Metastatic Breast Cancer

Talazoparib did not confer an overall survival benefit over chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, according to a final analysis of the phase 3 EMBRACA trial.

The progression-free survival benefit previously seen with talazoparib did not translate to an overall survival benefit. However, patient-reported quality of life continued to favor talazoparib in the final analysis, Jennifer K. Litton, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, reported at the AACR virtual meeting I.

The EMBRACA trial enrolled adults with HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA mutation. They were randomized to talazoparib at 1 mg daily (n = 287) or to physician’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy (n = 144).

In the primary analysis, talazoparib was associated with significantly improved progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 8.6 months in the talazoparib arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.54).

“At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival data were immature, and the hazard ratio for the interim overall survival was 0.761, which was not statistically significant,” Dr. Litton said.

However, patient-reported outcomes favored talazoparib in the primary analysis, with patients in that arm showing “significant overall improvements with a significant delay in time to clinically meaningful deterioration in multiple cancer-related and breast cancer–specific symptoms, functions, quality of life, and global health,” Dr. Litton said.
 

Final overall survival

At the final analysis, the median follow-up was 44.9 months for the talazoparib arm and 36.8 months for the chemotherapy arm.

The median overall survival was 19.3 months in the talazoparib arm and 19.5 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.848; P = .17)

The results were “generally consistent” across patient subgroups,” Dr. Litton said, adding that “the effect of treatment with talazoparib was also similar irrespective of BRCA status, as well as triple-negative or hormone-receptor-positive subtypes.”

Of note, most patients received poststudy therapies. These included PARP inhibitors in 4.5% of patients in the talazoparib arm and 32.6% of patients in the chemotherapy arm, and platinum drugs in 46.3% and 41.7%, respectively.

Patients who received chemotherapy on study but did not receive a subsequent PARP inhibitor or platinum therapy had both shorter total treatment duration and shorter overall survival, compared with patients who did receive subsequent treatment.

In the talazoparib arm, outcomes were similar whether or not patients received a subsequent PARP inhibitor or platinum therapy.

“Interpretation of the overall survival results may have been confounded by subsequent treatment, so two sensitivity analyses accounting for subsequent PARP inhibition or platinum therapy were carried out,” Dr. Litton said.

She noted that adjustment for poststudy treatment lowered the hazard ratio, but there was still no significant difference between the talazoparib and chemotherapy arms. These results suggest “the primary overall survival analysis underestimated the treatment benefit of talazoparib,” Dr. Litton said. She also noted that a longer platinum-free interval prior to study entry was generally associated with a longer duration of survival, particularly in the talazoparib arm.
 

Quality of life and safety

Patient-reported outcomes continued to favor talazoparib with extended follow-up and were consistent with the initial analysis, Dr. Litton noted.

The updated analysis revealed “a significant improvement in estimated overall change from baseline in the global health quality of life scores for those patients receiving talazoparib, while a significant deterioration was observed in patients receiving chemotherapy,” she said.

The estimated overall change in score was a 2.1-point increase in the talazoparib arm and a 5.7-point decrease in the chemotherapy arm (P = .001). The median time to clinically meaningful deterioration in global health quality of life scores was 26.3 months in the talazoparib arm and 6.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.385).

At the final analysis, the overall safety profile was consistent with that reported previously. Talazoparib was generally well tolerated, and no new safety signals were identified.

Grade 3/4 serious adverse events occurred in 28.3% of patients in the talazoparib arm and 27% of those in the chemotherapy arm. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 7.7% and 9.5% of patients, respectively.

Most grade 3/4 adverse events were hematologic, and most were successfully managed by supportive care, including transfusions and dose modifications, Dr. Litton said.

She noted that one patient in the chemotherapy arm assigned to receive capecitabine had been diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia at the time of the first analysis. “And now we report an additional case of [acute myeloid leukemia] in a patient who was randomized to the talazoparib arm,” Dr. Litton said.
 

Jury’s still out

Based on existing data, including from EMBRACA, the jury is still out on whether PARP inhibition is associated with an overall survival benefit in this setting, said invited discussant Susan Domcheck, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

She suggested that could change with ongoing efforts to identify biomarkers for treatment response and new approaches to treatment, such as earlier lines of therapy and combinations.

“At this time, germline BRCA 1 and 2 pathogenic variants are the best predictor of PARP inhibitor sensitivity in breast cancer,” Dr. Domcheck said. “Not all the tumors are sensitive, but this is true of [estrogen receptor–positive] breast cancer and hormonal therapy, and HER2-positive breast cancer as well.”

Studies investigating approaches to improve survival are “incredibly important, because the progression-free survival is not as long as we would like it to be and there’s not an overwhelming overall survival benefit, for sure,” she said.

The EMBRACA trial was funded by Medivation (Pfizer). Dr. Litton and colleagues disclosed numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other organizations. Dr. Domcheck disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Clovis, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Litton J et al., AACR 20, Abstract CT071.

Talazoparib did not confer an overall survival benefit over chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, according to a final analysis of the phase 3 EMBRACA trial.

The progression-free survival benefit previously seen with talazoparib did not translate to an overall survival benefit. However, patient-reported quality of life continued to favor talazoparib in the final analysis, Jennifer K. Litton, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, reported at the AACR virtual meeting I.

The EMBRACA trial enrolled adults with HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA mutation. They were randomized to talazoparib at 1 mg daily (n = 287) or to physician’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy (n = 144).

In the primary analysis, talazoparib was associated with significantly improved progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 8.6 months in the talazoparib arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.54).

“At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival data were immature, and the hazard ratio for the interim overall survival was 0.761, which was not statistically significant,” Dr. Litton said.

However, patient-reported outcomes favored talazoparib in the primary analysis, with patients in that arm showing “significant overall improvements with a significant delay in time to clinically meaningful deterioration in multiple cancer-related and breast cancer–specific symptoms, functions, quality of life, and global health,” Dr. Litton said.
 

Final overall survival

At the final analysis, the median follow-up was 44.9 months for the talazoparib arm and 36.8 months for the chemotherapy arm.

The median overall survival was 19.3 months in the talazoparib arm and 19.5 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.848; P = .17)

The results were “generally consistent” across patient subgroups,” Dr. Litton said, adding that “the effect of treatment with talazoparib was also similar irrespective of BRCA status, as well as triple-negative or hormone-receptor-positive subtypes.”

Of note, most patients received poststudy therapies. These included PARP inhibitors in 4.5% of patients in the talazoparib arm and 32.6% of patients in the chemotherapy arm, and platinum drugs in 46.3% and 41.7%, respectively.

Patients who received chemotherapy on study but did not receive a subsequent PARP inhibitor or platinum therapy had both shorter total treatment duration and shorter overall survival, compared with patients who did receive subsequent treatment.

In the talazoparib arm, outcomes were similar whether or not patients received a subsequent PARP inhibitor or platinum therapy.

“Interpretation of the overall survival results may have been confounded by subsequent treatment, so two sensitivity analyses accounting for subsequent PARP inhibition or platinum therapy were carried out,” Dr. Litton said.

She noted that adjustment for poststudy treatment lowered the hazard ratio, but there was still no significant difference between the talazoparib and chemotherapy arms. These results suggest “the primary overall survival analysis underestimated the treatment benefit of talazoparib,” Dr. Litton said. She also noted that a longer platinum-free interval prior to study entry was generally associated with a longer duration of survival, particularly in the talazoparib arm.
 

Quality of life and safety

Patient-reported outcomes continued to favor talazoparib with extended follow-up and were consistent with the initial analysis, Dr. Litton noted.

The updated analysis revealed “a significant improvement in estimated overall change from baseline in the global health quality of life scores for those patients receiving talazoparib, while a significant deterioration was observed in patients receiving chemotherapy,” she said.

The estimated overall change in score was a 2.1-point increase in the talazoparib arm and a 5.7-point decrease in the chemotherapy arm (P = .001). The median time to clinically meaningful deterioration in global health quality of life scores was 26.3 months in the talazoparib arm and 6.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.385).

At the final analysis, the overall safety profile was consistent with that reported previously. Talazoparib was generally well tolerated, and no new safety signals were identified.

Grade 3/4 serious adverse events occurred in 28.3% of patients in the talazoparib arm and 27% of those in the chemotherapy arm. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 7.7% and 9.5% of patients, respectively.

Most grade 3/4 adverse events were hematologic, and most were successfully managed by supportive care, including transfusions and dose modifications, Dr. Litton said.

She noted that one patient in the chemotherapy arm assigned to receive capecitabine had been diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia at the time of the first analysis. “And now we report an additional case of [acute myeloid leukemia] in a patient who was randomized to the talazoparib arm,” Dr. Litton said.
 

Jury’s still out

Based on existing data, including from EMBRACA, the jury is still out on whether PARP inhibition is associated with an overall survival benefit in this setting, said invited discussant Susan Domcheck, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

She suggested that could change with ongoing efforts to identify biomarkers for treatment response and new approaches to treatment, such as earlier lines of therapy and combinations.

“At this time, germline BRCA 1 and 2 pathogenic variants are the best predictor of PARP inhibitor sensitivity in breast cancer,” Dr. Domcheck said. “Not all the tumors are sensitive, but this is true of [estrogen receptor–positive] breast cancer and hormonal therapy, and HER2-positive breast cancer as well.”

Studies investigating approaches to improve survival are “incredibly important, because the progression-free survival is not as long as we would like it to be and there’s not an overwhelming overall survival benefit, for sure,” she said.

The EMBRACA trial was funded by Medivation (Pfizer). Dr. Litton and colleagues disclosed numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other organizations. Dr. Domcheck disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Clovis, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Litton J et al., AACR 20, Abstract CT071.

Talazoparib did not confer an overall survival benefit over chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, according to a final analysis of the phase 3 EMBRACA trial.

The progression-free survival benefit previously seen with talazoparib did not translate to an overall survival benefit. However, patient-reported quality of life continued to favor talazoparib in the final analysis, Jennifer K. Litton, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, reported at the AACR virtual meeting I.

The EMBRACA trial enrolled adults with HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA mutation. They were randomized to talazoparib at 1 mg daily (n = 287) or to physician’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy (n = 144).

In the primary analysis, talazoparib was associated with significantly improved progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 8.6 months in the talazoparib arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.54).

“At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival data were immature, and the hazard ratio for the interim overall survival was 0.761, which was not statistically significant,” Dr. Litton said.

However, patient-reported outcomes favored talazoparib in the primary analysis, with patients in that arm showing “significant overall improvements with a significant delay in time to clinically meaningful deterioration in multiple cancer-related and breast cancer–specific symptoms, functions, quality of life, and global health,” Dr. Litton said.
 

Final overall survival

At the final analysis, the median follow-up was 44.9 months for the talazoparib arm and 36.8 months for the chemotherapy arm.

The median overall survival was 19.3 months in the talazoparib arm and 19.5 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.848; P = .17)

The results were “generally consistent” across patient subgroups,” Dr. Litton said, adding that “the effect of treatment with talazoparib was also similar irrespective of BRCA status, as well as triple-negative or hormone-receptor-positive subtypes.”

Of note, most patients received poststudy therapies. These included PARP inhibitors in 4.5% of patients in the talazoparib arm and 32.6% of patients in the chemotherapy arm, and platinum drugs in 46.3% and 41.7%, respectively.

Patients who received chemotherapy on study but did not receive a subsequent PARP inhibitor or platinum therapy had both shorter total treatment duration and shorter overall survival, compared with patients who did receive subsequent treatment.

In the talazoparib arm, outcomes were similar whether or not patients received a subsequent PARP inhibitor or platinum therapy.

“Interpretation of the overall survival results may have been confounded by subsequent treatment, so two sensitivity analyses accounting for subsequent PARP inhibition or platinum therapy were carried out,” Dr. Litton said.

She noted that adjustment for poststudy treatment lowered the hazard ratio, but there was still no significant difference between the talazoparib and chemotherapy arms. These results suggest “the primary overall survival analysis underestimated the treatment benefit of talazoparib,” Dr. Litton said. She also noted that a longer platinum-free interval prior to study entry was generally associated with a longer duration of survival, particularly in the talazoparib arm.
 

Quality of life and safety

Patient-reported outcomes continued to favor talazoparib with extended follow-up and were consistent with the initial analysis, Dr. Litton noted.

The updated analysis revealed “a significant improvement in estimated overall change from baseline in the global health quality of life scores for those patients receiving talazoparib, while a significant deterioration was observed in patients receiving chemotherapy,” she said.

The estimated overall change in score was a 2.1-point increase in the talazoparib arm and a 5.7-point decrease in the chemotherapy arm (P = .001). The median time to clinically meaningful deterioration in global health quality of life scores was 26.3 months in the talazoparib arm and 6.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.385).

At the final analysis, the overall safety profile was consistent with that reported previously. Talazoparib was generally well tolerated, and no new safety signals were identified.

Grade 3/4 serious adverse events occurred in 28.3% of patients in the talazoparib arm and 27% of those in the chemotherapy arm. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 7.7% and 9.5% of patients, respectively.

Most grade 3/4 adverse events were hematologic, and most were successfully managed by supportive care, including transfusions and dose modifications, Dr. Litton said.

She noted that one patient in the chemotherapy arm assigned to receive capecitabine had been diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia at the time of the first analysis. “And now we report an additional case of [acute myeloid leukemia] in a patient who was randomized to the talazoparib arm,” Dr. Litton said.
 

Jury’s still out

Based on existing data, including from EMBRACA, the jury is still out on whether PARP inhibition is associated with an overall survival benefit in this setting, said invited discussant Susan Domcheck, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

She suggested that could change with ongoing efforts to identify biomarkers for treatment response and new approaches to treatment, such as earlier lines of therapy and combinations.

“At this time, germline BRCA 1 and 2 pathogenic variants are the best predictor of PARP inhibitor sensitivity in breast cancer,” Dr. Domcheck said. “Not all the tumors are sensitive, but this is true of [estrogen receptor–positive] breast cancer and hormonal therapy, and HER2-positive breast cancer as well.”

Studies investigating approaches to improve survival are “incredibly important, because the progression-free survival is not as long as we would like it to be and there’s not an overwhelming overall survival benefit, for sure,” she said.

The EMBRACA trial was funded by Medivation (Pfizer). Dr. Litton and colleagues disclosed numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other organizations. Dr. Domcheck disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Clovis, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Litton J et al., AACR 20, Abstract CT071.

Cancer type, stage, and recent treatment may affect outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients, according to a study of patients from China.

The data showed that patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying.

On the other hand, patients with nonmetastatic cancer had outcomes comparable to those of noncancer patients with COVID-19.

Similarly, cancer patients who had recently undergone surgery or received immunotherapy were more likely to have poor outcomes, whereas cancer patients treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

Hongbing Cai, MD, of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China, presented these results at the AACR virtual meeting I. The results also were published in Cancer Discovery.
 

Cancer vs. noncancer patients

The study included 105 cancer patients with COVID-19 who were treated from Jan. 1 to Feb. 24, 2020, at 14 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Patients had lung (20.95%), gastrointestinal (12.38%), breast (10.48%), and thyroid cancers (10.48%) as well as hematologic malignancies (8.57%). Dr. Cai and colleagues matched the COVID-19 cancer patients to 536 COVID-19 patients without cancer. Patients were matched by hospital, duration of hospitalization, and age.

“COVID-19 patients with cancer had higher risks of all severe outcomes,” Dr. Cai noted.

Compared with noncancer patients, the cancer patients had a higher risk of:

• Severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms – odds ratio, 2.79 (P < .01).
• Being admitted to the ICU – OR, 2.84 (P < .01).
• Requiring invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 14 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 2.34 (P = .03).

Cancer type and stage

Dr. Cai noted that outcomes were the worst among patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancer (stage IV).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with hematologic malignancies had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 9.66 (P < .01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 38 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .01).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with metastatic cancer had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 5.97 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 6.59 (P < 0.01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 55.42 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 5.58 (P = .01).

On the other hand, outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic cancer were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .05 for all outcomes).
 

Cancer treatment

The treatments cancer patients received within 40 days before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms were radiotherapy (12.26%), chemotherapy (14.15%), surgery (7.62%), targeted therapies (3.81%), and immunotherapy (5.71%).

Compared with patients without cancer, those who received immunotherapy had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .04).

Patients who underwent surgery had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 8.84 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 7.24 (P = .02).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 44.33 (P < .01).

Conversely, outcomes in cancer patients who received radiotherapy were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .10 for all).

These results suggest that “postponing surgery should be considered in outbreak areas,” Dr. Cai said, adding that scheduled radiotherapy can go ahead but with “intensive protection and surveillance.”

Dr. Cai said it remains to be seen whether patients with early-stage cancer need to postpone their treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic or whether immunotherapy aggravates severe outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19. For now, she said, cancer patients should have individualized treatment plans based on their tumor type and stage.

Dr. Cai disclosed no conflicts of interest. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Xiu Research Fund.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cai H. AACR 2020. Patients with cancer appear more vulnerable to SARS-COV-2: A multicenter study during the COVID-19 outbreak; Dai M et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0422.

Cancer type, stage, and recent treatment may affect outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients, according to a study of patients from China.

The data showed that patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying.

On the other hand, patients with nonmetastatic cancer had outcomes comparable to those of noncancer patients with COVID-19.

Similarly, cancer patients who had recently undergone surgery or received immunotherapy were more likely to have poor outcomes, whereas cancer patients treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

Hongbing Cai, MD, of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China, presented these results at the AACR virtual meeting I. The results also were published in Cancer Discovery.
 

Cancer vs. noncancer patients

The study included 105 cancer patients with COVID-19 who were treated from Jan. 1 to Feb. 24, 2020, at 14 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Patients had lung (20.95%), gastrointestinal (12.38%), breast (10.48%), and thyroid cancers (10.48%) as well as hematologic malignancies (8.57%). Dr. Cai and colleagues matched the COVID-19 cancer patients to 536 COVID-19 patients without cancer. Patients were matched by hospital, duration of hospitalization, and age.

“COVID-19 patients with cancer had higher risks of all severe outcomes,” Dr. Cai noted.

Compared with noncancer patients, the cancer patients had a higher risk of:

• Severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms – odds ratio, 2.79 (P < .01).
• Being admitted to the ICU – OR, 2.84 (P < .01).
• Requiring invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 14 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 2.34 (P = .03).

Cancer type and stage

Dr. Cai noted that outcomes were the worst among patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancer (stage IV).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with hematologic malignancies had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 9.66 (P < .01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 38 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .01).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with metastatic cancer had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 5.97 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 6.59 (P < 0.01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 55.42 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 5.58 (P = .01).

On the other hand, outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic cancer were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .05 for all outcomes).
 

Cancer treatment

The treatments cancer patients received within 40 days before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms were radiotherapy (12.26%), chemotherapy (14.15%), surgery (7.62%), targeted therapies (3.81%), and immunotherapy (5.71%).

Compared with patients without cancer, those who received immunotherapy had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .04).

Patients who underwent surgery had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 8.84 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 7.24 (P = .02).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 44.33 (P < .01).

Conversely, outcomes in cancer patients who received radiotherapy were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .10 for all).

These results suggest that “postponing surgery should be considered in outbreak areas,” Dr. Cai said, adding that scheduled radiotherapy can go ahead but with “intensive protection and surveillance.”

Dr. Cai said it remains to be seen whether patients with early-stage cancer need to postpone their treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic or whether immunotherapy aggravates severe outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19. For now, she said, cancer patients should have individualized treatment plans based on their tumor type and stage.

Dr. Cai disclosed no conflicts of interest. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Xiu Research Fund.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cai H. AACR 2020. Patients with cancer appear more vulnerable to SARS-COV-2: A multicenter study during the COVID-19 outbreak; Dai M et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0422.

Cancer type, stage, and recent treatment may affect outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients, according to a study of patients from China.

The data showed that patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying.

On the other hand, patients with nonmetastatic cancer had outcomes comparable to those of noncancer patients with COVID-19.

Similarly, cancer patients who had recently undergone surgery or received immunotherapy were more likely to have poor outcomes, whereas cancer patients treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

Hongbing Cai, MD, of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China, presented these results at the AACR virtual meeting I. The results also were published in Cancer Discovery.
 

Cancer vs. noncancer patients

The study included 105 cancer patients with COVID-19 who were treated from Jan. 1 to Feb. 24, 2020, at 14 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Patients had lung (20.95%), gastrointestinal (12.38%), breast (10.48%), and thyroid cancers (10.48%) as well as hematologic malignancies (8.57%). Dr. Cai and colleagues matched the COVID-19 cancer patients to 536 COVID-19 patients without cancer. Patients were matched by hospital, duration of hospitalization, and age.

“COVID-19 patients with cancer had higher risks of all severe outcomes,” Dr. Cai noted.

Compared with noncancer patients, the cancer patients had a higher risk of:

• Severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms – odds ratio, 2.79 (P < .01).
• Being admitted to the ICU – OR, 2.84 (P < .01).
• Requiring invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 14 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 2.34 (P = .03).

Cancer type and stage

Dr. Cai noted that outcomes were the worst among patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancer (stage IV).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with hematologic malignancies had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 9.66 (P < .01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 38 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .01).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with metastatic cancer had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 5.97 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 6.59 (P < 0.01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 55.42 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 5.58 (P = .01).

On the other hand, outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic cancer were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .05 for all outcomes).
 

Cancer treatment

The treatments cancer patients received within 40 days before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms were radiotherapy (12.26%), chemotherapy (14.15%), surgery (7.62%), targeted therapies (3.81%), and immunotherapy (5.71%).

Compared with patients without cancer, those who received immunotherapy had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .04).

Patients who underwent surgery had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 8.84 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 7.24 (P = .02).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 44.33 (P < .01).

Conversely, outcomes in cancer patients who received radiotherapy were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .10 for all).

These results suggest that “postponing surgery should be considered in outbreak areas,” Dr. Cai said, adding that scheduled radiotherapy can go ahead but with “intensive protection and surveillance.”

Dr. Cai said it remains to be seen whether patients with early-stage cancer need to postpone their treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic or whether immunotherapy aggravates severe outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19. For now, she said, cancer patients should have individualized treatment plans based on their tumor type and stage.

Dr. Cai disclosed no conflicts of interest. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Xiu Research Fund.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cai H. AACR 2020. Patients with cancer appear more vulnerable to SARS-COV-2: A multicenter study during the COVID-19 outbreak; Dai M et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0422.

Like other agencies, the European Society for Medical Oncology has developed guidelines for managing breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, recommending when care should be prioritized, delayed, or modified.

ESMO’s breast cancer guidelines expand upon guidelines issued by other groups, addressing a broad spectrum of patient profiles and providing a creative array of treatment options in COVID-19–era clinical practice.

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the breast cancer guidelines are organized by priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening.

Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would probably lower the likelihood of a significant benefit from the intervention.

Low-priority recommendations apply to patients for whom services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Personalized care and high-priority situations

ESMO’s guidelines suggest that multidisciplinary tumor boards should guide decisions about the urgency of care for individual patients, given the complexity of breast cancer biology, the multiplicity of evidence-based treatments, and the possibility of cure or durable high-quality remissions.

The guidelines deliver a clear message that prepandemic discussions about delivering personalized care are even more important now.

ESMO prioritizes investigating high-risk screening mammography results (i.e., BIRADS 5), lumps noted on breast self-examination, clinical evidence of local-regional recurrence, and breast cancer in pregnant women.

Making these scenarios “high priority” will facilitate the best long-term outcomes in time-sensitive scenarios and improve patient satisfaction with care.

Modifications to consider

ESMO provides explicit options for treatment of common breast cancer profiles in which short-term modifications of standard management strategies can safely be considered. Given the generally long natural history of most breast cancer subtypes, these temporary modifications are unlikely to compromise long-term outcomes.

For patients with a new diagnosis of localized breast cancer, the guidelines recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or hormonal therapy to achieve optimal breast cancer outcomes and safely delay surgery or radiotherapy.

In the metastatic setting, ESMO advises providers to consider:

• Symptom-oriented testing, recognizing the arguable benefit of frequent imaging or serum tumor marker measurement (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 20;34[24]:2820-6).
• Drug holidays, de-escalated maintenance therapy, and protracted schedules of bone-modifying agents.
• Avoiding mTOR and PI3KCA inhibitors as an addition to standard hormonal therapy because of pneumonitis, hyperglycemia, and immunosuppression risks. The guidelines suggest careful thought about adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard hormonal therapy because of the added burden of remote safety monitoring with the biologic agents.

ESMO makes suggestions about trimming the duration of adjuvant trastuzumab to 6 months, as in the PERSEPHONE study (Lancet. 2019 Jun 29;393[10191]:2599-612), and modifying the schedule of luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist administration, in an effort to reduce patient exposure to health care personnel (and vice versa).

The guidelines recommend continuing clinical trials if benefits to patients outweigh risks and trials can be modified to enhance patient safety while preserving study endpoint evaluations.
 

Lower-priority situations

ESMO pointedly assigns a low priority to follow-up of patients who are at high risk of relapse but lack signs or symptoms of relapse.

Like other groups, ESMO recommends that patients with equivocal (i.e., BIRADS 3) screening mammograms should have 6-month follow-up imaging in preference to immediate core needle biopsy of the area(s) of concern.

ESMO uses age to assign priority for postponing adjuvant breast radiation in patients with low- to moderate-risk lesions. However, the guidelines stop surprisingly short of recommending that adjuvant radiation be withheld for older patients with low-risk, stage I, hormonally sensitive, HER2-negative breast cancers who receive endocrine therapy.
 

Bottom line

The pragmatic adjustments ESMO suggests address the challenges of evaluating and treating breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidelines protect each patient’s right to care and safety as well as protecting the safety of caregivers.

The guidelines will likely heighten patients’ satisfaction with care and decrease concern about adequacy of timely evaluation and treatment.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Like other agencies, the European Society for Medical Oncology has developed guidelines for managing breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, recommending when care should be prioritized, delayed, or modified.

ESMO’s breast cancer guidelines expand upon guidelines issued by other groups, addressing a broad spectrum of patient profiles and providing a creative array of treatment options in COVID-19–era clinical practice.

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the breast cancer guidelines are organized by priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening.

Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would probably lower the likelihood of a significant benefit from the intervention.

Low-priority recommendations apply to patients for whom services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Personalized care and high-priority situations

ESMO’s guidelines suggest that multidisciplinary tumor boards should guide decisions about the urgency of care for individual patients, given the complexity of breast cancer biology, the multiplicity of evidence-based treatments, and the possibility of cure or durable high-quality remissions.

The guidelines deliver a clear message that prepandemic discussions about delivering personalized care are even more important now.

ESMO prioritizes investigating high-risk screening mammography results (i.e., BIRADS 5), lumps noted on breast self-examination, clinical evidence of local-regional recurrence, and breast cancer in pregnant women.

Making these scenarios “high priority” will facilitate the best long-term outcomes in time-sensitive scenarios and improve patient satisfaction with care.

Modifications to consider

ESMO provides explicit options for treatment of common breast cancer profiles in which short-term modifications of standard management strategies can safely be considered. Given the generally long natural history of most breast cancer subtypes, these temporary modifications are unlikely to compromise long-term outcomes.

For patients with a new diagnosis of localized breast cancer, the guidelines recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or hormonal therapy to achieve optimal breast cancer outcomes and safely delay surgery or radiotherapy.

In the metastatic setting, ESMO advises providers to consider:

• Symptom-oriented testing, recognizing the arguable benefit of frequent imaging or serum tumor marker measurement (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 20;34[24]:2820-6).
• Drug holidays, de-escalated maintenance therapy, and protracted schedules of bone-modifying agents.
• Avoiding mTOR and PI3KCA inhibitors as an addition to standard hormonal therapy because of pneumonitis, hyperglycemia, and immunosuppression risks. The guidelines suggest careful thought about adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard hormonal therapy because of the added burden of remote safety monitoring with the biologic agents.

ESMO makes suggestions about trimming the duration of adjuvant trastuzumab to 6 months, as in the PERSEPHONE study (Lancet. 2019 Jun 29;393[10191]:2599-612), and modifying the schedule of luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist administration, in an effort to reduce patient exposure to health care personnel (and vice versa).

The guidelines recommend continuing clinical trials if benefits to patients outweigh risks and trials can be modified to enhance patient safety while preserving study endpoint evaluations.
 

Lower-priority situations

ESMO pointedly assigns a low priority to follow-up of patients who are at high risk of relapse but lack signs or symptoms of relapse.

Like other groups, ESMO recommends that patients with equivocal (i.e., BIRADS 3) screening mammograms should have 6-month follow-up imaging in preference to immediate core needle biopsy of the area(s) of concern.

ESMO uses age to assign priority for postponing adjuvant breast radiation in patients with low- to moderate-risk lesions. However, the guidelines stop surprisingly short of recommending that adjuvant radiation be withheld for older patients with low-risk, stage I, hormonally sensitive, HER2-negative breast cancers who receive endocrine therapy.
 

Bottom line

The pragmatic adjustments ESMO suggests address the challenges of evaluating and treating breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidelines protect each patient’s right to care and safety as well as protecting the safety of caregivers.

The guidelines will likely heighten patients’ satisfaction with care and decrease concern about adequacy of timely evaluation and treatment.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Like other agencies, the European Society for Medical Oncology has developed guidelines for managing breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, recommending when care should be prioritized, delayed, or modified.

ESMO’s breast cancer guidelines expand upon guidelines issued by other groups, addressing a broad spectrum of patient profiles and providing a creative array of treatment options in COVID-19–era clinical practice.

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the breast cancer guidelines are organized by priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening.

Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would probably lower the likelihood of a significant benefit from the intervention.

Low-priority recommendations apply to patients for whom services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Personalized care and high-priority situations

ESMO’s guidelines suggest that multidisciplinary tumor boards should guide decisions about the urgency of care for individual patients, given the complexity of breast cancer biology, the multiplicity of evidence-based treatments, and the possibility of cure or durable high-quality remissions.

The guidelines deliver a clear message that prepandemic discussions about delivering personalized care are even more important now.

ESMO prioritizes investigating high-risk screening mammography results (i.e., BIRADS 5), lumps noted on breast self-examination, clinical evidence of local-regional recurrence, and breast cancer in pregnant women.

Making these scenarios “high priority” will facilitate the best long-term outcomes in time-sensitive scenarios and improve patient satisfaction with care.

Modifications to consider

ESMO provides explicit options for treatment of common breast cancer profiles in which short-term modifications of standard management strategies can safely be considered. Given the generally long natural history of most breast cancer subtypes, these temporary modifications are unlikely to compromise long-term outcomes.

For patients with a new diagnosis of localized breast cancer, the guidelines recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or hormonal therapy to achieve optimal breast cancer outcomes and safely delay surgery or radiotherapy.

In the metastatic setting, ESMO advises providers to consider:

• Symptom-oriented testing, recognizing the arguable benefit of frequent imaging or serum tumor marker measurement (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 20;34[24]:2820-6).
• Drug holidays, de-escalated maintenance therapy, and protracted schedules of bone-modifying agents.
• Avoiding mTOR and PI3KCA inhibitors as an addition to standard hormonal therapy because of pneumonitis, hyperglycemia, and immunosuppression risks. The guidelines suggest careful thought about adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard hormonal therapy because of the added burden of remote safety monitoring with the biologic agents.

ESMO makes suggestions about trimming the duration of adjuvant trastuzumab to 6 months, as in the PERSEPHONE study (Lancet. 2019 Jun 29;393[10191]:2599-612), and modifying the schedule of luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist administration, in an effort to reduce patient exposure to health care personnel (and vice versa).

The guidelines recommend continuing clinical trials if benefits to patients outweigh risks and trials can be modified to enhance patient safety while preserving study endpoint evaluations.
 

Lower-priority situations

ESMO pointedly assigns a low priority to follow-up of patients who are at high risk of relapse but lack signs or symptoms of relapse.

Like other groups, ESMO recommends that patients with equivocal (i.e., BIRADS 3) screening mammograms should have 6-month follow-up imaging in preference to immediate core needle biopsy of the area(s) of concern.

ESMO uses age to assign priority for postponing adjuvant breast radiation in patients with low- to moderate-risk lesions. However, the guidelines stop surprisingly short of recommending that adjuvant radiation be withheld for older patients with low-risk, stage I, hormonally sensitive, HER2-negative breast cancers who receive endocrine therapy.
 

Bottom line

The pragmatic adjustments ESMO suggests address the challenges of evaluating and treating breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidelines protect each patient’s right to care and safety as well as protecting the safety of caregivers.

The guidelines will likely heighten patients’ satisfaction with care and decrease concern about adequacy of timely evaluation and treatment.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Immunomedics) for the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Eligible patients must have received at least two prior therapies.

TNBC is so-called because it lacks the three cellular targets present in more common forms of breast cancer. It is usually treated with chemotherapy.

Sacituzumab govitecan offers a new approach – and it has a target.

Given intravenously, the new drug is an antibody-drug conjugate in which SN-38, an active metabolite of the chemotherapy drug irinotecan (multiple brands), is coupled to a monoclonal antibody that targets an antigen that has high expression in TNBC and induces cancer cell growth.

“Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer is an aggressive form of breast cancer with limited treatment options,” observed 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 a press statement. “There is intense interest in finding new medications” for this patient population, he added.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from a phase 1/2 clinical trial of 108 patients (median age, 56 years) who had received at least two prior treatments for metastatic disease.

The overall response rate was 33% (n = 36), including three complete responses. Median duration of response was 7.7 months. Of responders, 55.6% maintained their response for at least 6 months and 16.7% for at least 12 months.

Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months, and median overall survival was 13.0 months.

The study data were published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s not every day that we see this sort of clinical activity in this aggressive subtype of breast cancer,” said senior study author Kevin Kalinsky, MD, in an interview at that time. He is a medical oncologist at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.

The most common side effects of the new therapy were nausea, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, anemia, vomiting, alopecia, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, and abdominal pain.

No peripheral neuropathy of grade 3 or higher was reported.

In the study, patients received sacituzumab govitecan intravenously (10 mg/kg body weight) on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The 108 participants received a mean 18.7 doses of sacituzumab govitecan, or 9.6 cycles. The median duration of exposure was 5.1 months.

Three patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, and two patients discontinued because of drug-related events.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning regarding the risks of severe neutropenia and severe diarrhea. Blood cell counts should be monitored during treatment and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapy should be considered. Anti-infective treatment should be initiated in the event of febrile neutropenia. Patients with reduced uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) activity are at increased risk for neutropenia following initiation of treatment.

The new drug can also cause hypersensitivity reactions including severe anaphylactic reactions.

Women who are pregnant should not take sacituzumab govitecan.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Immunomedics) for the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Eligible patients must have received at least two prior therapies.

TNBC is so-called because it lacks the three cellular targets present in more common forms of breast cancer. It is usually treated with chemotherapy.

Sacituzumab govitecan offers a new approach – and it has a target.

Given intravenously, the new drug is an antibody-drug conjugate in which SN-38, an active metabolite of the chemotherapy drug irinotecan (multiple brands), is coupled to a monoclonal antibody that targets an antigen that has high expression in TNBC and induces cancer cell growth.

“Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer is an aggressive form of breast cancer with limited treatment options,” observed 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 a press statement. “There is intense interest in finding new medications” for this patient population, he added.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from a phase 1/2 clinical trial of 108 patients (median age, 56 years) who had received at least two prior treatments for metastatic disease.

The overall response rate was 33% (n = 36), including three complete responses. Median duration of response was 7.7 months. Of responders, 55.6% maintained their response for at least 6 months and 16.7% for at least 12 months.

Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months, and median overall survival was 13.0 months.

The study data were published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s not every day that we see this sort of clinical activity in this aggressive subtype of breast cancer,” said senior study author Kevin Kalinsky, MD, in an interview at that time. He is a medical oncologist at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.

The most common side effects of the new therapy were nausea, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, anemia, vomiting, alopecia, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, and abdominal pain.

No peripheral neuropathy of grade 3 or higher was reported.

In the study, patients received sacituzumab govitecan intravenously (10 mg/kg body weight) on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The 108 participants received a mean 18.7 doses of sacituzumab govitecan, or 9.6 cycles. The median duration of exposure was 5.1 months.

Three patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, and two patients discontinued because of drug-related events.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning regarding the risks of severe neutropenia and severe diarrhea. Blood cell counts should be monitored during treatment and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapy should be considered. Anti-infective treatment should be initiated in the event of febrile neutropenia. Patients with reduced uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) activity are at increased risk for neutropenia following initiation of treatment.

The new drug can also cause hypersensitivity reactions including severe anaphylactic reactions.

Women who are pregnant should not take sacituzumab govitecan.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Immunomedics) for the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Eligible patients must have received at least two prior therapies.

TNBC is so-called because it lacks the three cellular targets present in more common forms of breast cancer. It is usually treated with chemotherapy.

Sacituzumab govitecan offers a new approach – and it has a target.

Given intravenously, the new drug is an antibody-drug conjugate in which SN-38, an active metabolite of the chemotherapy drug irinotecan (multiple brands), is coupled to a monoclonal antibody that targets an antigen that has high expression in TNBC and induces cancer cell growth.

“Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer is an aggressive form of breast cancer with limited treatment options,” observed 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 a press statement. “There is intense interest in finding new medications” for this patient population, he added.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from a phase 1/2 clinical trial of 108 patients (median age, 56 years) who had received at least two prior treatments for metastatic disease.

The overall response rate was 33% (n = 36), including three complete responses. Median duration of response was 7.7 months. Of responders, 55.6% maintained their response for at least 6 months and 16.7% for at least 12 months.

Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months, and median overall survival was 13.0 months.

The study data were published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s not every day that we see this sort of clinical activity in this aggressive subtype of breast cancer,” said senior study author Kevin Kalinsky, MD, in an interview at that time. He is a medical oncologist at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.

The most common side effects of the new therapy were nausea, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, anemia, vomiting, alopecia, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, and abdominal pain.

No peripheral neuropathy of grade 3 or higher was reported.

In the study, patients received sacituzumab govitecan intravenously (10 mg/kg body weight) on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The 108 participants received a mean 18.7 doses of sacituzumab govitecan, or 9.6 cycles. The median duration of exposure was 5.1 months.

Three patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, and two patients discontinued because of drug-related events.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning regarding the risks of severe neutropenia and severe diarrhea. Blood cell counts should be monitored during treatment and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapy should be considered. Anti-infective treatment should be initiated in the event of febrile neutropenia. Patients with reduced uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) activity are at increased risk for neutropenia following initiation of treatment.

The new drug can also cause hypersensitivity reactions including severe anaphylactic reactions.

Women who are pregnant should not take sacituzumab govitecan.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral therapy tucatinib (Tukysa, Seattle Genetics) for the treatment of advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. This is the first new drug approved under Project Orbis, an international collaboration.

Tucatinib, which is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine to treat patients who have received one or more prior treatments for advanced disease.

The FDA collaborated with the regulatory authorities of Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Switzerland on this review. However, only the FDA has approved tucatinib; the application is still under review at the other agencies.

While working with Project Orbis in 2019, the FDA granted an accelerated, conditional approval to a drug combination that included previously approved agents.

“The FDA’s Project Orbis provides a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology drug applications among the FDA’s international collaborators,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a statement.

Collaboration among regulators may allow patients with cancer to receive earlier access to products in other countries where there may be significant delays in regulatory submissions, according to the FDA.

The new drug is a “valuable addition” to the roster of treatments for advanced HER2-positive breast cancer, said study investigator Eric Winer, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, in a company press statement.

“With highly significant and clinically important results for overall and progression-free survival, the addition of [tucatinib] to trastuzumab and capecitabine has the potential to become a standard of care for people with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer after having received one or more previous anti-HER2 therapies in the metastatic setting,” he said.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the phase 2 HER2CLIMB trial that enrolled 612 patients with HER2-positive unresectable locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had previously received, either separately or in combination, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and ado-trastuzumab emtansine.

Nearly half (48%) of patients in the study had brain metastases at the start of the trial. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). All patients received trastuzumab and capecitabine and were randomly assigned to either tucatinib or placebo.

Median PFS in the tucatinib patient group was 7.8 months, compared with 5.6 months in the placebo group. The PFS results in the subgroup of patients with brain metastases were nearly the same.

Median overall survival in the tucatinib patient group was 21.9 months versus 17.4 months in the placebo group.

The new drug is a rare success in the treatment of breast cancer brain metastases, said Jawad Fares, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, who spoke to Medscape Medical News when the phase 3 trial data were first presented at the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Outcomes in the field have been pretty dismal,” summarized Fares, who was not involved in the study.

The results of the HER2CLIMB study, which was funded by Seattle Genetics, were published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year.

According to the FDA, common side effects with tucatinib were diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, nausea, fatigue, hepatotoxicity, vomiting, stomatitis, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, headache, anemia, and rash.

Tucatinib can cause serious side effects, including diarrhea associated with dehydration, acute kidney injury, and death. Health care professionals should start antidiarrheals as clinically indicated if diarrhea occurs and should interrupt treatment or reduce the dosage. Tucatinib can also cause severe hepatotoxicity; patients should be monitored with liver tests.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral therapy tucatinib (Tukysa, Seattle Genetics) for the treatment of advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. This is the first new drug approved under Project Orbis, an international collaboration.

Tucatinib, which is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine to treat patients who have received one or more prior treatments for advanced disease.

The FDA collaborated with the regulatory authorities of Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Switzerland on this review. However, only the FDA has approved tucatinib; the application is still under review at the other agencies.

While working with Project Orbis in 2019, the FDA granted an accelerated, conditional approval to a drug combination that included previously approved agents.

“The FDA’s Project Orbis provides a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology drug applications among the FDA’s international collaborators,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a statement.

Collaboration among regulators may allow patients with cancer to receive earlier access to products in other countries where there may be significant delays in regulatory submissions, according to the FDA.

The new drug is a “valuable addition” to the roster of treatments for advanced HER2-positive breast cancer, said study investigator Eric Winer, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, in a company press statement.

“With highly significant and clinically important results for overall and progression-free survival, the addition of [tucatinib] to trastuzumab and capecitabine has the potential to become a standard of care for people with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer after having received one or more previous anti-HER2 therapies in the metastatic setting,” he said.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the phase 2 HER2CLIMB trial that enrolled 612 patients with HER2-positive unresectable locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had previously received, either separately or in combination, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and ado-trastuzumab emtansine.

Nearly half (48%) of patients in the study had brain metastases at the start of the trial. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). All patients received trastuzumab and capecitabine and were randomly assigned to either tucatinib or placebo.

Median PFS in the tucatinib patient group was 7.8 months, compared with 5.6 months in the placebo group. The PFS results in the subgroup of patients with brain metastases were nearly the same.

Median overall survival in the tucatinib patient group was 21.9 months versus 17.4 months in the placebo group.

The new drug is a rare success in the treatment of breast cancer brain metastases, said Jawad Fares, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, who spoke to Medscape Medical News when the phase 3 trial data were first presented at the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Outcomes in the field have been pretty dismal,” summarized Fares, who was not involved in the study.

The results of the HER2CLIMB study, which was funded by Seattle Genetics, were published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year.

According to the FDA, common side effects with tucatinib were diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, nausea, fatigue, hepatotoxicity, vomiting, stomatitis, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, headache, anemia, and rash.

Tucatinib can cause serious side effects, including diarrhea associated with dehydration, acute kidney injury, and death. Health care professionals should start antidiarrheals as clinically indicated if diarrhea occurs and should interrupt treatment or reduce the dosage. Tucatinib can also cause severe hepatotoxicity; patients should be monitored with liver tests.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral therapy tucatinib (Tukysa, Seattle Genetics) for the treatment of advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. This is the first new drug approved under Project Orbis, an international collaboration.

Tucatinib, which is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine to treat patients who have received one or more prior treatments for advanced disease.

The FDA collaborated with the regulatory authorities of Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Switzerland on this review. However, only the FDA has approved tucatinib; the application is still under review at the other agencies.

While working with Project Orbis in 2019, the FDA granted an accelerated, conditional approval to a drug combination that included previously approved agents.

“The FDA’s Project Orbis provides a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology drug applications among the FDA’s international collaborators,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a statement.

Collaboration among regulators may allow patients with cancer to receive earlier access to products in other countries where there may be significant delays in regulatory submissions, according to the FDA.

The new drug is a “valuable addition” to the roster of treatments for advanced HER2-positive breast cancer, said study investigator Eric Winer, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, in a company press statement.

“With highly significant and clinically important results for overall and progression-free survival, the addition of [tucatinib] to trastuzumab and capecitabine has the potential to become a standard of care for people with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer after having received one or more previous anti-HER2 therapies in the metastatic setting,” he said.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the phase 2 HER2CLIMB trial that enrolled 612 patients with HER2-positive unresectable locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had previously received, either separately or in combination, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and ado-trastuzumab emtansine.

Nearly half (48%) of patients in the study had brain metastases at the start of the trial. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). All patients received trastuzumab and capecitabine and were randomly assigned to either tucatinib or placebo.

Median PFS in the tucatinib patient group was 7.8 months, compared with 5.6 months in the placebo group. The PFS results in the subgroup of patients with brain metastases were nearly the same.

Median overall survival in the tucatinib patient group was 21.9 months versus 17.4 months in the placebo group.

The new drug is a rare success in the treatment of breast cancer brain metastases, said Jawad Fares, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, who spoke to Medscape Medical News when the phase 3 trial data were first presented at the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Outcomes in the field have been pretty dismal,” summarized Fares, who was not involved in the study.

The results of the HER2CLIMB study, which was funded by Seattle Genetics, were published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year.

According to the FDA, common side effects with tucatinib were diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, nausea, fatigue, hepatotoxicity, vomiting, stomatitis, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, headache, anemia, and rash.

Tucatinib can cause serious side effects, including diarrhea associated with dehydration, acute kidney injury, and death. Health care professionals should start antidiarrheals as clinically indicated if diarrhea occurs and should interrupt treatment or reduce the dosage. Tucatinib can also cause severe hepatotoxicity; patients should be monitored with liver tests.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s okay to consider breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients with high-risk hereditary genetic mutations, according to guidelines published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The presence of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation shouldn’t preclude breast-conserving therapy as long as the patient is otherwise eligible for the procedure, according to the guidelines, which were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society for Surgical Oncology.

Nadine M. Tung, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the rest of the expert panel reviewed evidence from 58 published articles to create the guidelines.

In addition to supporting use of breast-conserving therapy, the guidelines suggest that radiation shouldn’t be withheld because of mutation status, except in patients with TP53 mutations. Furthermore, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative disease can receive the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib as an “alternative to chemotherapy” for first-, second-, or third-line therapy.

However, it’s the “license to consider breast-conserving therapy” for high-risk individuals that is one of the most noteworthy points in the guidelines, and the one that may surprise some readers, according to William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

“We don’t have to be as dogmatic with these patients with respect to local therapies as we were in the past,” Dr. Gradishar said in an interview. “That’s a good thing for patients, but you also have to understand the nuances that go into recommending [breast-conserving surgery] to a patient. Other variables, like the age at which the patient develops breast cancer, family history, etc., all go into it.”

Weighing options for surgery

The guidelines emphasize that, for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, health care providers need to discuss treatment options for the breast cancer at hand. However, patients should also be made aware of their increased risk of contralateral and new ipsilateral breast cancer as compared with noncarriers.

When weighing breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy in light of contralateral breast cancer risk, the guidelines recommend considering not only age at diagnosis – the strongest predictor of a later contralateral breast cancer – but also family history, comorbidities, life expectancy, ability to undergo MRI, and prognosis from breast or other cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

If a bilateral mastectomy isn’t performed in a BRCA1/2 mutation carrier, an annual mammogram and MRI are warranted thereafter for screening of the remaining breast tissue, according to the guidelines.

The guidelines say breast-conserving therapy should be offered to patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes, including PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM. However, there’s not much data regarding the risk of ipsilateral breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy in these patients.

Likewise, there’s limited evidence on contralateral breast cancer risk for patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes aside from CHEK2. The guidelines say the risk should be discussed with patients “in the context of shared decision making.”

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is “reasonable” to consider in certain newly diagnosed patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, as well as in newly diagnosed patients with moderate-risk mutations, the guidelines state.

Women with breast cancer and a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation who are undergoing unilateral mastectomy should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Likewise, women with moderate-risk mutations should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, but not solely based on mutation status, according to the guidelines. Data are limited on contralateral breast cancer risk related to those mutations.

Considerations for radiation

Radiation therapy in the context of breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy should not be withheld because of hereditary mutations, except in the case of TP53 mutations, according to the guidelines.

There’s no evidence that radiotherapy increases toxicity or contralateral breast cancer risk for most BRCA1/2 or moderate-penetrance gene mutations. However, the intact breast shouldn’t be irradiated in germline TP53 mutation carriers, the guidelines say, because of the important role that TP53 plays in the ability to repair DNA damage after cellular stress.

“Carriers of a TP53 mutation would be expected to be unable to repair tissue damage from DNA damaging radiotherapy and be at risk for significant [radiotherapy]-associated sequelae,” the guidelines state.

Chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors

For women with metastatic breast cancer harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations, the guidelines say platinum chemotherapy should be preferred over taxanes for platinum-naive patients.

Provided the breast cancer is HER2 negative, the PARP inhibitors olaparib or talazoparib “should be offered as an alternative to chemotherapy in the first- to third-line settings,” the guidelines state.

The guidelines confirm that PARP inhibitors are a “valid starting point” for treatment of BCRA1/2–associated metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Gradishar said.

“When a patient progresses on a PARP inhibitor, assuming they’re not going on some other investigational drug or clinical trial, they’re going to get chemotherapy,” he said. “So the argument is that, if you have something that’s at least as good or maybe a little bit better and has fewer side effects, why not start with that and then move on to other things?”

By contrast, there’s not enough evidence to recommend PARP inhibitors for germline BRCA mutation carriers with nonmetastatic breast cancers, according to the guidelines, and there’s “no robust data” for using PARP inhibitors in patients with breast cancers with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes.

The guideline authors disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Gradishar has relationships with AstraZeneca, Celltrion, Genentech, MacroGenics, Merck, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Tung NM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 3;JCO2000299. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00299.

It’s okay to consider breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients with high-risk hereditary genetic mutations, according to guidelines published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The presence of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation shouldn’t preclude breast-conserving therapy as long as the patient is otherwise eligible for the procedure, according to the guidelines, which were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society for Surgical Oncology.

Nadine M. Tung, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the rest of the expert panel reviewed evidence from 58 published articles to create the guidelines.

In addition to supporting use of breast-conserving therapy, the guidelines suggest that radiation shouldn’t be withheld because of mutation status, except in patients with TP53 mutations. Furthermore, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative disease can receive the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib as an “alternative to chemotherapy” for first-, second-, or third-line therapy.

However, it’s the “license to consider breast-conserving therapy” for high-risk individuals that is one of the most noteworthy points in the guidelines, and the one that may surprise some readers, according to William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

“We don’t have to be as dogmatic with these patients with respect to local therapies as we were in the past,” Dr. Gradishar said in an interview. “That’s a good thing for patients, but you also have to understand the nuances that go into recommending [breast-conserving surgery] to a patient. Other variables, like the age at which the patient develops breast cancer, family history, etc., all go into it.”

Weighing options for surgery

The guidelines emphasize that, for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, health care providers need to discuss treatment options for the breast cancer at hand. However, patients should also be made aware of their increased risk of contralateral and new ipsilateral breast cancer as compared with noncarriers.

When weighing breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy in light of contralateral breast cancer risk, the guidelines recommend considering not only age at diagnosis – the strongest predictor of a later contralateral breast cancer – but also family history, comorbidities, life expectancy, ability to undergo MRI, and prognosis from breast or other cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

If a bilateral mastectomy isn’t performed in a BRCA1/2 mutation carrier, an annual mammogram and MRI are warranted thereafter for screening of the remaining breast tissue, according to the guidelines.

The guidelines say breast-conserving therapy should be offered to patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes, including PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM. However, there’s not much data regarding the risk of ipsilateral breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy in these patients.

Likewise, there’s limited evidence on contralateral breast cancer risk for patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes aside from CHEK2. The guidelines say the risk should be discussed with patients “in the context of shared decision making.”

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is “reasonable” to consider in certain newly diagnosed patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, as well as in newly diagnosed patients with moderate-risk mutations, the guidelines state.

Women with breast cancer and a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation who are undergoing unilateral mastectomy should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Likewise, women with moderate-risk mutations should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, but not solely based on mutation status, according to the guidelines. Data are limited on contralateral breast cancer risk related to those mutations.

Considerations for radiation

Radiation therapy in the context of breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy should not be withheld because of hereditary mutations, except in the case of TP53 mutations, according to the guidelines.

There’s no evidence that radiotherapy increases toxicity or contralateral breast cancer risk for most BRCA1/2 or moderate-penetrance gene mutations. However, the intact breast shouldn’t be irradiated in germline TP53 mutation carriers, the guidelines say, because of the important role that TP53 plays in the ability to repair DNA damage after cellular stress.

“Carriers of a TP53 mutation would be expected to be unable to repair tissue damage from DNA damaging radiotherapy and be at risk for significant [radiotherapy]-associated sequelae,” the guidelines state.

Chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors

For women with metastatic breast cancer harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations, the guidelines say platinum chemotherapy should be preferred over taxanes for platinum-naive patients.

Provided the breast cancer is HER2 negative, the PARP inhibitors olaparib or talazoparib “should be offered as an alternative to chemotherapy in the first- to third-line settings,” the guidelines state.

The guidelines confirm that PARP inhibitors are a “valid starting point” for treatment of BCRA1/2–associated metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Gradishar said.

“When a patient progresses on a PARP inhibitor, assuming they’re not going on some other investigational drug or clinical trial, they’re going to get chemotherapy,” he said. “So the argument is that, if you have something that’s at least as good or maybe a little bit better and has fewer side effects, why not start with that and then move on to other things?”

By contrast, there’s not enough evidence to recommend PARP inhibitors for germline BRCA mutation carriers with nonmetastatic breast cancers, according to the guidelines, and there’s “no robust data” for using PARP inhibitors in patients with breast cancers with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes.

The guideline authors disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Gradishar has relationships with AstraZeneca, Celltrion, Genentech, MacroGenics, Merck, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Tung NM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 3;JCO2000299. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00299.

It’s okay to consider breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients with high-risk hereditary genetic mutations, according to guidelines published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The presence of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation shouldn’t preclude breast-conserving therapy as long as the patient is otherwise eligible for the procedure, according to the guidelines, which were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society for Surgical Oncology.

Nadine M. Tung, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the rest of the expert panel reviewed evidence from 58 published articles to create the guidelines.

In addition to supporting use of breast-conserving therapy, the guidelines suggest that radiation shouldn’t be withheld because of mutation status, except in patients with TP53 mutations. Furthermore, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative disease can receive the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib as an “alternative to chemotherapy” for first-, second-, or third-line therapy.

However, it’s the “license to consider breast-conserving therapy” for high-risk individuals that is one of the most noteworthy points in the guidelines, and the one that may surprise some readers, according to William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

“We don’t have to be as dogmatic with these patients with respect to local therapies as we were in the past,” Dr. Gradishar said in an interview. “That’s a good thing for patients, but you also have to understand the nuances that go into recommending [breast-conserving surgery] to a patient. Other variables, like the age at which the patient develops breast cancer, family history, etc., all go into it.”

Weighing options for surgery

The guidelines emphasize that, for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, health care providers need to discuss treatment options for the breast cancer at hand. However, patients should also be made aware of their increased risk of contralateral and new ipsilateral breast cancer as compared with noncarriers.

When weighing breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy in light of contralateral breast cancer risk, the guidelines recommend considering not only age at diagnosis – the strongest predictor of a later contralateral breast cancer – but also family history, comorbidities, life expectancy, ability to undergo MRI, and prognosis from breast or other cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

If a bilateral mastectomy isn’t performed in a BRCA1/2 mutation carrier, an annual mammogram and MRI are warranted thereafter for screening of the remaining breast tissue, according to the guidelines.

The guidelines say breast-conserving therapy should be offered to patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes, including PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM. However, there’s not much data regarding the risk of ipsilateral breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy in these patients.

Likewise, there’s limited evidence on contralateral breast cancer risk for patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes aside from CHEK2. The guidelines say the risk should be discussed with patients “in the context of shared decision making.”

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is “reasonable” to consider in certain newly diagnosed patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, as well as in newly diagnosed patients with moderate-risk mutations, the guidelines state.

Women with breast cancer and a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation who are undergoing unilateral mastectomy should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Likewise, women with moderate-risk mutations should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, but not solely based on mutation status, according to the guidelines. Data are limited on contralateral breast cancer risk related to those mutations.

Considerations for radiation

Radiation therapy in the context of breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy should not be withheld because of hereditary mutations, except in the case of TP53 mutations, according to the guidelines.

There’s no evidence that radiotherapy increases toxicity or contralateral breast cancer risk for most BRCA1/2 or moderate-penetrance gene mutations. However, the intact breast shouldn’t be irradiated in germline TP53 mutation carriers, the guidelines say, because of the important role that TP53 plays in the ability to repair DNA damage after cellular stress.

“Carriers of a TP53 mutation would be expected to be unable to repair tissue damage from DNA damaging radiotherapy and be at risk for significant [radiotherapy]-associated sequelae,” the guidelines state.

Chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors

For women with metastatic breast cancer harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations, the guidelines say platinum chemotherapy should be preferred over taxanes for platinum-naive patients.

Provided the breast cancer is HER2 negative, the PARP inhibitors olaparib or talazoparib “should be offered as an alternative to chemotherapy in the first- to third-line settings,” the guidelines state.

The guidelines confirm that PARP inhibitors are a “valid starting point” for treatment of BCRA1/2–associated metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Gradishar said.

“When a patient progresses on a PARP inhibitor, assuming they’re not going on some other investigational drug or clinical trial, they’re going to get chemotherapy,” he said. “So the argument is that, if you have something that’s at least as good or maybe a little bit better and has fewer side effects, why not start with that and then move on to other things?”

By contrast, there’s not enough evidence to recommend PARP inhibitors for germline BRCA mutation carriers with nonmetastatic breast cancers, according to the guidelines, and there’s “no robust data” for using PARP inhibitors in patients with breast cancers with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes.

The guideline authors disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Gradishar has relationships with AstraZeneca, Celltrion, Genentech, MacroGenics, Merck, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Tung NM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 3;JCO2000299. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00299.

Nothing is business as usual during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that includes breast cancer therapy. That’s why two groups have released guidance documents on treating breast cancer patients during the pandemic.

A guidance on surgery, drug therapy, and radiotherapy was created by the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium. This guidance is set to be published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment and can be downloaded from the American College of Surgeons website.

A group from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) created a guidance document on radiotherapy for breast cancer patients, and that guidance was recently published in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
 

Prioritizing certain patients and treatments

As hospital beds and clinics fill with coronavirus-infected patients, oncologists must balance the need for timely therapy for their patients with the imperative to protect vulnerable, immunosuppressed patients from exposure and keep clinical resources as free as possible.

“As we’re taking care of breast cancer patients during this unprecedented pandemic, what we’re all trying to do is balance the most effective treatments for our patients against the risk of additional exposures, either from other patients [or] from being outside, and considerations about the safety of our staff,” said Steven Isakoff, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, who is an author of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance.

The consortium’s guidance recommends prioritizing treatment according to patient needs and the disease type and stage. The three basic categories for considering when to treat are:

• Priority A: Patients who have immediately life-threatening conditions, are clinically unstable, or would experience a significant change in prognosis with even a short delay in treatment.
• Priority B: Deferring treatment for a short time (6-12 weeks) would not impact overall outcomes in these patients.
• Priority C: These patients are stable enough that treatment can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The consortium highly recommends multidisciplinary discussion regarding priority for elective surgery and adjuvant treatments for your breast cancer patients,” the guidance authors wrote. “The COVID-19 pandemic may vary in severity over time, and these recommendations are subject to change with changing COVID-19 pandemic severity.”

For example, depending on local circumstances, the guidance recommends limiting immediate outpatient visits to patients with potentially unstable conditions such as infection or hematoma. Established patients with new problems or patients with a new diagnosis of noninvasive cancer might be managed with telemedicine visits, and patients who are on follow-up with no new issues or who have benign lesions might have their visits safely postponed.
 

Surgery and drug recommendations

High-priority surgical procedures include operative drainage of a breast abscess in a septic patient and evacuation of expanding hematoma in a hemodynamically unstable patient, according to the consortium guidance.

Other surgical situations are more nuanced. For example, for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or HER2-positive disease, the guidance recommends neoadjuvant chemotherapy or HER2-targeted chemotherapy in some cases. In other cases, institutions may proceed with surgery before chemotherapy, but “these decisions will depend on institutional resources and patient factors,” according to the authors.

The guidance states that chemotherapy and other drug treatments should not be delayed in patients with oncologic emergencies, such as febrile neutropenia, hypercalcemia, intolerable pain, symptomatic pleural effusions, or brain metastases.

In addition, patients with inflammatory breast cancer, TNBC, or HER2-positive breast cancer should receive neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with metastatic disease that is likely to benefit from therapy should start chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or targeted therapy. And patients who have already started neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy or oral adjuvant endocrine therapy should continue on these treatments.
 

Radiation therapy recommendations

The consortium guidance recommends administering radiation to patients with bleeding or painful inoperable locoregional disease, those with symptomatic metastatic disease, and patients who progress on neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

In contrast, older patients (aged 65-70 years) with lower-risk, stage I, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative cancers who are on adjuvant endocrine therapy can safely defer or omit radiation without affecting their overall survival, according to the guidance. Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, especially those with estrogen receptor–positive disease on endocrine therapy, can safely omit radiation.

“There are clearly conditions where radiation might reduce the risk of recurrence but not improve overall survival, where a delay in treatment really will have minimal or no impact,” Dr. Isakoff said.

The MSKCC guidance recommends omitting radiation for some patients with favorable-risk disease and truncating or accelerating regimens using hypofractionation for others who require whole-breast radiation or post-mastectomy treatment.

The MSKCC guidance also contains recommendations for prioritization of patients according to disease state and the urgency of care. It divides cases into high, intermediate, and low priority for breast radiotherapy, as follows:

• Tier 1 (high priority): Patients with inflammatory breast cancer, residual node-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, four or more positive nodes (N2), recurrent disease, node-positive TNBC, or extensive lymphovascular invasion.
• Tier 2 (intermediate priority): Patients with estrogen receptor–positive disease with one to three positive nodes (N1a), pathologic stage N0 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymphovascular invasion not otherwise specified, or node-negative TNBC.
• Tier 3 (low priority): Patients with early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (especially patients of advanced age), patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, or those who otherwise do not meet the criteria for tiers 1 or 2.

The MSKCC guidance also contains recommended hypofractionated or accelerated radiotherapy regimens for partial and whole-breast irradiation, post-mastectomy treatment, and breast and regional node irradiation, including recommended techniques (for example, 3-D conformal or intensity modulated approaches).

The authors of the MSKCC guidance disclosed relationships with eContour, Volastra Therapeutics, Sanofi, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Cancer Research UK. The authors of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance did not disclose any conflicts and said there was no funding source for the guidance.

SOURCES: Braunstein LZ et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi:10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.013; Dietz JR et al. 2020 Apr. Recommendations for prioritization, treatment and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accepted for publication in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

Nothing is business as usual during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that includes breast cancer therapy. That’s why two groups have released guidance documents on treating breast cancer patients during the pandemic.

A guidance on surgery, drug therapy, and radiotherapy was created by the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium. This guidance is set to be published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment and can be downloaded from the American College of Surgeons website.

A group from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) created a guidance document on radiotherapy for breast cancer patients, and that guidance was recently published in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
 

Prioritizing certain patients and treatments

As hospital beds and clinics fill with coronavirus-infected patients, oncologists must balance the need for timely therapy for their patients with the imperative to protect vulnerable, immunosuppressed patients from exposure and keep clinical resources as free as possible.

“As we’re taking care of breast cancer patients during this unprecedented pandemic, what we’re all trying to do is balance the most effective treatments for our patients against the risk of additional exposures, either from other patients [or] from being outside, and considerations about the safety of our staff,” said Steven Isakoff, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, who is an author of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance.

The consortium’s guidance recommends prioritizing treatment according to patient needs and the disease type and stage. The three basic categories for considering when to treat are:

• Priority A: Patients who have immediately life-threatening conditions, are clinically unstable, or would experience a significant change in prognosis with even a short delay in treatment.
• Priority B: Deferring treatment for a short time (6-12 weeks) would not impact overall outcomes in these patients.
• Priority C: These patients are stable enough that treatment can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The consortium highly recommends multidisciplinary discussion regarding priority for elective surgery and adjuvant treatments for your breast cancer patients,” the guidance authors wrote. “The COVID-19 pandemic may vary in severity over time, and these recommendations are subject to change with changing COVID-19 pandemic severity.”

For example, depending on local circumstances, the guidance recommends limiting immediate outpatient visits to patients with potentially unstable conditions such as infection or hematoma. Established patients with new problems or patients with a new diagnosis of noninvasive cancer might be managed with telemedicine visits, and patients who are on follow-up with no new issues or who have benign lesions might have their visits safely postponed.
 

Surgery and drug recommendations

High-priority surgical procedures include operative drainage of a breast abscess in a septic patient and evacuation of expanding hematoma in a hemodynamically unstable patient, according to the consortium guidance.

Other surgical situations are more nuanced. For example, for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or HER2-positive disease, the guidance recommends neoadjuvant chemotherapy or HER2-targeted chemotherapy in some cases. In other cases, institutions may proceed with surgery before chemotherapy, but “these decisions will depend on institutional resources and patient factors,” according to the authors.

The guidance states that chemotherapy and other drug treatments should not be delayed in patients with oncologic emergencies, such as febrile neutropenia, hypercalcemia, intolerable pain, symptomatic pleural effusions, or brain metastases.

In addition, patients with inflammatory breast cancer, TNBC, or HER2-positive breast cancer should receive neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with metastatic disease that is likely to benefit from therapy should start chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or targeted therapy. And patients who have already started neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy or oral adjuvant endocrine therapy should continue on these treatments.
 

Radiation therapy recommendations

The consortium guidance recommends administering radiation to patients with bleeding or painful inoperable locoregional disease, those with symptomatic metastatic disease, and patients who progress on neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

In contrast, older patients (aged 65-70 years) with lower-risk, stage I, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative cancers who are on adjuvant endocrine therapy can safely defer or omit radiation without affecting their overall survival, according to the guidance. Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, especially those with estrogen receptor–positive disease on endocrine therapy, can safely omit radiation.

“There are clearly conditions where radiation might reduce the risk of recurrence but not improve overall survival, where a delay in treatment really will have minimal or no impact,” Dr. Isakoff said.

The MSKCC guidance recommends omitting radiation for some patients with favorable-risk disease and truncating or accelerating regimens using hypofractionation for others who require whole-breast radiation or post-mastectomy treatment.

The MSKCC guidance also contains recommendations for prioritization of patients according to disease state and the urgency of care. It divides cases into high, intermediate, and low priority for breast radiotherapy, as follows:

• Tier 1 (high priority): Patients with inflammatory breast cancer, residual node-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, four or more positive nodes (N2), recurrent disease, node-positive TNBC, or extensive lymphovascular invasion.
• Tier 2 (intermediate priority): Patients with estrogen receptor–positive disease with one to three positive nodes (N1a), pathologic stage N0 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymphovascular invasion not otherwise specified, or node-negative TNBC.
• Tier 3 (low priority): Patients with early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (especially patients of advanced age), patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, or those who otherwise do not meet the criteria for tiers 1 or 2.

The MSKCC guidance also contains recommended hypofractionated or accelerated radiotherapy regimens for partial and whole-breast irradiation, post-mastectomy treatment, and breast and regional node irradiation, including recommended techniques (for example, 3-D conformal or intensity modulated approaches).

The authors of the MSKCC guidance disclosed relationships with eContour, Volastra Therapeutics, Sanofi, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Cancer Research UK. The authors of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance did not disclose any conflicts and said there was no funding source for the guidance.

SOURCES: Braunstein LZ et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi:10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.013; Dietz JR et al. 2020 Apr. Recommendations for prioritization, treatment and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accepted for publication in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

Nothing is business as usual during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that includes breast cancer therapy. That’s why two groups have released guidance documents on treating breast cancer patients during the pandemic.

A guidance on surgery, drug therapy, and radiotherapy was created by the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium. This guidance is set to be published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment and can be downloaded from the American College of Surgeons website.

A group from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) created a guidance document on radiotherapy for breast cancer patients, and that guidance was recently published in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
 

Prioritizing certain patients and treatments

As hospital beds and clinics fill with coronavirus-infected patients, oncologists must balance the need for timely therapy for their patients with the imperative to protect vulnerable, immunosuppressed patients from exposure and keep clinical resources as free as possible.

“As we’re taking care of breast cancer patients during this unprecedented pandemic, what we’re all trying to do is balance the most effective treatments for our patients against the risk of additional exposures, either from other patients [or] from being outside, and considerations about the safety of our staff,” said Steven Isakoff, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, who is an author of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance.

The consortium’s guidance recommends prioritizing treatment according to patient needs and the disease type and stage. The three basic categories for considering when to treat are:

• Priority A: Patients who have immediately life-threatening conditions, are clinically unstable, or would experience a significant change in prognosis with even a short delay in treatment.
• Priority B: Deferring treatment for a short time (6-12 weeks) would not impact overall outcomes in these patients.
• Priority C: These patients are stable enough that treatment can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The consortium highly recommends multidisciplinary discussion regarding priority for elective surgery and adjuvant treatments for your breast cancer patients,” the guidance authors wrote. “The COVID-19 pandemic may vary in severity over time, and these recommendations are subject to change with changing COVID-19 pandemic severity.”

For example, depending on local circumstances, the guidance recommends limiting immediate outpatient visits to patients with potentially unstable conditions such as infection or hematoma. Established patients with new problems or patients with a new diagnosis of noninvasive cancer might be managed with telemedicine visits, and patients who are on follow-up with no new issues or who have benign lesions might have their visits safely postponed.
 

Surgery and drug recommendations

High-priority surgical procedures include operative drainage of a breast abscess in a septic patient and evacuation of expanding hematoma in a hemodynamically unstable patient, according to the consortium guidance.

Other surgical situations are more nuanced. For example, for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or HER2-positive disease, the guidance recommends neoadjuvant chemotherapy or HER2-targeted chemotherapy in some cases. In other cases, institutions may proceed with surgery before chemotherapy, but “these decisions will depend on institutional resources and patient factors,” according to the authors.

The guidance states that chemotherapy and other drug treatments should not be delayed in patients with oncologic emergencies, such as febrile neutropenia, hypercalcemia, intolerable pain, symptomatic pleural effusions, or brain metastases.

In addition, patients with inflammatory breast cancer, TNBC, or HER2-positive breast cancer should receive neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with metastatic disease that is likely to benefit from therapy should start chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or targeted therapy. And patients who have already started neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy or oral adjuvant endocrine therapy should continue on these treatments.
 

Radiation therapy recommendations

The consortium guidance recommends administering radiation to patients with bleeding or painful inoperable locoregional disease, those with symptomatic metastatic disease, and patients who progress on neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

In contrast, older patients (aged 65-70 years) with lower-risk, stage I, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative cancers who are on adjuvant endocrine therapy can safely defer or omit radiation without affecting their overall survival, according to the guidance. Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, especially those with estrogen receptor–positive disease on endocrine therapy, can safely omit radiation.

“There are clearly conditions where radiation might reduce the risk of recurrence but not improve overall survival, where a delay in treatment really will have minimal or no impact,” Dr. Isakoff said.

The MSKCC guidance recommends omitting radiation for some patients with favorable-risk disease and truncating or accelerating regimens using hypofractionation for others who require whole-breast radiation or post-mastectomy treatment.

The MSKCC guidance also contains recommendations for prioritization of patients according to disease state and the urgency of care. It divides cases into high, intermediate, and low priority for breast radiotherapy, as follows:

• Tier 1 (high priority): Patients with inflammatory breast cancer, residual node-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, four or more positive nodes (N2), recurrent disease, node-positive TNBC, or extensive lymphovascular invasion.
• Tier 2 (intermediate priority): Patients with estrogen receptor–positive disease with one to three positive nodes (N1a), pathologic stage N0 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymphovascular invasion not otherwise specified, or node-negative TNBC.
• Tier 3 (low priority): Patients with early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (especially patients of advanced age), patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, or those who otherwise do not meet the criteria for tiers 1 or 2.

The MSKCC guidance also contains recommended hypofractionated or accelerated radiotherapy regimens for partial and whole-breast irradiation, post-mastectomy treatment, and breast and regional node irradiation, including recommended techniques (for example, 3-D conformal or intensity modulated approaches).

The authors of the MSKCC guidance disclosed relationships with eContour, Volastra Therapeutics, Sanofi, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Cancer Research UK. The authors of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance did not disclose any conflicts and said there was no funding source for the guidance.

SOURCES: Braunstein LZ et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi:10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.013; Dietz JR et al. 2020 Apr. Recommendations for prioritization, treatment and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accepted for publication in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

Pertuzumab has a durable benefit in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer when added to trastuzumab and docetaxel as first-line therapy, with nearly 40% of patients achieving long-term survival, the CLEOPATRA end-of-study analysis shows.

The regimen, combining dual HER2 targeting with chemotherapy, became standard of care in this population as a result of its good efficacy and safety relative to placebo, first established in the phase 3, randomized trial 8 years ago (N Engl J Med. 2012;366:109-19).

Trial updates since then, most recently at a median follow-up of 50 months (N Engl J Med. 2015;372:724-34), have shown clear progression-free and overall survival benefits, with acceptable cardiac and other toxicity.

Investigators led by Sandra M. Swain, MD, of Georgetown University, Washington, performed a final analysis of data from the 808 patients in CLEOPATRA, now at a median follow-up of 99.9 months.

Results reported in The Lancet Oncology showed that, compared with placebo, pertuzumab prolonged investigator-assessed progression-free survival by 6.3 months (the same as that seen in the previous update) and prolonged overall survival by 16.3 months (up from 15.7 months in the previous update).

At 8 years, 37% of patients in the pertuzumab group were still alive, and 16% were still alive without progression.

“The combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel remains the standard of care for the first-line treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, owing to its overall survival benefits and maintained long-term overall and cardiac safety,” Dr. Swain and coinvestigators concluded. “Prospective identification of patients who will be long-term responders to treatment is an area for future research.”

In an accompanying comment, Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino in Genova, Italy, and Ines Vaz-Luis, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, contended that these results, “which are also observed in real-world datasets, challenge the concept of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer being an incurable disease and open the path to several interconnected clinical and research questions.”

Those questions include the optimal duration of anti-HER2 maintenance therapy in patients without disease progression, best strategies for combining this systemic therapy with local treatment to further improve survival, and new markers to better identify patients likely to be long-term responders, who might benefit from a curative approach, the authors elaborated. They noted that more than half of CLEOPATRA patients had de novo stage IV disease.

“The performance of the current standard pertuzumab-based first-line treatment in patients previously exposed to adjuvant or neoadjuvant anti-HER2 therapy remains to be clarified,” the authors wrote. “Results from several ongoing prospective cohort studies investigating real-world patterns of care and outcomes of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer will help to clarify this important issue and optimize treatment sequencing.”
 

Study details

The end-of-study analysis showed that median progression-free survival was 18.7 months with pertuzumab and 12.4 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.81). The 8-year landmark progression-free survival rate was 16% with the former and 10% with the latter.

The median overall survival was 57.1 months with pertuzumab and 40.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.82). The 8-year landmark overall survival rate was 37% with the former and 23% with the latter.

A comparison of patients who did and did not achieve long-term response showed that, in both treatment groups, the former more often had tumors that were 3+ positive by HER2 immunohistochemistry and PIK3CA wild-type tumors. The leading grade 3 or 4 adverse event was neutropenia, seen in 49% of patients in the pertuzumab group and 46% of those in the placebo group. The rate of treatment-related death was 1% and 2%, respectively.

Since the last update, only two additional serious adverse events were reported: one case of heart failure and one case of symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients given pertuzumab.

The CLEOPATRA trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Swain and coauthors disclosed relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Lambertini disclosed relationships with Roche, Theramex, and Takeda. Dr. Vaz-Luis disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Kephren, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Swain SM et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30863-0; Lambertini M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30058-9.

Pertuzumab has a durable benefit in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer when added to trastuzumab and docetaxel as first-line therapy, with nearly 40% of patients achieving long-term survival, the CLEOPATRA end-of-study analysis shows.

The regimen, combining dual HER2 targeting with chemotherapy, became standard of care in this population as a result of its good efficacy and safety relative to placebo, first established in the phase 3, randomized trial 8 years ago (N Engl J Med. 2012;366:109-19).

Trial updates since then, most recently at a median follow-up of 50 months (N Engl J Med. 2015;372:724-34), have shown clear progression-free and overall survival benefits, with acceptable cardiac and other toxicity.

Investigators led by Sandra M. Swain, MD, of Georgetown University, Washington, performed a final analysis of data from the 808 patients in CLEOPATRA, now at a median follow-up of 99.9 months.

Results reported in The Lancet Oncology showed that, compared with placebo, pertuzumab prolonged investigator-assessed progression-free survival by 6.3 months (the same as that seen in the previous update) and prolonged overall survival by 16.3 months (up from 15.7 months in the previous update).

At 8 years, 37% of patients in the pertuzumab group were still alive, and 16% were still alive without progression.

“The combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel remains the standard of care for the first-line treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, owing to its overall survival benefits and maintained long-term overall and cardiac safety,” Dr. Swain and coinvestigators concluded. “Prospective identification of patients who will be long-term responders to treatment is an area for future research.”

In an accompanying comment, Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino in Genova, Italy, and Ines Vaz-Luis, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, contended that these results, “which are also observed in real-world datasets, challenge the concept of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer being an incurable disease and open the path to several interconnected clinical and research questions.”

Those questions include the optimal duration of anti-HER2 maintenance therapy in patients without disease progression, best strategies for combining this systemic therapy with local treatment to further improve survival, and new markers to better identify patients likely to be long-term responders, who might benefit from a curative approach, the authors elaborated. They noted that more than half of CLEOPATRA patients had de novo stage IV disease.

“The performance of the current standard pertuzumab-based first-line treatment in patients previously exposed to adjuvant or neoadjuvant anti-HER2 therapy remains to be clarified,” the authors wrote. “Results from several ongoing prospective cohort studies investigating real-world patterns of care and outcomes of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer will help to clarify this important issue and optimize treatment sequencing.”
 

Study details

The end-of-study analysis showed that median progression-free survival was 18.7 months with pertuzumab and 12.4 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.81). The 8-year landmark progression-free survival rate was 16% with the former and 10% with the latter.

The median overall survival was 57.1 months with pertuzumab and 40.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.82). The 8-year landmark overall survival rate was 37% with the former and 23% with the latter.

A comparison of patients who did and did not achieve long-term response showed that, in both treatment groups, the former more often had tumors that were 3+ positive by HER2 immunohistochemistry and PIK3CA wild-type tumors. The leading grade 3 or 4 adverse event was neutropenia, seen in 49% of patients in the pertuzumab group and 46% of those in the placebo group. The rate of treatment-related death was 1% and 2%, respectively.

Since the last update, only two additional serious adverse events were reported: one case of heart failure and one case of symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients given pertuzumab.

The CLEOPATRA trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Swain and coauthors disclosed relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Lambertini disclosed relationships with Roche, Theramex, and Takeda. Dr. Vaz-Luis disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Kephren, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Swain SM et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30863-0; Lambertini M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30058-9.

Pertuzumab has a durable benefit in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer when added to trastuzumab and docetaxel as first-line therapy, with nearly 40% of patients achieving long-term survival, the CLEOPATRA end-of-study analysis shows.

The regimen, combining dual HER2 targeting with chemotherapy, became standard of care in this population as a result of its good efficacy and safety relative to placebo, first established in the phase 3, randomized trial 8 years ago (N Engl J Med. 2012;366:109-19).

Trial updates since then, most recently at a median follow-up of 50 months (N Engl J Med. 2015;372:724-34), have shown clear progression-free and overall survival benefits, with acceptable cardiac and other toxicity.

Investigators led by Sandra M. Swain, MD, of Georgetown University, Washington, performed a final analysis of data from the 808 patients in CLEOPATRA, now at a median follow-up of 99.9 months.

Results reported in The Lancet Oncology showed that, compared with placebo, pertuzumab prolonged investigator-assessed progression-free survival by 6.3 months (the same as that seen in the previous update) and prolonged overall survival by 16.3 months (up from 15.7 months in the previous update).

At 8 years, 37% of patients in the pertuzumab group were still alive, and 16% were still alive without progression.

“The combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel remains the standard of care for the first-line treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, owing to its overall survival benefits and maintained long-term overall and cardiac safety,” Dr. Swain and coinvestigators concluded. “Prospective identification of patients who will be long-term responders to treatment is an area for future research.”

In an accompanying comment, Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino in Genova, Italy, and Ines Vaz-Luis, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, contended that these results, “which are also observed in real-world datasets, challenge the concept of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer being an incurable disease and open the path to several interconnected clinical and research questions.”

Those questions include the optimal duration of anti-HER2 maintenance therapy in patients without disease progression, best strategies for combining this systemic therapy with local treatment to further improve survival, and new markers to better identify patients likely to be long-term responders, who might benefit from a curative approach, the authors elaborated. They noted that more than half of CLEOPATRA patients had de novo stage IV disease.

“The performance of the current standard pertuzumab-based first-line treatment in patients previously exposed to adjuvant or neoadjuvant anti-HER2 therapy remains to be clarified,” the authors wrote. “Results from several ongoing prospective cohort studies investigating real-world patterns of care and outcomes of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer will help to clarify this important issue and optimize treatment sequencing.”
 

Study details

The end-of-study analysis showed that median progression-free survival was 18.7 months with pertuzumab and 12.4 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.81). The 8-year landmark progression-free survival rate was 16% with the former and 10% with the latter.

The median overall survival was 57.1 months with pertuzumab and 40.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.82). The 8-year landmark overall survival rate was 37% with the former and 23% with the latter.

A comparison of patients who did and did not achieve long-term response showed that, in both treatment groups, the former more often had tumors that were 3+ positive by HER2 immunohistochemistry and PIK3CA wild-type tumors. The leading grade 3 or 4 adverse event was neutropenia, seen in 49% of patients in the pertuzumab group and 46% of those in the placebo group. The rate of treatment-related death was 1% and 2%, respectively.

Since the last update, only two additional serious adverse events were reported: one case of heart failure and one case of symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients given pertuzumab.

The CLEOPATRA trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Swain and coauthors disclosed relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Lambertini disclosed relationships with Roche, Theramex, and Takeda. Dr. Vaz-Luis disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Kephren, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Swain SM et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30863-0; Lambertini M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30058-9.

Disease progression is associated with worsening health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients with metastatic cancers, results of an observational study suggest.

The findings highlight the importance of patient-relevant outcomes when evaluating novel therapies for patients with metastatic cancers, according to Norbert Marschner, MD, of Praxis für interdisziplinäre onkologie und hämatologie in Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues. The researchers reported the findings in JAMA Network Open.

They used four nationwide German registries to evaluate the association of disease progression with HRQOL in patients receiving systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal, lung, pancreatic, or breast cancer.

The analysis included 2,314 adults with documented disease progression across 203 institutions in Germany. Data collection occurred during routine follow-up visits at participating centers during 2011-2018.

Various patient-reported outcome questionnaires were used to measure HRQOL and symptom severity among participants. For the present study, the team enrolled patients at the start of any systemic palliative treatment, defined as targeted therapy, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy.

Mixed-model analyses of more than 8,000 questionnaires showed that the first disease progression was associated with significant deterioration in 37 of 45 HRQOL scales overall, 17 of which were considered clinically meaningful.

With respect to cancer type, significant worsening after the first progression occurred in 12 of 14 colorectal cancer HRQOL scales, 11 of 14 lung cancer scales, 10 of 10 pancreatic cancer scales, and 4 of 7 breast cancer scales.

The deterioration in global HRQOL associated with the first progression was of greatest magnitude in lung cancer (6.7 points; P < .001), followed by pancreatic cancer (5.4 points; P < .001), colorectal cancer (3.5 points; P = .002), and breast cancer (2.4 points; P = .001).

The researchers also found that 38 of 45 HRQOL scales showed a greater degree of worsening after the second disease progression than after the first. They observed significant worsening after the second disease progression in 32 of 45 HRQOL scales, and all 32 were considered clinically meaningful.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the observational design. As a result, the study did not include specifications related to tumor assessment, such as frequency, timing, or criteria.

“We suggest that progression-related endpoints in metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, or pancreatic cancer should be considered when evaluating the benefit of novel treatments, in addition to survival, morbidity, and HRQOL outcomes,” the researchers concluded.

The registries used in this study are funded by iOMEDICO and industry sponsors. The authors disclosed relationships with iOMEDICO and several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Marschner N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0643.

Disease progression is associated with worsening health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients with metastatic cancers, results of an observational study suggest.

The findings highlight the importance of patient-relevant outcomes when evaluating novel therapies for patients with metastatic cancers, according to Norbert Marschner, MD, of Praxis für interdisziplinäre onkologie und hämatologie in Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues. The researchers reported the findings in JAMA Network Open.

They used four nationwide German registries to evaluate the association of disease progression with HRQOL in patients receiving systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal, lung, pancreatic, or breast cancer.

The analysis included 2,314 adults with documented disease progression across 203 institutions in Germany. Data collection occurred during routine follow-up visits at participating centers during 2011-2018.

Various patient-reported outcome questionnaires were used to measure HRQOL and symptom severity among participants. For the present study, the team enrolled patients at the start of any systemic palliative treatment, defined as targeted therapy, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy.

Mixed-model analyses of more than 8,000 questionnaires showed that the first disease progression was associated with significant deterioration in 37 of 45 HRQOL scales overall, 17 of which were considered clinically meaningful.

With respect to cancer type, significant worsening after the first progression occurred in 12 of 14 colorectal cancer HRQOL scales, 11 of 14 lung cancer scales, 10 of 10 pancreatic cancer scales, and 4 of 7 breast cancer scales.

The deterioration in global HRQOL associated with the first progression was of greatest magnitude in lung cancer (6.7 points; P < .001), followed by pancreatic cancer (5.4 points; P < .001), colorectal cancer (3.5 points; P = .002), and breast cancer (2.4 points; P = .001).

The researchers also found that 38 of 45 HRQOL scales showed a greater degree of worsening after the second disease progression than after the first. They observed significant worsening after the second disease progression in 32 of 45 HRQOL scales, and all 32 were considered clinically meaningful.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the observational design. As a result, the study did not include specifications related to tumor assessment, such as frequency, timing, or criteria.

“We suggest that progression-related endpoints in metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, or pancreatic cancer should be considered when evaluating the benefit of novel treatments, in addition to survival, morbidity, and HRQOL outcomes,” the researchers concluded.

The registries used in this study are funded by iOMEDICO and industry sponsors. The authors disclosed relationships with iOMEDICO and several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Marschner N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0643.

Disease progression is associated with worsening health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients with metastatic cancers, results of an observational study suggest.

The findings highlight the importance of patient-relevant outcomes when evaluating novel therapies for patients with metastatic cancers, according to Norbert Marschner, MD, of Praxis für interdisziplinäre onkologie und hämatologie in Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues. The researchers reported the findings in JAMA Network Open.

They used four nationwide German registries to evaluate the association of disease progression with HRQOL in patients receiving systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal, lung, pancreatic, or breast cancer.

The analysis included 2,314 adults with documented disease progression across 203 institutions in Germany. Data collection occurred during routine follow-up visits at participating centers during 2011-2018.

Various patient-reported outcome questionnaires were used to measure HRQOL and symptom severity among participants. For the present study, the team enrolled patients at the start of any systemic palliative treatment, defined as targeted therapy, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy.

Mixed-model analyses of more than 8,000 questionnaires showed that the first disease progression was associated with significant deterioration in 37 of 45 HRQOL scales overall, 17 of which were considered clinically meaningful.

With respect to cancer type, significant worsening after the first progression occurred in 12 of 14 colorectal cancer HRQOL scales, 11 of 14 lung cancer scales, 10 of 10 pancreatic cancer scales, and 4 of 7 breast cancer scales.

The deterioration in global HRQOL associated with the first progression was of greatest magnitude in lung cancer (6.7 points; P < .001), followed by pancreatic cancer (5.4 points; P < .001), colorectal cancer (3.5 points; P = .002), and breast cancer (2.4 points; P = .001).

The researchers also found that 38 of 45 HRQOL scales showed a greater degree of worsening after the second disease progression than after the first. They observed significant worsening after the second disease progression in 32 of 45 HRQOL scales, and all 32 were considered clinically meaningful.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the observational design. As a result, the study did not include specifications related to tumor assessment, such as frequency, timing, or criteria.

“We suggest that progression-related endpoints in metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, or pancreatic cancer should be considered when evaluating the benefit of novel treatments, in addition to survival, morbidity, and HRQOL outcomes,” the researchers concluded.

The registries used in this study are funded by iOMEDICO and industry sponsors. The authors disclosed relationships with iOMEDICO and several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Marschner N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0643.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved neratinib (NERLYNX) in combination with capecitabine for use in adults with advanced or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens in the metastatic setting.

The recommended dose for neratinib in this population is 240 mg once daily with food on days 1-21 of a 21-day cycle. Neratinib should be given with capecitabine at 750 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-14 until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The full prescribing information for neratinib is available from the FDA website.

The FDA’s new approval of neratinib is based on results from the NALA trial (NCT01808573). The trial enrolled 621 patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who had received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens in the metastatic setting.

The patients were randomized to neratinib plus capecitabine or lapatinib plus capecitabine and received treatment until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The objective response rate was 32.8% in the neratinib arm and 26.7% in the lapatinib arm. The median duration of response was 8.5 months and 5.6 months, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the neratinib arm and 5.5 months in the lapatinib arm (hazard ratio 0.76; P = .0059). The median overall survival was 21 months and 18.7 months, respectively (HR 0.88; P = .2086).

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events in the neratinib arm were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and decreased appetite.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved neratinib (NERLYNX) in combination with capecitabine for use in adults with advanced or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens in the metastatic setting.

The recommended dose for neratinib in this population is 240 mg once daily with food on days 1-21 of a 21-day cycle. Neratinib should be given with capecitabine at 750 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-14 until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The full prescribing information for neratinib is available from the FDA website.

The FDA’s new approval of neratinib is based on results from the NALA trial (NCT01808573). The trial enrolled 621 patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who had received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens in the metastatic setting.

The patients were randomized to neratinib plus capecitabine or lapatinib plus capecitabine and received treatment until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The objective response rate was 32.8% in the neratinib arm and 26.7% in the lapatinib arm. The median duration of response was 8.5 months and 5.6 months, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the neratinib arm and 5.5 months in the lapatinib arm (hazard ratio 0.76; P = .0059). The median overall survival was 21 months and 18.7 months, respectively (HR 0.88; P = .2086).

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events in the neratinib arm were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and decreased appetite.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved neratinib (NERLYNX) in combination with capecitabine for use in adults with advanced or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens in the metastatic setting.

The recommended dose for neratinib in this population is 240 mg once daily with food on days 1-21 of a 21-day cycle. Neratinib should be given with capecitabine at 750 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-14 until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The full prescribing information for neratinib is available from the FDA website.

The FDA’s new approval of neratinib is based on results from the NALA trial (NCT01808573). The trial enrolled 621 patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who had received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens in the metastatic setting.

The patients were randomized to neratinib plus capecitabine or lapatinib plus capecitabine and received treatment until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The objective response rate was 32.8% in the neratinib arm and 26.7% in the lapatinib arm. The median duration of response was 8.5 months and 5.6 months, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the neratinib arm and 5.5 months in the lapatinib arm (hazard ratio 0.76; P = .0059). The median overall survival was 21 months and 18.7 months, respectively (HR 0.88; P = .2086).

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events in the neratinib arm were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and decreased appetite.

[email protected]