpassion131 results and any potential changes to prescribing information.”
“We need to wait for full presentation and publication of the study results, but, in my assessment, the negative results in IMpassion131 are most likely due to differences in patient selection [from IMpassion130],” Dr. Telli said.
Results from IMpassion131 are scheduled to be presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020.
The IMpassion trials were funded by Roche, maker of atezolizumab. Dr. Telli disclosed relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Merck, PharmaMar, Pfizer, and Tesaro.
First guideline on NGS testing in cancer, from ESMO
Recommendations on the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for patients with metastatic cancer have been issued by the European Society for Medical Oncology, the first recommendations of their kind to be published by any medical society.
“Until now, there were no recommendations from scientific societies on how to use this technique in daily clinical practice to profile metastatic cancers,” Fernanda Mosele, MD, medical oncologist, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, said in a statement.
NGS testing is already used extensively in oncology, particularly in metastatic cancer, she noted. The technology is used to assess the sequence of DNA in genes from a tumor tissue sample. Numerous genes can be quickly sequenced at the same time at relatively low cost. The results provide information on mutations that are present, which, in turn, helps with deciding which treatments to use, including drugs targeting the identified mutations.
“Our intent is that they [the guidelines] will unify decision-making about how NGS should be used for patients with metastatic cancer,” Dr. Mosele said.
The recommendations were published online August 25 in Annals of Oncology.
Overall, ESMO recommends the use of tumor multigene NGS for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma.
For other cancers, the authors said that NGS is not recommended in clinical practice but could be used for research purposes.
However, patients should be informed that it is unlikely that test results would benefit them much personally.
Physicians and patients may decide together to subject the tumor to mutational testing using a large panel of genes, provided testing doesn’t burden the health care system with additional costs.
“This recommendation acknowledges that a small number of patients could benefit from a drug because they have a rare mutation,” Joaquin Mateo, MD, chair of the ESMO working group, said in a statement.
“So beyond the cancers in which everyone should receive NGS, there is room for physicians and patients to discuss the pros and cons of ordering these tests,” he added.
ESMO also does not recommend the use of off-label drugs matched to any genomic alteration detected by NGS unless an access program and a decisional procedure have been developed, either regionally or nationally.
No need for NGS testing of other cancers
In contrast to NSCLC, “there is currently no need to perform tumor multigene NGS for patients with mBC [metastatic breast cancer] in the context of daily practice,” ESMO stated.
This is largely because somatic sequencing cannot fully substitute for germline testing for BRCA status, and other mutations, such as HER2, can be detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC).
The same can be said for patients with metastatic gastric cancer, inasmuch as detection of alterations can and should be done using cheaper testing methods, ESMO pointed out.
However, ESMO members still emphasized that it’s important to include patients with metastatic breast cancer in molecular screening programs as well as in clinical trials testing targeted agents.
Similarly, there is no need to test metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) using multigene NGS in daily practice, inasmuch as most level 1 alterations in mCRC can be determined by IHC or PCR.
However, NGS can be considered as an alternative to PCR-based tests in mCRC, provided NGS is not associated with additional cost.
ESMO again recommended that research centers include mCRC patients in molecular screening programs in order for them to have access to innovative clinical trial agents.
As for advanced prostate cancer, ESMO does recommend that clinicians perform NGS on tissue samples to assess the tumor’s mutational status, at least for the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, when patients have access to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for treatment.
The authors cautioned, however, that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should be used only when there are specific agreements with payers.
Multigene NGS is also not recommended for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), although ESMO points out that it is the role of research centers to propose multigene sequencing for these patients in the context of molecular screening programs.
This is again to facilitate access to innovative drugs for these patients.
Similar to recommendations for patients with advanced PDAC, patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) do not need to have tumor multigene NGS either.
Considering the high unmet needs of HCC patients, ESMO feels that research centers should propose multigene sequencing to patients with advanced HCC in the context of molecular screening programs.
In contrast, ESMO recommended that tumor multigene NGS be used to detect actionable alterations in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma.
Again, they predict that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should only be used if a specific agreement is in place with payers.
ESMO also assessed the frequency of level 1 alterations in less frequent tumor types, including ovarian cancers. Because BRCA1 and BRCA2 somatic mutations in ovarian tumors have been associated with increased response to the PARP inhibitors, the use of multigene NGS is justified with this malignancy, ESMO states.
The authors also recommend that tumor mutational burden be determined in cervical cancer, moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, salivary cancers, vulvar cancer, and thyroid cancers.
Dr. Mosele has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Many coauthors have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, as listed in the article.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Recommendations on the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for patients with metastatic cancer have been issued by the European Society for Medical Oncology, the first recommendations of their kind to be published by any medical society.
“Until now, there were no recommendations from scientific societies on how to use this technique in daily clinical practice to profile metastatic cancers,” Fernanda Mosele, MD, medical oncologist, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, said in a statement.
NGS testing is already used extensively in oncology, particularly in metastatic cancer, she noted. The technology is used to assess the sequence of DNA in genes from a tumor tissue sample. Numerous genes can be quickly sequenced at the same time at relatively low cost. The results provide information on mutations that are present, which, in turn, helps with deciding which treatments to use, including drugs targeting the identified mutations.
“Our intent is that they [the guidelines] will unify decision-making about how NGS should be used for patients with metastatic cancer,” Dr. Mosele said.
The recommendations were published online August 25 in Annals of Oncology.
Overall, ESMO recommends the use of tumor multigene NGS for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma.
For other cancers, the authors said that NGS is not recommended in clinical practice but could be used for research purposes.
However, patients should be informed that it is unlikely that test results would benefit them much personally.
Physicians and patients may decide together to subject the tumor to mutational testing using a large panel of genes, provided testing doesn’t burden the health care system with additional costs.
“This recommendation acknowledges that a small number of patients could benefit from a drug because they have a rare mutation,” Joaquin Mateo, MD, chair of the ESMO working group, said in a statement.
“So beyond the cancers in which everyone should receive NGS, there is room for physicians and patients to discuss the pros and cons of ordering these tests,” he added.
ESMO also does not recommend the use of off-label drugs matched to any genomic alteration detected by NGS unless an access program and a decisional procedure have been developed, either regionally or nationally.
No need for NGS testing of other cancers
In contrast to NSCLC, “there is currently no need to perform tumor multigene NGS for patients with mBC [metastatic breast cancer] in the context of daily practice,” ESMO stated.
This is largely because somatic sequencing cannot fully substitute for germline testing for BRCA status, and other mutations, such as HER2, can be detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC).
The same can be said for patients with metastatic gastric cancer, inasmuch as detection of alterations can and should be done using cheaper testing methods, ESMO pointed out.
However, ESMO members still emphasized that it’s important to include patients with metastatic breast cancer in molecular screening programs as well as in clinical trials testing targeted agents.
Similarly, there is no need to test metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) using multigene NGS in daily practice, inasmuch as most level 1 alterations in mCRC can be determined by IHC or PCR.
However, NGS can be considered as an alternative to PCR-based tests in mCRC, provided NGS is not associated with additional cost.
ESMO again recommended that research centers include mCRC patients in molecular screening programs in order for them to have access to innovative clinical trial agents.
As for advanced prostate cancer, ESMO does recommend that clinicians perform NGS on tissue samples to assess the tumor’s mutational status, at least for the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, when patients have access to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for treatment.
The authors cautioned, however, that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should be used only when there are specific agreements with payers.
Multigene NGS is also not recommended for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), although ESMO points out that it is the role of research centers to propose multigene sequencing for these patients in the context of molecular screening programs.
This is again to facilitate access to innovative drugs for these patients.
Similar to recommendations for patients with advanced PDAC, patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) do not need to have tumor multigene NGS either.
Considering the high unmet needs of HCC patients, ESMO feels that research centers should propose multigene sequencing to patients with advanced HCC in the context of molecular screening programs.
In contrast, ESMO recommended that tumor multigene NGS be used to detect actionable alterations in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma.
Again, they predict that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should only be used if a specific agreement is in place with payers.
ESMO also assessed the frequency of level 1 alterations in less frequent tumor types, including ovarian cancers. Because BRCA1 and BRCA2 somatic mutations in ovarian tumors have been associated with increased response to the PARP inhibitors, the use of multigene NGS is justified with this malignancy, ESMO states.
The authors also recommend that tumor mutational burden be determined in cervical cancer, moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, salivary cancers, vulvar cancer, and thyroid cancers.
Dr. Mosele has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Many coauthors have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, as listed in the article.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Recommendations on the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for patients with metastatic cancer have been issued by the European Society for Medical Oncology, the first recommendations of their kind to be published by any medical society.
“Until now, there were no recommendations from scientific societies on how to use this technique in daily clinical practice to profile metastatic cancers,” Fernanda Mosele, MD, medical oncologist, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, said in a statement.
NGS testing is already used extensively in oncology, particularly in metastatic cancer, she noted. The technology is used to assess the sequence of DNA in genes from a tumor tissue sample. Numerous genes can be quickly sequenced at the same time at relatively low cost. The results provide information on mutations that are present, which, in turn, helps with deciding which treatments to use, including drugs targeting the identified mutations.
“Our intent is that they [the guidelines] will unify decision-making about how NGS should be used for patients with metastatic cancer,” Dr. Mosele said.
The recommendations were published online August 25 in Annals of Oncology.
Overall, ESMO recommends the use of tumor multigene NGS for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma.
For other cancers, the authors said that NGS is not recommended in clinical practice but could be used for research purposes.
However, patients should be informed that it is unlikely that test results would benefit them much personally.
Physicians and patients may decide together to subject the tumor to mutational testing using a large panel of genes, provided testing doesn’t burden the health care system with additional costs.
“This recommendation acknowledges that a small number of patients could benefit from a drug because they have a rare mutation,” Joaquin Mateo, MD, chair of the ESMO working group, said in a statement.
“So beyond the cancers in which everyone should receive NGS, there is room for physicians and patients to discuss the pros and cons of ordering these tests,” he added.
ESMO also does not recommend the use of off-label drugs matched to any genomic alteration detected by NGS unless an access program and a decisional procedure have been developed, either regionally or nationally.
No need for NGS testing of other cancers
In contrast to NSCLC, “there is currently no need to perform tumor multigene NGS for patients with mBC [metastatic breast cancer] in the context of daily practice,” ESMO stated.
This is largely because somatic sequencing cannot fully substitute for germline testing for BRCA status, and other mutations, such as HER2, can be detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC).
The same can be said for patients with metastatic gastric cancer, inasmuch as detection of alterations can and should be done using cheaper testing methods, ESMO pointed out.
However, ESMO members still emphasized that it’s important to include patients with metastatic breast cancer in molecular screening programs as well as in clinical trials testing targeted agents.
Similarly, there is no need to test metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) using multigene NGS in daily practice, inasmuch as most level 1 alterations in mCRC can be determined by IHC or PCR.
However, NGS can be considered as an alternative to PCR-based tests in mCRC, provided NGS is not associated with additional cost.
ESMO again recommended that research centers include mCRC patients in molecular screening programs in order for them to have access to innovative clinical trial agents.
As for advanced prostate cancer, ESMO does recommend that clinicians perform NGS on tissue samples to assess the tumor’s mutational status, at least for the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, when patients have access to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for treatment.
The authors cautioned, however, that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should be used only when there are specific agreements with payers.
Multigene NGS is also not recommended for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), although ESMO points out that it is the role of research centers to propose multigene sequencing for these patients in the context of molecular screening programs.
This is again to facilitate access to innovative drugs for these patients.
Similar to recommendations for patients with advanced PDAC, patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) do not need to have tumor multigene NGS either.
Considering the high unmet needs of HCC patients, ESMO feels that research centers should propose multigene sequencing to patients with advanced HCC in the context of molecular screening programs.
In contrast, ESMO recommended that tumor multigene NGS be used to detect actionable alterations in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma.
Again, they predict that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should only be used if a specific agreement is in place with payers.
ESMO also assessed the frequency of level 1 alterations in less frequent tumor types, including ovarian cancers. Because BRCA1 and BRCA2 somatic mutations in ovarian tumors have been associated with increased response to the PARP inhibitors, the use of multigene NGS is justified with this malignancy, ESMO states.
The authors also recommend that tumor mutational burden be determined in cervical cancer, moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, salivary cancers, vulvar cancer, and thyroid cancers.
Dr. Mosele has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Many coauthors have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, as listed in the article.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves new indications for pembrolizumab
The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.
The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.
In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.
The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.
Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors
The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.
The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).
The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.
Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.
The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.
The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.
Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC
Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.
The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.
The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.
Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.
The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.
The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.
In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.
The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.
Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors
The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.
The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).
The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.
Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.
The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.
The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.
Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC
Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.
The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.
The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.
Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.
The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.
The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.
In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.
The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.
Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors
The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.
The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).
The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.
Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.
The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.
The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.
Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC
Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.
The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.
The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.
Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.
Novel SERD, LSZ102, shows promise for pretreated ER+ breast cancer
The oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) LSZ102 plus either ribociclib or alpelisib shows manageable safety and encouraging clinical activity in heavily pretreated estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer patients who progressed after prior endocrine therapy, according to interim results of an open-label phase 1/1b study.
The effects seen in the study, which is the first to report on an oral SERD in combination with both CDK4/6 and PI3Ka inhibitors, occurred regardless of ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations, said Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
Dr. Jhaveri reported the results at the European Society of Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.
The overall response rate (ORR) among 78 patients enrolled in an LSZ102 monotherapy arm (arm A) was 1.3%, and the progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.8 months. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 9.1%.
Among 76 patients enrolled in an LSZ102+ribociclib arm (arm B), the ORR was 15.8%, the PFS was 6.2 months, and the CBR was 35.5%.
Among the 39 patients enrolled in an LSZ102+alpelisib arm (arm C), the ORR was 5.4%, the PFS was 3.5 months, and the CBR was 18.9%.
After the data cutoff, one additional partial response (PR) was reported in arm C, Dr. Jhaveri said, noting that two of three confirmed responses were in known PIKC3A-mutant patients.
Study participants were aged 18 years and older with a confirmed diagnosis of ER-positive breast cancer and good performance status, as well as evidence of progression after endocrine therapy for metastatic disease or evidence of progression while on therapy or within 12 months from the end of adjuvant therapy.
“For all arms, prior fulvestrant, CDK46 inhibitor, or chemotherapy were allowed. For arm C, patients with or without PIK3C were eligible, and no prior treatment with PIK3, mTOR, or AKT inhibitors was allowed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.
Dosing in the LSZ102 monotherapy arm ranged from 200 to 900 mg. Arm B patients received LSZ102 at doses of 200-600 mg and ribociclib at doses of 200-600 mg. Both continuous ribociclib and 3 weeks on/1 week off dosing were evaluated. Arm C patients received LSZ102 at doses of 300-450 mg and alpelisib at 200-300 mg.
The recommended expansion doses were 450 mg daily of LSZ102 for arm A and 450 mg LSZ102 with 400 mg of daily ribociclib for arm B. For arm C, they were 300 mg LSZ102 with 250 mg of alpelisib daily.
Of note, two of three patients with a PR in arm C had received 300 mg LSZ102 and 300 mg alpelisib, Dr. Jhaveri said.
Arm A and arm B results were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The current report updates those findings and presents arm C data for the first time, Dr. Jhaveri said.
LSZ102 was relatively well-tolerated as a single agent and in combination with ribociclib and alpelisib, according to Dr. Jhaveri. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal toxicities, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and decreased appetite, which occurred across all arms.
Neutropenia and aspartate aminotransferase abnormalities, including grade 3 cases, were reported in arm B and were most likely driven by the ribociclib, Dr. Jhaveri said. Grade 3 hypoglycemia and skin rash commonly occurred in arm C, most likely driven by the alpelisib.
Five dose-limiting toxicities occurred in four patients in arm A, three occurred in two patients in arm B, and seven occurred in seven patients in arm C.
Paired biopsies collected at the time of screening and at day 15 of cycle 1 showed consistent down-regulation of ER protein levels across arms.
“No substantial dose-dependent down-regulation of the ER was observed with increasing doses of LSZ,” Dr. Jhaveri said.
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis showed that the dominant mutations across the arms were ESR1, PIK3CA, and TP53. These were not shown to correlate with response and were not enriched upon progression in patients with matched baseline and end-of-treatment samples, she noted.
An exploratory analysis, conducted in “a preliminary attempt to correlate clinical activity with specific mutations,” showed that, in arms B and C, respectively, ORR, CBR, and PFS weren’t correlated with the presence or absence of ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations, respectively, or the absence of detectable ctDNA from baseline samples, Dr. Jhaveri said.
“While numerically higher responses and better CBR were seen in patients with undetectable ctDNA at baseline, no statistically significant difference in any of these outcomes was observed in arms B and C,” she said.
In arm C, the numbers were small at the time of data cutoff, but incoming data suggest relatively enhanced activity of the LSZ102 plus alpelisib combination in PIKC3A-mutant patients, she noted.
“We know that inhibiting ER signaling is the mainstay of treatment for ER-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Jhaveri explained, adding that aromatase inhibitors, estrogen receptor modulators, and SERDs are important classes of antiestrogenic agents, but fulvestrant is the only approved SERD. These are effective, but many patients develop resistance, she said.
“Proposed mechanisms for endocrine resistance include activation of the cell-cycle and cell-survival signaling pathways, or of the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway,” Dr. Jhaveri said. “To that end, ribociclib, a CDK46 inhibitor plus fulvestrant improved survival compared to fulvestrant alone in patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.”
More recently, the PI3K inhibitor alpelisib plus fulvestrant also nearly doubled PFS vs. fulvestrant alone in PIKC3A-mutant, ER-positive metastatic breast cancer, which led to the approval of the combination in the United States.
Another mechanism of endocrine resistance includes acquisition of activating mutations in the estrogen receptor gene itself that allow tumors to survive and proliferate without depending on estrogen.
EGFR mutations appear to predict resistance to aromatase inhibitor therapies, but not outcomes in patients treated with fulvestrant. However, fulvestrant, which is delivered by intramuscular injection, has its own limitations, Dr. Jhaveri said.
“LSZ102 is a novel SERD that could achieve higher exposure than fulvestrant, leading to enhanced efficacy,” she said, noting that it was shown in preclinical models to have activity and to be synergistic in combination with ribociclib and alpelisib, forming the basis for the current study.
Invited discussant, Saverio Cinieri, MD, of Ospedale Antonio Perrino, Brindisi, Italy, said the study “elegantly demonstrated that estrogen receptor protein is down-regulated by LSZ102; [that] the genomic landscape of heavily pretreated patients is dominated by mutations in ESR1, PIK3CA, and TP53; [that] common mutations do not correlate with response and are not enriched on progression; [and that] ctDNA analysis at baseline shows similar outcomes with LSZ plus ribociclib or alpelisib, regardless of mutational status.”
LSZ102 is one of four new-generation SERDs in early-phase studies, he said, concluding that “in the COVID-19 era, the use of oral therapies will be even more necessary to limit access to the hospital.”
Dr. Cinieri also said that overcoming the limitations “of a molecule like the intramuscularly administered fulvestrant goes in this direction,” and that “the clinical efficacy and the biomolecular profile of LSZ102 seems to be able to meet these real needs.”
This study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Jhaveri reported advisory and consultancy roles and/or research grants or other funding to her institution from Novartis, ADC Therapeutics, Pfizer, and numerous other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Cinieri reported relationships with Lily Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novartis, including honoraria, grant and research support to his institution, advisory board participation, and scientific meeting support.
SOURCE: Jhaveri K et al. ESMO Breast Cancer, Abstract LBA1.
The oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) LSZ102 plus either ribociclib or alpelisib shows manageable safety and encouraging clinical activity in heavily pretreated estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer patients who progressed after prior endocrine therapy, according to interim results of an open-label phase 1/1b study.
The effects seen in the study, which is the first to report on an oral SERD in combination with both CDK4/6 and PI3Ka inhibitors, occurred regardless of ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations, said Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
Dr. Jhaveri reported the results at the European Society of Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.
The overall response rate (ORR) among 78 patients enrolled in an LSZ102 monotherapy arm (arm A) was 1.3%, and the progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.8 months. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 9.1%.
Among 76 patients enrolled in an LSZ102+ribociclib arm (arm B), the ORR was 15.8%, the PFS was 6.2 months, and the CBR was 35.5%.
Among the 39 patients enrolled in an LSZ102+alpelisib arm (arm C), the ORR was 5.4%, the PFS was 3.5 months, and the CBR was 18.9%.
After the data cutoff, one additional partial response (PR) was reported in arm C, Dr. Jhaveri said, noting that two of three confirmed responses were in known PIKC3A-mutant patients.
Study participants were aged 18 years and older with a confirmed diagnosis of ER-positive breast cancer and good performance status, as well as evidence of progression after endocrine therapy for metastatic disease or evidence of progression while on therapy or within 12 months from the end of adjuvant therapy.
“For all arms, prior fulvestrant, CDK46 inhibitor, or chemotherapy were allowed. For arm C, patients with or without PIK3C were eligible, and no prior treatment with PIK3, mTOR, or AKT inhibitors was allowed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.
Dosing in the LSZ102 monotherapy arm ranged from 200 to 900 mg. Arm B patients received LSZ102 at doses of 200-600 mg and ribociclib at doses of 200-600 mg. Both continuous ribociclib and 3 weeks on/1 week off dosing were evaluated. Arm C patients received LSZ102 at doses of 300-450 mg and alpelisib at 200-300 mg.
The recommended expansion doses were 450 mg daily of LSZ102 for arm A and 450 mg LSZ102 with 400 mg of daily ribociclib for arm B. For arm C, they were 300 mg LSZ102 with 250 mg of alpelisib daily.
Of note, two of three patients with a PR in arm C had received 300 mg LSZ102 and 300 mg alpelisib, Dr. Jhaveri said.
Arm A and arm B results were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The current report updates those findings and presents arm C data for the first time, Dr. Jhaveri said.
LSZ102 was relatively well-tolerated as a single agent and in combination with ribociclib and alpelisib, according to Dr. Jhaveri. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal toxicities, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and decreased appetite, which occurred across all arms.
Neutropenia and aspartate aminotransferase abnormalities, including grade 3 cases, were reported in arm B and were most likely driven by the ribociclib, Dr. Jhaveri said. Grade 3 hypoglycemia and skin rash commonly occurred in arm C, most likely driven by the alpelisib.
Five dose-limiting toxicities occurred in four patients in arm A, three occurred in two patients in arm B, and seven occurred in seven patients in arm C.
Paired biopsies collected at the time of screening and at day 15 of cycle 1 showed consistent down-regulation of ER protein levels across arms.
“No substantial dose-dependent down-regulation of the ER was observed with increasing doses of LSZ,” Dr. Jhaveri said.
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis showed that the dominant mutations across the arms were ESR1, PIK3CA, and TP53. These were not shown to correlate with response and were not enriched upon progression in patients with matched baseline and end-of-treatment samples, she noted.
An exploratory analysis, conducted in “a preliminary attempt to correlate clinical activity with specific mutations,” showed that, in arms B and C, respectively, ORR, CBR, and PFS weren’t correlated with the presence or absence of ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations, respectively, or the absence of detectable ctDNA from baseline samples, Dr. Jhaveri said.
“While numerically higher responses and better CBR were seen in patients with undetectable ctDNA at baseline, no statistically significant difference in any of these outcomes was observed in arms B and C,” she said.
In arm C, the numbers were small at the time of data cutoff, but incoming data suggest relatively enhanced activity of the LSZ102 plus alpelisib combination in PIKC3A-mutant patients, she noted.
“We know that inhibiting ER signaling is the mainstay of treatment for ER-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Jhaveri explained, adding that aromatase inhibitors, estrogen receptor modulators, and SERDs are important classes of antiestrogenic agents, but fulvestrant is the only approved SERD. These are effective, but many patients develop resistance, she said.
“Proposed mechanisms for endocrine resistance include activation of the cell-cycle and cell-survival signaling pathways, or of the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway,” Dr. Jhaveri said. “To that end, ribociclib, a CDK46 inhibitor plus fulvestrant improved survival compared to fulvestrant alone in patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.”
More recently, the PI3K inhibitor alpelisib plus fulvestrant also nearly doubled PFS vs. fulvestrant alone in PIKC3A-mutant, ER-positive metastatic breast cancer, which led to the approval of the combination in the United States.
Another mechanism of endocrine resistance includes acquisition of activating mutations in the estrogen receptor gene itself that allow tumors to survive and proliferate without depending on estrogen.
EGFR mutations appear to predict resistance to aromatase inhibitor therapies, but not outcomes in patients treated with fulvestrant. However, fulvestrant, which is delivered by intramuscular injection, has its own limitations, Dr. Jhaveri said.
“LSZ102 is a novel SERD that could achieve higher exposure than fulvestrant, leading to enhanced efficacy,” she said, noting that it was shown in preclinical models to have activity and to be synergistic in combination with ribociclib and alpelisib, forming the basis for the current study.
Invited discussant, Saverio Cinieri, MD, of Ospedale Antonio Perrino, Brindisi, Italy, said the study “elegantly demonstrated that estrogen receptor protein is down-regulated by LSZ102; [that] the genomic landscape of heavily pretreated patients is dominated by mutations in ESR1, PIK3CA, and TP53; [that] common mutations do not correlate with response and are not enriched on progression; [and that] ctDNA analysis at baseline shows similar outcomes with LSZ plus ribociclib or alpelisib, regardless of mutational status.”
LSZ102 is one of four new-generation SERDs in early-phase studies, he said, concluding that “in the COVID-19 era, the use of oral therapies will be even more necessary to limit access to the hospital.”
Dr. Cinieri also said that overcoming the limitations “of a molecule like the intramuscularly administered fulvestrant goes in this direction,” and that “the clinical efficacy and the biomolecular profile of LSZ102 seems to be able to meet these real needs.”
This study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Jhaveri reported advisory and consultancy roles and/or research grants or other funding to her institution from Novartis, ADC Therapeutics, Pfizer, and numerous other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Cinieri reported relationships with Lily Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novartis, including honoraria, grant and research support to his institution, advisory board participation, and scientific meeting support.
SOURCE: Jhaveri K et al. ESMO Breast Cancer, Abstract LBA1.
The oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) LSZ102 plus either ribociclib or alpelisib shows manageable safety and encouraging clinical activity in heavily pretreated estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer patients who progressed after prior endocrine therapy, according to interim results of an open-label phase 1/1b study.
The effects seen in the study, which is the first to report on an oral SERD in combination with both CDK4/6 and PI3Ka inhibitors, occurred regardless of ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations, said Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
Dr. Jhaveri reported the results at the European Society of Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.
The overall response rate (ORR) among 78 patients enrolled in an LSZ102 monotherapy arm (arm A) was 1.3%, and the progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.8 months. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 9.1%.
Among 76 patients enrolled in an LSZ102+ribociclib arm (arm B), the ORR was 15.8%, the PFS was 6.2 months, and the CBR was 35.5%.
Among the 39 patients enrolled in an LSZ102+alpelisib arm (arm C), the ORR was 5.4%, the PFS was 3.5 months, and the CBR was 18.9%.
After the data cutoff, one additional partial response (PR) was reported in arm C, Dr. Jhaveri said, noting that two of three confirmed responses were in known PIKC3A-mutant patients.
Study participants were aged 18 years and older with a confirmed diagnosis of ER-positive breast cancer and good performance status, as well as evidence of progression after endocrine therapy for metastatic disease or evidence of progression while on therapy or within 12 months from the end of adjuvant therapy.
“For all arms, prior fulvestrant, CDK46 inhibitor, or chemotherapy were allowed. For arm C, patients with or without PIK3C were eligible, and no prior treatment with PIK3, mTOR, or AKT inhibitors was allowed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.
Dosing in the LSZ102 monotherapy arm ranged from 200 to 900 mg. Arm B patients received LSZ102 at doses of 200-600 mg and ribociclib at doses of 200-600 mg. Both continuous ribociclib and 3 weeks on/1 week off dosing were evaluated. Arm C patients received LSZ102 at doses of 300-450 mg and alpelisib at 200-300 mg.
The recommended expansion doses were 450 mg daily of LSZ102 for arm A and 450 mg LSZ102 with 400 mg of daily ribociclib for arm B. For arm C, they were 300 mg LSZ102 with 250 mg of alpelisib daily.
Of note, two of three patients with a PR in arm C had received 300 mg LSZ102 and 300 mg alpelisib, Dr. Jhaveri said.
Arm A and arm B results were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The current report updates those findings and presents arm C data for the first time, Dr. Jhaveri said.
LSZ102 was relatively well-tolerated as a single agent and in combination with ribociclib and alpelisib, according to Dr. Jhaveri. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal toxicities, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and decreased appetite, which occurred across all arms.
Neutropenia and aspartate aminotransferase abnormalities, including grade 3 cases, were reported in arm B and were most likely driven by the ribociclib, Dr. Jhaveri said. Grade 3 hypoglycemia and skin rash commonly occurred in arm C, most likely driven by the alpelisib.
Five dose-limiting toxicities occurred in four patients in arm A, three occurred in two patients in arm B, and seven occurred in seven patients in arm C.
Paired biopsies collected at the time of screening and at day 15 of cycle 1 showed consistent down-regulation of ER protein levels across arms.
“No substantial dose-dependent down-regulation of the ER was observed with increasing doses of LSZ,” Dr. Jhaveri said.
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis showed that the dominant mutations across the arms were ESR1, PIK3CA, and TP53. These were not shown to correlate with response and were not enriched upon progression in patients with matched baseline and end-of-treatment samples, she noted.
An exploratory analysis, conducted in “a preliminary attempt to correlate clinical activity with specific mutations,” showed that, in arms B and C, respectively, ORR, CBR, and PFS weren’t correlated with the presence or absence of ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations, respectively, or the absence of detectable ctDNA from baseline samples, Dr. Jhaveri said.
“While numerically higher responses and better CBR were seen in patients with undetectable ctDNA at baseline, no statistically significant difference in any of these outcomes was observed in arms B and C,” she said.
In arm C, the numbers were small at the time of data cutoff, but incoming data suggest relatively enhanced activity of the LSZ102 plus alpelisib combination in PIKC3A-mutant patients, she noted.
“We know that inhibiting ER signaling is the mainstay of treatment for ER-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Jhaveri explained, adding that aromatase inhibitors, estrogen receptor modulators, and SERDs are important classes of antiestrogenic agents, but fulvestrant is the only approved SERD. These are effective, but many patients develop resistance, she said.
“Proposed mechanisms for endocrine resistance include activation of the cell-cycle and cell-survival signaling pathways, or of the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway,” Dr. Jhaveri said. “To that end, ribociclib, a CDK46 inhibitor plus fulvestrant improved survival compared to fulvestrant alone in patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.”
More recently, the PI3K inhibitor alpelisib plus fulvestrant also nearly doubled PFS vs. fulvestrant alone in PIKC3A-mutant, ER-positive metastatic breast cancer, which led to the approval of the combination in the United States.
Another mechanism of endocrine resistance includes acquisition of activating mutations in the estrogen receptor gene itself that allow tumors to survive and proliferate without depending on estrogen.
EGFR mutations appear to predict resistance to aromatase inhibitor therapies, but not outcomes in patients treated with fulvestrant. However, fulvestrant, which is delivered by intramuscular injection, has its own limitations, Dr. Jhaveri said.
“LSZ102 is a novel SERD that could achieve higher exposure than fulvestrant, leading to enhanced efficacy,” she said, noting that it was shown in preclinical models to have activity and to be synergistic in combination with ribociclib and alpelisib, forming the basis for the current study.
Invited discussant, Saverio Cinieri, MD, of Ospedale Antonio Perrino, Brindisi, Italy, said the study “elegantly demonstrated that estrogen receptor protein is down-regulated by LSZ102; [that] the genomic landscape of heavily pretreated patients is dominated by mutations in ESR1, PIK3CA, and TP53; [that] common mutations do not correlate with response and are not enriched on progression; [and that] ctDNA analysis at baseline shows similar outcomes with LSZ plus ribociclib or alpelisib, regardless of mutational status.”
LSZ102 is one of four new-generation SERDs in early-phase studies, he said, concluding that “in the COVID-19 era, the use of oral therapies will be even more necessary to limit access to the hospital.”
Dr. Cinieri also said that overcoming the limitations “of a molecule like the intramuscularly administered fulvestrant goes in this direction,” and that “the clinical efficacy and the biomolecular profile of LSZ102 seems to be able to meet these real needs.”
This study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Jhaveri reported advisory and consultancy roles and/or research grants or other funding to her institution from Novartis, ADC Therapeutics, Pfizer, and numerous other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Cinieri reported relationships with Lily Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novartis, including honoraria, grant and research support to his institution, advisory board participation, and scientific meeting support.
SOURCE: Jhaveri K et al. ESMO Breast Cancer, Abstract LBA1.
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2020
FDA approves in-home breast cancer treatment
Advantageous for infusion centers?
The Food and Drug Administration approved a combination of pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech/Roche), trastuzumab (Herceptin, Genentech/Roche) and hyaluronidase (Phesgo, Genentech/Roche) that is administered subcutaneously – rather than intravenously – for the treatment of early and metastatic HER2-positive breast cancers.
Phesgo is initially used in combination with chemotherapy at an infusion center but could continue to be administered in a patient’s home by a qualified health care professional once chemotherapy is complete, according to the FDA.
Administration takes approximately 8 minutes for the initial loading dose and approximately 5 minutes for maintenance doses, according to a Genentech press statement. This compares favorably with the 150 minutes needed for the combined loading dose of intravenous pertuzumab and trastuzumab, and the 60-150 minutes for intravenous maintenance infusions, the company said.
“Currently, most patients with HER2-positive breast cancer receive trastuzumab and pertuzumab at infusion centers. With a new administration route, Phesgo offers an outpatient option for patients to receive trastuzumab and pertuzumab,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in an agency press release.
“The fixed-dose combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab offers a simpler, faster, and easier treatment experience for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer,” said Antoinette Tan, MD, MHSc, chief of breast medical oncology at Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C., in the company statement.
Dr. Tan also said that home administration “can be advantageous for patients and infusion centers.”
However, in April, the Community Oncology Alliance strenuously objected to this type of treatment in a patient’s home, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
The group, which represents U.S. community-based practices, said it “fundamentally opposes home infusion of chemotherapy, cancer immunotherapy, and cancer treatment supportive drugs because of serious patient safety concerns.”
The FDA’s approval was based on the results of the pivotal phase 3 FeDeriCa trial, a noninferiority study in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer, which demonstrated that the new product had comparable efficacy and safety as intravenous pertuzumab and intravenous trastuzumab.
In terms of efficacy, the subcutaneous product demonstrated noninferior plasma levels of pertuzumab, which was the primary endpoint, when compared with IV administration of pertuzumab.
Safety was comparable between the two approaches, with no new safety signals using the subcutaneous delivery method, including no “meaningful difference” in cardiac toxicity, according to Genentech. However, there were more administration-related reactions with the new product. The most common adverse events in both groups were alopecia, nausea, diarrhea, and anemia.
The new product uses a drug delivery technology (Enhanze, Halozyme Therapeutics) that employs a proprietary enzyme that temporarily degrades hyaluronan, a glycosaminoglycan or chain of natural sugars in the body, to facilitate the dispersion and absorption of injected therapeutic drugs, according to Genentech.
In May, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer Virtual Meeting 2020, investigators of the phase 2 PHranceSCa study reported that “more than 80%” of patients preferred subcutaneous to intravenous administration of pertuzumab and trastuzumab.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Advantageous for infusion centers?
Advantageous for infusion centers?
The Food and Drug Administration approved a combination of pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech/Roche), trastuzumab (Herceptin, Genentech/Roche) and hyaluronidase (Phesgo, Genentech/Roche) that is administered subcutaneously – rather than intravenously – for the treatment of early and metastatic HER2-positive breast cancers.
Phesgo is initially used in combination with chemotherapy at an infusion center but could continue to be administered in a patient’s home by a qualified health care professional once chemotherapy is complete, according to the FDA.
Administration takes approximately 8 minutes for the initial loading dose and approximately 5 minutes for maintenance doses, according to a Genentech press statement. This compares favorably with the 150 minutes needed for the combined loading dose of intravenous pertuzumab and trastuzumab, and the 60-150 minutes for intravenous maintenance infusions, the company said.
“Currently, most patients with HER2-positive breast cancer receive trastuzumab and pertuzumab at infusion centers. With a new administration route, Phesgo offers an outpatient option for patients to receive trastuzumab and pertuzumab,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in an agency press release.
“The fixed-dose combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab offers a simpler, faster, and easier treatment experience for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer,” said Antoinette Tan, MD, MHSc, chief of breast medical oncology at Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C., in the company statement.
Dr. Tan also said that home administration “can be advantageous for patients and infusion centers.”
However, in April, the Community Oncology Alliance strenuously objected to this type of treatment in a patient’s home, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
The group, which represents U.S. community-based practices, said it “fundamentally opposes home infusion of chemotherapy, cancer immunotherapy, and cancer treatment supportive drugs because of serious patient safety concerns.”
The FDA’s approval was based on the results of the pivotal phase 3 FeDeriCa trial, a noninferiority study in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer, which demonstrated that the new product had comparable efficacy and safety as intravenous pertuzumab and intravenous trastuzumab.
In terms of efficacy, the subcutaneous product demonstrated noninferior plasma levels of pertuzumab, which was the primary endpoint, when compared with IV administration of pertuzumab.
Safety was comparable between the two approaches, with no new safety signals using the subcutaneous delivery method, including no “meaningful difference” in cardiac toxicity, according to Genentech. However, there were more administration-related reactions with the new product. The most common adverse events in both groups were alopecia, nausea, diarrhea, and anemia.
The new product uses a drug delivery technology (Enhanze, Halozyme Therapeutics) that employs a proprietary enzyme that temporarily degrades hyaluronan, a glycosaminoglycan or chain of natural sugars in the body, to facilitate the dispersion and absorption of injected therapeutic drugs, according to Genentech.
In May, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer Virtual Meeting 2020, investigators of the phase 2 PHranceSCa study reported that “more than 80%” of patients preferred subcutaneous to intravenous administration of pertuzumab and trastuzumab.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration approved a combination of pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech/Roche), trastuzumab (Herceptin, Genentech/Roche) and hyaluronidase (Phesgo, Genentech/Roche) that is administered subcutaneously – rather than intravenously – for the treatment of early and metastatic HER2-positive breast cancers.
Phesgo is initially used in combination with chemotherapy at an infusion center but could continue to be administered in a patient’s home by a qualified health care professional once chemotherapy is complete, according to the FDA.
Administration takes approximately 8 minutes for the initial loading dose and approximately 5 minutes for maintenance doses, according to a Genentech press statement. This compares favorably with the 150 minutes needed for the combined loading dose of intravenous pertuzumab and trastuzumab, and the 60-150 minutes for intravenous maintenance infusions, the company said.
“Currently, most patients with HER2-positive breast cancer receive trastuzumab and pertuzumab at infusion centers. With a new administration route, Phesgo offers an outpatient option for patients to receive trastuzumab and pertuzumab,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in an agency press release.
“The fixed-dose combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab offers a simpler, faster, and easier treatment experience for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer,” said Antoinette Tan, MD, MHSc, chief of breast medical oncology at Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C., in the company statement.
Dr. Tan also said that home administration “can be advantageous for patients and infusion centers.”
However, in April, the Community Oncology Alliance strenuously objected to this type of treatment in a patient’s home, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
The group, which represents U.S. community-based practices, said it “fundamentally opposes home infusion of chemotherapy, cancer immunotherapy, and cancer treatment supportive drugs because of serious patient safety concerns.”
The FDA’s approval was based on the results of the pivotal phase 3 FeDeriCa trial, a noninferiority study in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer, which demonstrated that the new product had comparable efficacy and safety as intravenous pertuzumab and intravenous trastuzumab.
In terms of efficacy, the subcutaneous product demonstrated noninferior plasma levels of pertuzumab, which was the primary endpoint, when compared with IV administration of pertuzumab.
Safety was comparable between the two approaches, with no new safety signals using the subcutaneous delivery method, including no “meaningful difference” in cardiac toxicity, according to Genentech. However, there were more administration-related reactions with the new product. The most common adverse events in both groups were alopecia, nausea, diarrhea, and anemia.
The new product uses a drug delivery technology (Enhanze, Halozyme Therapeutics) that employs a proprietary enzyme that temporarily degrades hyaluronan, a glycosaminoglycan or chain of natural sugars in the body, to facilitate the dispersion and absorption of injected therapeutic drugs, according to Genentech.
In May, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer Virtual Meeting 2020, investigators of the phase 2 PHranceSCa study reported that “more than 80%” of patients preferred subcutaneous to intravenous administration of pertuzumab and trastuzumab.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Key Studies in Metastatic Breast Cancer From ASCO 2020
Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.
Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.
In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.
In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.
As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.
Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD
Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.
Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.
In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.
In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.
As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.
Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD
Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.
Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.
In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.
In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.
As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.
Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD
Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
