Patient & Survivor Care

There is an urgent need to raise global awareness about the direct link between alcohol consumption and cancer risk.

That message was delivered by Isabelle Soerjomataram, PhD, with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France, at a session devoted to alcohol and cancer at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“Global awareness about the link between alcohol and cancer continues to be very low,” Dr. Soerjomataram told the audience. “Health professionals – oncologists, nurses, medical doctors, GPs – have an important role in increasing awareness and bringing this knowledge to people, which may lead to reduced consumption.”

Session chair Gilberto Morgan, MD, medical oncologist, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, agreed.

Dr. Morgan noted that healthcare professionals tend to downplay their influence over patients’ drinking habits and often don’t address these behaviors.

But that needs to change.

“We have absolutely no problem asking patients if they take supplements or vitamins or if they’re eating [healthy],” Dr. Morgan said. “So, what is the difference? Why not recommend that they cut down their alcohol intake and leave it up to everybody’s personal choice to do it or not?”

In the session, Dr. Soerjomataram highlighted the global statistics on alcohol use. IARC data show, for instance, that nearly half (46%) of the world’s population consumes alcohol, with rates higher in men (54%) than women (38%).

How much are people drinking?

Globally, on average, the amount comes to about six liters of pure ethanol per year per drinker, or about one wine bottle per week. However, consumption patterns vary widely by country. In France, people consume about 12 liters per year or about two wine bottles per week.

Dr. Soerjomataram stressed the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

According to IARC data, heavy drinking – defined as more than 60 g/day or about six daily drinks – accounts for 47% of the alcohol-attributable cancers. Risky drinking – between 20 and 60 g/day – accounts for 29%, she explained, while moderate drinking – less than 20 g/day or about two daily drinks – accounts for roughly 14% of cases of alcohol-attributable cancers.

Globally, alcohol intake accounted for 4% of all cancers diagnosed in 2020, according to a 2021 analysis by IARC. 

In the United Kingdom alone, “alcohol drinking caused nearly 17,000 cases of cancer in 2020,” Dr. Soerjomataram said, and breast cancer made up almost one in four of those new cases.

In addition to breast cancer, six other cancer types – oral cavity, pharyngeal, laryngeal, esophageal, colorectal, and liver cancer – can be attributed to alcohol consumption, and emerging evidence suggests stomach and pancreatic cancer may be as well.

The good news, said Dr. Soerjomataram, is that long-term trends show declines in alcohol drinking in many countries, including the high wine-producing countries of France and Italy, where large reductions in consumption have been noted since the peak of intake in the 1920s.

“If it’s possible in these countries, I can imagine it’s possible elsewhere,” said Dr. Soerjomataram. 

Dr. Soerjomataram and Dr. Morgan report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There is an urgent need to raise global awareness about the direct link between alcohol consumption and cancer risk.

That message was delivered by Isabelle Soerjomataram, PhD, with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France, at a session devoted to alcohol and cancer at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“Global awareness about the link between alcohol and cancer continues to be very low,” Dr. Soerjomataram told the audience. “Health professionals – oncologists, nurses, medical doctors, GPs – have an important role in increasing awareness and bringing this knowledge to people, which may lead to reduced consumption.”

Session chair Gilberto Morgan, MD, medical oncologist, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, agreed.

Dr. Morgan noted that healthcare professionals tend to downplay their influence over patients’ drinking habits and often don’t address these behaviors.

But that needs to change.

“We have absolutely no problem asking patients if they take supplements or vitamins or if they’re eating [healthy],” Dr. Morgan said. “So, what is the difference? Why not recommend that they cut down their alcohol intake and leave it up to everybody’s personal choice to do it or not?”

In the session, Dr. Soerjomataram highlighted the global statistics on alcohol use. IARC data show, for instance, that nearly half (46%) of the world’s population consumes alcohol, with rates higher in men (54%) than women (38%).

How much are people drinking?

Globally, on average, the amount comes to about six liters of pure ethanol per year per drinker, or about one wine bottle per week. However, consumption patterns vary widely by country. In France, people consume about 12 liters per year or about two wine bottles per week.

Dr. Soerjomataram stressed the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

According to IARC data, heavy drinking – defined as more than 60 g/day or about six daily drinks – accounts for 47% of the alcohol-attributable cancers. Risky drinking – between 20 and 60 g/day – accounts for 29%, she explained, while moderate drinking – less than 20 g/day or about two daily drinks – accounts for roughly 14% of cases of alcohol-attributable cancers.

Globally, alcohol intake accounted for 4% of all cancers diagnosed in 2020, according to a 2021 analysis by IARC. 

In the United Kingdom alone, “alcohol drinking caused nearly 17,000 cases of cancer in 2020,” Dr. Soerjomataram said, and breast cancer made up almost one in four of those new cases.

In addition to breast cancer, six other cancer types – oral cavity, pharyngeal, laryngeal, esophageal, colorectal, and liver cancer – can be attributed to alcohol consumption, and emerging evidence suggests stomach and pancreatic cancer may be as well.

The good news, said Dr. Soerjomataram, is that long-term trends show declines in alcohol drinking in many countries, including the high wine-producing countries of France and Italy, where large reductions in consumption have been noted since the peak of intake in the 1920s.

“If it’s possible in these countries, I can imagine it’s possible elsewhere,” said Dr. Soerjomataram. 

Dr. Soerjomataram and Dr. Morgan report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There is an urgent need to raise global awareness about the direct link between alcohol consumption and cancer risk.

That message was delivered by Isabelle Soerjomataram, PhD, with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France, at a session devoted to alcohol and cancer at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“Global awareness about the link between alcohol and cancer continues to be very low,” Dr. Soerjomataram told the audience. “Health professionals – oncologists, nurses, medical doctors, GPs – have an important role in increasing awareness and bringing this knowledge to people, which may lead to reduced consumption.”

Session chair Gilberto Morgan, MD, medical oncologist, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, agreed.

Dr. Morgan noted that healthcare professionals tend to downplay their influence over patients’ drinking habits and often don’t address these behaviors.

But that needs to change.

“We have absolutely no problem asking patients if they take supplements or vitamins or if they’re eating [healthy],” Dr. Morgan said. “So, what is the difference? Why not recommend that they cut down their alcohol intake and leave it up to everybody’s personal choice to do it or not?”

In the session, Dr. Soerjomataram highlighted the global statistics on alcohol use. IARC data show, for instance, that nearly half (46%) of the world’s population consumes alcohol, with rates higher in men (54%) than women (38%).

How much are people drinking?

Globally, on average, the amount comes to about six liters of pure ethanol per year per drinker, or about one wine bottle per week. However, consumption patterns vary widely by country. In France, people consume about 12 liters per year or about two wine bottles per week.

Dr. Soerjomataram stressed the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

According to IARC data, heavy drinking – defined as more than 60 g/day or about six daily drinks – accounts for 47% of the alcohol-attributable cancers. Risky drinking – between 20 and 60 g/day – accounts for 29%, she explained, while moderate drinking – less than 20 g/day or about two daily drinks – accounts for roughly 14% of cases of alcohol-attributable cancers.

Globally, alcohol intake accounted for 4% of all cancers diagnosed in 2020, according to a 2021 analysis by IARC. 

In the United Kingdom alone, “alcohol drinking caused nearly 17,000 cases of cancer in 2020,” Dr. Soerjomataram said, and breast cancer made up almost one in four of those new cases.

In addition to breast cancer, six other cancer types – oral cavity, pharyngeal, laryngeal, esophageal, colorectal, and liver cancer – can be attributed to alcohol consumption, and emerging evidence suggests stomach and pancreatic cancer may be as well.

The good news, said Dr. Soerjomataram, is that long-term trends show declines in alcohol drinking in many countries, including the high wine-producing countries of France and Italy, where large reductions in consumption have been noted since the peak of intake in the 1920s.

“If it’s possible in these countries, I can imagine it’s possible elsewhere,” said Dr. Soerjomataram. 

Dr. Soerjomataram and Dr. Morgan report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – Research presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2023 underline the benefit of adding immunotherapy to chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, and question whether adding the PARP inhibitor olaparib to the chemo-immunotherapy combination could provide further benefit.

In the AtTEnd trial, presented on Oct. 21, more than 550 patients with advanced newly diagnosed or recurrent disease were randomized to the antiprogrammed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab (Tecentriq) or placebo plus chemotherapy followed by maintenance atezolizumab or placebo.

Adding immunotherapy to chemotherapy improved progression-free survival (PFS) among all-comers – 28.1% vs. 17% at 2 years. The PFS benefit was much more pronounced among patients with mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) disease – 50.4% vs. 16% at 2 years. Mismatch repair-deficient disease patients receiving atezolizumab also demonstrated an early overall survival benefit, according to findings from the interim analysis.

In the DUO-E trial, presented during the same Oct. 21 session, nearly 720 patients with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer were randomized to one of three groups: Chemotherapy alone with maintenance placebo, chemotherapy plus durvalumab (Imfinzi) with maintenance durvalumab, or chemotherapy plus durvalumab with maintenance durvalumab and the PARP inhibitor olaparib.

The results, published simultaneously in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, showed that adding durvalumab to chemotherapy followed by maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib led to a significant improvement in PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone. As in the AtTEnd trial, this PFS was also more pronounced in dMMR patients.

Overall, Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, from the University of Valencia, Spain, and president of ESMO, explained that this research marks “very positive data for women with gynecological cancers,” with immunotherapy now incorporated into the standard of care.

However, an expert questioned whether the DUO-E trial clearly demonstrated the benefit of adding olaparib to immuno- and chemotherapy and whether certain subsets of patients may be more likely to benefit from the PARP inhibitor.
 

Inside AtTEnd

A growing body of research has shown that single agent immunotherapy is effective in treating endometrial cancer, particularly in tumors with dMMR, and that immunotherapy and chemotherapy may have a synergistic effect.

David S. P. Tan, MD, PhD, National University Cancer Institute, Singapore, who was not involved in the studies, commented that “the molecular classification of endometrial cancer is now leading us to areas that we didn’t think before [were] possible.”

The rationale for combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy, Dr. Tan explained, is that “the cytotoxicity you get from chemotherapy is partly dependent on immune activity within the tumor, and so it makes sense” to combine them.

This approach was borne out by recent positive PFS results from the NRG-GY018 trial of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced endometrial cancer as well as from the RUBY trial of dostarlimab in primary advanced or recurrent disease.

To further investigate this chemo-immunotherapy strategy, the AtTEnd team enrolled patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent stage III-IV disease who had received no prior systemic chemotherapy for recurrence within the previous 6 months.

Overall, 551 patients from 89 sites across 10 countries were randomized to standard first-line chemotherapy – carboplatin plus paclitaxel – with either atezolizumab or placebo, followed by maintenance atezolizumab or placebo, which continued until confirmed disease progression.

The median age in the intention-to-treat population was 64-67 years. Nearly 23% of patients had dMMR tumors, and 67.2% had recurrent disease.

The baseline characteristics were well balanced and distributed between arms in the dMMR and all-comers population, said Nicoletta Colombo, MD, University of Milan–Bicocca, European Institute of Oncology Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Italy, who presented the findings at ESMO.

Over a median follow up of 26.2 months, Dr. Colombo and colleagues observed a statistically significant improvement in PFS in the dMMR arm in favor of atezolizumab (hazard ratio, 0.36; P = .0005). At 2 years, 50.4% of patients receiving the immunotherapy were progression-free, compared with 16.0% in the placebo arm.

In all-comers, the PFS improvement with atezolizumab was less pronounced but remained significant (HR, 0.74; P = .0219).

A secondary analysis revealed, among dMMR patients, atezolizumab was associated with an overall survival advantage over placebo (HR, 0.41), with 75% of patients still alive at 2 years vs. 54.2% in the placebo arm. Dr. Colombo also noted a “clear trend” for improved overall survival with atezolizumab as well (HR, 0.82; P = .0483), but no PFS or overall survival benefit was seen with atezolizumab in MMR proficient (pMMR) patients.

Dr. Colombo said the safety profile of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was “manageable,” with no differences in the rates of “major side effects,” although there was an increase in the rate of treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events in the atezolizumab group (25.8% vs. 14.1%).

Dr. Tan noted that the AtTEnd trial revealed comparable results to earlier trials in this space but underlined that the survival curves in the interim analysis revealed a “red zone” of dMMR patients who do not respond to the combination and in whom immunotherapy is “not sufficient.”

Alongside this, Dr. Tan flagged a “blue zone” of dMMR patients who plateaued in both PFS and overall survival after 2 years. The question for these patients at this point is whether they need to continue immunotherapy beyond 24 months, he said.

But overall, Dr. Tan noted, the AtTEnd data “continue to validate practice-changing therapy for dMMR endometrial cancer patients” with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy, with the lack of benefit in pMMR disease underscoring an “unmet medical need.”
 

Inside DUO-E

The burning question, however, was whether adding a PARP inhibitor to immunotherapy and chemotherapy would boost the survival outcomes further.

The DUO-E trial involved patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV or recurrent endometrial cancer who had not received systematic therapy for advanced disease and were naive to both PARP inhibitors and immune-mediated therapy.

Overall, 718 patients were randomized to one of three arms: Chemotherapy alone followed by maintenance placebo, chemotherapy plus durvalumab with maintenance durvalumab, or chemotherapy plus durvalumab with maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib.

Maintenance was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or the patients met another discontinuation criteria.

About half of patients were newly diagnosed, half had recurrent disease, and approximately one-fifth had dMMR disease, said Shannon Westin, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who presented the findings.

Compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, patients in both the durvalumab alone and durvalumab plus olaparib arms experienced a significant improvement in PFS (HR, 0.71; P = .003; and HR, 0.55; P < .0001, respectively).

This effect was amplified in dMMR patients with durvalumab (HR, 0.42) as well as with durvalumab plus olaparib (HR, 0.41).

In pMMR patients, PFS benefit was stronger in the durvalumab-olaparib arm vs. durvalumab (HR, 0.57 vs. 0.77).

Although the overall survival analysis remains exploratory, Dr. Westin noted a trend toward better overall survival in the two treatment arms vs. placebo (HR, 0.77 with durvalumab, and HR, 0.59 with durvalumab plus olaparib).

However, adding olaparib to the equation increased the rate of grade ≥ 3 adverse events – 67.2% vs. 54.9% with durvalumab and 56.4% with chemotherapy alone in the overall analysis. The addition of olaparib also led to treatment discontinuation in 24.4% of patients vs. 20.9% in the durvalumab arm and 18.6% in the chemotherapy alone arm.

Domenica Lorusso, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study, commented that the marginal PFS benefit of adding olaparib in DUO-E is “not surprising” because the bar set by immunotherapy is “so high in this population that it’s very difficult” to go any higher.

But the results in pMMR patients reveal “a clear additional benefit” to olaparib, said Dr. Lorusso, from Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan.

“The main limitation of the trial,” she continued, “is that it was not powered to make a formal comparison between the two experimental arms.”

So, what then is the added benefit of olaparib? “Unfortunately, that remains an unanswered question,” Dr. Lorusso said.

AtTEnd was sponsored by the Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research.

DUO-E was funded by AstraZeneca.

Dr. Colombo declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Esai, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD/Merck, Nuvation Bio, OncXerna, Pieris, Roche, and Novocure.

Dr. Tan declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Bayer, Roche, MSD, Genmab, Esai, PMV, BioNTech, Ellipses Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, Takeda, and Clovis.

Dr. Westin declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Avenge Bio, Bayer, Bio-Path, Clovis, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Mereo, Novartis, Nuvectis, and Zentalis; and consulting and advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Caris, Clovis, Eisai, EQRx, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Immunocore, ImmunoGen, Lilly, Merck, Mersana, Mereo, NGM Bio, Nuvectis, Seagen, Verastem, Vincerx, Zentalis, and ZielBio.

Dr. Lorusso declares relationships with PharmaMar, Merck Serono, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Tesaro/GSK, Genmab, Immunogen, and Roche.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – Research presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2023 underline the benefit of adding immunotherapy to chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, and question whether adding the PARP inhibitor olaparib to the chemo-immunotherapy combination could provide further benefit.

In the AtTEnd trial, presented on Oct. 21, more than 550 patients with advanced newly diagnosed or recurrent disease were randomized to the antiprogrammed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab (Tecentriq) or placebo plus chemotherapy followed by maintenance atezolizumab or placebo.

Adding immunotherapy to chemotherapy improved progression-free survival (PFS) among all-comers – 28.1% vs. 17% at 2 years. The PFS benefit was much more pronounced among patients with mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) disease – 50.4% vs. 16% at 2 years. Mismatch repair-deficient disease patients receiving atezolizumab also demonstrated an early overall survival benefit, according to findings from the interim analysis.

In the DUO-E trial, presented during the same Oct. 21 session, nearly 720 patients with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer were randomized to one of three groups: Chemotherapy alone with maintenance placebo, chemotherapy plus durvalumab (Imfinzi) with maintenance durvalumab, or chemotherapy plus durvalumab with maintenance durvalumab and the PARP inhibitor olaparib.

The results, published simultaneously in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, showed that adding durvalumab to chemotherapy followed by maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib led to a significant improvement in PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone. As in the AtTEnd trial, this PFS was also more pronounced in dMMR patients.

Overall, Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, from the University of Valencia, Spain, and president of ESMO, explained that this research marks “very positive data for women with gynecological cancers,” with immunotherapy now incorporated into the standard of care.

However, an expert questioned whether the DUO-E trial clearly demonstrated the benefit of adding olaparib to immuno- and chemotherapy and whether certain subsets of patients may be more likely to benefit from the PARP inhibitor.
 

Inside AtTEnd

A growing body of research has shown that single agent immunotherapy is effective in treating endometrial cancer, particularly in tumors with dMMR, and that immunotherapy and chemotherapy may have a synergistic effect.

David S. P. Tan, MD, PhD, National University Cancer Institute, Singapore, who was not involved in the studies, commented that “the molecular classification of endometrial cancer is now leading us to areas that we didn’t think before [were] possible.”

The rationale for combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy, Dr. Tan explained, is that “the cytotoxicity you get from chemotherapy is partly dependent on immune activity within the tumor, and so it makes sense” to combine them.

This approach was borne out by recent positive PFS results from the NRG-GY018 trial of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced endometrial cancer as well as from the RUBY trial of dostarlimab in primary advanced or recurrent disease.

To further investigate this chemo-immunotherapy strategy, the AtTEnd team enrolled patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent stage III-IV disease who had received no prior systemic chemotherapy for recurrence within the previous 6 months.

Overall, 551 patients from 89 sites across 10 countries were randomized to standard first-line chemotherapy – carboplatin plus paclitaxel – with either atezolizumab or placebo, followed by maintenance atezolizumab or placebo, which continued until confirmed disease progression.

The median age in the intention-to-treat population was 64-67 years. Nearly 23% of patients had dMMR tumors, and 67.2% had recurrent disease.

The baseline characteristics were well balanced and distributed between arms in the dMMR and all-comers population, said Nicoletta Colombo, MD, University of Milan–Bicocca, European Institute of Oncology Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Italy, who presented the findings at ESMO.

Over a median follow up of 26.2 months, Dr. Colombo and colleagues observed a statistically significant improvement in PFS in the dMMR arm in favor of atezolizumab (hazard ratio, 0.36; P = .0005). At 2 years, 50.4% of patients receiving the immunotherapy were progression-free, compared with 16.0% in the placebo arm.

In all-comers, the PFS improvement with atezolizumab was less pronounced but remained significant (HR, 0.74; P = .0219).

A secondary analysis revealed, among dMMR patients, atezolizumab was associated with an overall survival advantage over placebo (HR, 0.41), with 75% of patients still alive at 2 years vs. 54.2% in the placebo arm. Dr. Colombo also noted a “clear trend” for improved overall survival with atezolizumab as well (HR, 0.82; P = .0483), but no PFS or overall survival benefit was seen with atezolizumab in MMR proficient (pMMR) patients.

Dr. Colombo said the safety profile of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was “manageable,” with no differences in the rates of “major side effects,” although there was an increase in the rate of treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events in the atezolizumab group (25.8% vs. 14.1%).

Dr. Tan noted that the AtTEnd trial revealed comparable results to earlier trials in this space but underlined that the survival curves in the interim analysis revealed a “red zone” of dMMR patients who do not respond to the combination and in whom immunotherapy is “not sufficient.”

Alongside this, Dr. Tan flagged a “blue zone” of dMMR patients who plateaued in both PFS and overall survival after 2 years. The question for these patients at this point is whether they need to continue immunotherapy beyond 24 months, he said.

But overall, Dr. Tan noted, the AtTEnd data “continue to validate practice-changing therapy for dMMR endometrial cancer patients” with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy, with the lack of benefit in pMMR disease underscoring an “unmet medical need.”
 

Inside DUO-E

The burning question, however, was whether adding a PARP inhibitor to immunotherapy and chemotherapy would boost the survival outcomes further.

The DUO-E trial involved patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV or recurrent endometrial cancer who had not received systematic therapy for advanced disease and were naive to both PARP inhibitors and immune-mediated therapy.

Overall, 718 patients were randomized to one of three arms: Chemotherapy alone followed by maintenance placebo, chemotherapy plus durvalumab with maintenance durvalumab, or chemotherapy plus durvalumab with maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib.

Maintenance was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or the patients met another discontinuation criteria.

About half of patients were newly diagnosed, half had recurrent disease, and approximately one-fifth had dMMR disease, said Shannon Westin, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who presented the findings.

Compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, patients in both the durvalumab alone and durvalumab plus olaparib arms experienced a significant improvement in PFS (HR, 0.71; P = .003; and HR, 0.55; P < .0001, respectively).

This effect was amplified in dMMR patients with durvalumab (HR, 0.42) as well as with durvalumab plus olaparib (HR, 0.41).

In pMMR patients, PFS benefit was stronger in the durvalumab-olaparib arm vs. durvalumab (HR, 0.57 vs. 0.77).

Although the overall survival analysis remains exploratory, Dr. Westin noted a trend toward better overall survival in the two treatment arms vs. placebo (HR, 0.77 with durvalumab, and HR, 0.59 with durvalumab plus olaparib).

However, adding olaparib to the equation increased the rate of grade ≥ 3 adverse events – 67.2% vs. 54.9% with durvalumab and 56.4% with chemotherapy alone in the overall analysis. The addition of olaparib also led to treatment discontinuation in 24.4% of patients vs. 20.9% in the durvalumab arm and 18.6% in the chemotherapy alone arm.

Domenica Lorusso, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study, commented that the marginal PFS benefit of adding olaparib in DUO-E is “not surprising” because the bar set by immunotherapy is “so high in this population that it’s very difficult” to go any higher.

But the results in pMMR patients reveal “a clear additional benefit” to olaparib, said Dr. Lorusso, from Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan.

“The main limitation of the trial,” she continued, “is that it was not powered to make a formal comparison between the two experimental arms.”

So, what then is the added benefit of olaparib? “Unfortunately, that remains an unanswered question,” Dr. Lorusso said.

AtTEnd was sponsored by the Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research.

DUO-E was funded by AstraZeneca.

Dr. Colombo declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Esai, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD/Merck, Nuvation Bio, OncXerna, Pieris, Roche, and Novocure.

Dr. Tan declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Bayer, Roche, MSD, Genmab, Esai, PMV, BioNTech, Ellipses Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, Takeda, and Clovis.

Dr. Westin declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Avenge Bio, Bayer, Bio-Path, Clovis, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Mereo, Novartis, Nuvectis, and Zentalis; and consulting and advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Caris, Clovis, Eisai, EQRx, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Immunocore, ImmunoGen, Lilly, Merck, Mersana, Mereo, NGM Bio, Nuvectis, Seagen, Verastem, Vincerx, Zentalis, and ZielBio.

Dr. Lorusso declares relationships with PharmaMar, Merck Serono, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Tesaro/GSK, Genmab, Immunogen, and Roche.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – Research presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2023 underline the benefit of adding immunotherapy to chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, and question whether adding the PARP inhibitor olaparib to the chemo-immunotherapy combination could provide further benefit.

In the AtTEnd trial, presented on Oct. 21, more than 550 patients with advanced newly diagnosed or recurrent disease were randomized to the antiprogrammed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab (Tecentriq) or placebo plus chemotherapy followed by maintenance atezolizumab or placebo.

Adding immunotherapy to chemotherapy improved progression-free survival (PFS) among all-comers – 28.1% vs. 17% at 2 years. The PFS benefit was much more pronounced among patients with mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) disease – 50.4% vs. 16% at 2 years. Mismatch repair-deficient disease patients receiving atezolizumab also demonstrated an early overall survival benefit, according to findings from the interim analysis.

In the DUO-E trial, presented during the same Oct. 21 session, nearly 720 patients with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer were randomized to one of three groups: Chemotherapy alone with maintenance placebo, chemotherapy plus durvalumab (Imfinzi) with maintenance durvalumab, or chemotherapy plus durvalumab with maintenance durvalumab and the PARP inhibitor olaparib.

The results, published simultaneously in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, showed that adding durvalumab to chemotherapy followed by maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib led to a significant improvement in PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone. As in the AtTEnd trial, this PFS was also more pronounced in dMMR patients.

Overall, Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, from the University of Valencia, Spain, and president of ESMO, explained that this research marks “very positive data for women with gynecological cancers,” with immunotherapy now incorporated into the standard of care.

However, an expert questioned whether the DUO-E trial clearly demonstrated the benefit of adding olaparib to immuno- and chemotherapy and whether certain subsets of patients may be more likely to benefit from the PARP inhibitor.
 

Inside AtTEnd

A growing body of research has shown that single agent immunotherapy is effective in treating endometrial cancer, particularly in tumors with dMMR, and that immunotherapy and chemotherapy may have a synergistic effect.

David S. P. Tan, MD, PhD, National University Cancer Institute, Singapore, who was not involved in the studies, commented that “the molecular classification of endometrial cancer is now leading us to areas that we didn’t think before [were] possible.”

The rationale for combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy, Dr. Tan explained, is that “the cytotoxicity you get from chemotherapy is partly dependent on immune activity within the tumor, and so it makes sense” to combine them.

This approach was borne out by recent positive PFS results from the NRG-GY018 trial of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced endometrial cancer as well as from the RUBY trial of dostarlimab in primary advanced or recurrent disease.

To further investigate this chemo-immunotherapy strategy, the AtTEnd team enrolled patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent stage III-IV disease who had received no prior systemic chemotherapy for recurrence within the previous 6 months.

Overall, 551 patients from 89 sites across 10 countries were randomized to standard first-line chemotherapy – carboplatin plus paclitaxel – with either atezolizumab or placebo, followed by maintenance atezolizumab or placebo, which continued until confirmed disease progression.

The median age in the intention-to-treat population was 64-67 years. Nearly 23% of patients had dMMR tumors, and 67.2% had recurrent disease.

The baseline characteristics were well balanced and distributed between arms in the dMMR and all-comers population, said Nicoletta Colombo, MD, University of Milan–Bicocca, European Institute of Oncology Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Italy, who presented the findings at ESMO.

Over a median follow up of 26.2 months, Dr. Colombo and colleagues observed a statistically significant improvement in PFS in the dMMR arm in favor of atezolizumab (hazard ratio, 0.36; P = .0005). At 2 years, 50.4% of patients receiving the immunotherapy were progression-free, compared with 16.0% in the placebo arm.

In all-comers, the PFS improvement with atezolizumab was less pronounced but remained significant (HR, 0.74; P = .0219).

A secondary analysis revealed, among dMMR patients, atezolizumab was associated with an overall survival advantage over placebo (HR, 0.41), with 75% of patients still alive at 2 years vs. 54.2% in the placebo arm. Dr. Colombo also noted a “clear trend” for improved overall survival with atezolizumab as well (HR, 0.82; P = .0483), but no PFS or overall survival benefit was seen with atezolizumab in MMR proficient (pMMR) patients.

Dr. Colombo said the safety profile of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was “manageable,” with no differences in the rates of “major side effects,” although there was an increase in the rate of treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events in the atezolizumab group (25.8% vs. 14.1%).

Dr. Tan noted that the AtTEnd trial revealed comparable results to earlier trials in this space but underlined that the survival curves in the interim analysis revealed a “red zone” of dMMR patients who do not respond to the combination and in whom immunotherapy is “not sufficient.”

Alongside this, Dr. Tan flagged a “blue zone” of dMMR patients who plateaued in both PFS and overall survival after 2 years. The question for these patients at this point is whether they need to continue immunotherapy beyond 24 months, he said.

But overall, Dr. Tan noted, the AtTEnd data “continue to validate practice-changing therapy for dMMR endometrial cancer patients” with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy, with the lack of benefit in pMMR disease underscoring an “unmet medical need.”
 

Inside DUO-E

The burning question, however, was whether adding a PARP inhibitor to immunotherapy and chemotherapy would boost the survival outcomes further.

The DUO-E trial involved patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV or recurrent endometrial cancer who had not received systematic therapy for advanced disease and were naive to both PARP inhibitors and immune-mediated therapy.

Overall, 718 patients were randomized to one of three arms: Chemotherapy alone followed by maintenance placebo, chemotherapy plus durvalumab with maintenance durvalumab, or chemotherapy plus durvalumab with maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib.

Maintenance was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or the patients met another discontinuation criteria.

About half of patients were newly diagnosed, half had recurrent disease, and approximately one-fifth had dMMR disease, said Shannon Westin, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who presented the findings.

Compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, patients in both the durvalumab alone and durvalumab plus olaparib arms experienced a significant improvement in PFS (HR, 0.71; P = .003; and HR, 0.55; P < .0001, respectively).

This effect was amplified in dMMR patients with durvalumab (HR, 0.42) as well as with durvalumab plus olaparib (HR, 0.41).

In pMMR patients, PFS benefit was stronger in the durvalumab-olaparib arm vs. durvalumab (HR, 0.57 vs. 0.77).

Although the overall survival analysis remains exploratory, Dr. Westin noted a trend toward better overall survival in the two treatment arms vs. placebo (HR, 0.77 with durvalumab, and HR, 0.59 with durvalumab plus olaparib).

However, adding olaparib to the equation increased the rate of grade ≥ 3 adverse events – 67.2% vs. 54.9% with durvalumab and 56.4% with chemotherapy alone in the overall analysis. The addition of olaparib also led to treatment discontinuation in 24.4% of patients vs. 20.9% in the durvalumab arm and 18.6% in the chemotherapy alone arm.

Domenica Lorusso, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study, commented that the marginal PFS benefit of adding olaparib in DUO-E is “not surprising” because the bar set by immunotherapy is “so high in this population that it’s very difficult” to go any higher.

But the results in pMMR patients reveal “a clear additional benefit” to olaparib, said Dr. Lorusso, from Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan.

“The main limitation of the trial,” she continued, “is that it was not powered to make a formal comparison between the two experimental arms.”

So, what then is the added benefit of olaparib? “Unfortunately, that remains an unanswered question,” Dr. Lorusso said.

AtTEnd was sponsored by the Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research.

DUO-E was funded by AstraZeneca.

Dr. Colombo declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Esai, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD/Merck, Nuvation Bio, OncXerna, Pieris, Roche, and Novocure.

Dr. Tan declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Bayer, Roche, MSD, Genmab, Esai, PMV, BioNTech, Ellipses Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, Takeda, and Clovis.

Dr. Westin declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Avenge Bio, Bayer, Bio-Path, Clovis, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Mereo, Novartis, Nuvectis, and Zentalis; and consulting and advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Caris, Clovis, Eisai, EQRx, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Immunocore, ImmunoGen, Lilly, Merck, Mersana, Mereo, NGM Bio, Nuvectis, Seagen, Verastem, Vincerx, Zentalis, and ZielBio.

Dr. Lorusso declares relationships with PharmaMar, Merck Serono, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Tesaro/GSK, Genmab, Immunogen, and Roche.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant nivolumab led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (EFS) in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from the phase 3 CheckMate 77T trial.

In the interim analysis, median EFS was not reached in 229 patients randomly assigned to the adjuvant nivolumab treatment group vs. 18.4 months in 232 patients randomly assigned to a placebo group over a minimum follow-up of 15.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.58), first author Tina Cascone, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“CheckMate 77T is the first phase 3 perioperative study to build on the standard of care neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy and supports perioperative nivolumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Cascone, associate professor in the division of cancer medicine at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Invited discussant Marina Garassino, MBBS, professor of medicine and director of the thoracic oncology program at the University of Chicago, noted that the “practice-changing” CheckMate 77T findings – including the “highly statistically significant impressive hazard ratio of 0.58” – add to the increasing evidence supporting perioperative immunochemotherapy in the resectable NSCLC space.

This trial is the fourth to show an EFS benefit in this setting with a perioperative approach. Most recently, Merck’s pembrolizumab (Keytruda) demonstrated improvements in both EFS and overall survival when used in the perioperative setting for patients with resectable NSCLC, according to data from the pivotal KEYNOTE-671 trial. Those findings, also presented at the ESMO congress, led to the approval this past week of pembrolizumab in that population.

The CheckMate 77T included 461 adults with untreated resectable stage IIA-IIIB NSCLC, 77% of whom underwent definitive surgery. The median age of participants was 66 years. Patients were randomly assigned to active treatment with nivolumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab or placebo. The neoadjuvant nivolumab dose was 360 mg every 3 weeks for four cycles, and the adjuvant dose was 480 mg every 4 weeks for 1 year.

Overall, adding adjuvant nivolumab led to a significant improvement in EFS over a follow-up spanning 15.7-44.2 months (not reached vs. 18.4 months; HR, 0.58; P = .00025).

The EFS benefits were observed across most key subgroups but was lower in patients with stage II vs. stage III disease (HR, 0.81 vs. 0.51), and in those with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of less than 1% vs. 1% or greater (HR, 0.73 vs. 0.52).

Neoadjuvant/adjuvant nivolumab also led to a significant improvement in pathological complete response (25.3% vs. 4.7%; odds ratio, 6.64) and major pathological response (35.4% vs. 12.1%; OR, 4.01) – the trial’s secondary endpoints.

In an exploratory analysis, perioperative nivolumab showed a trend toward improved EFS in patients without a pathological complete response, Dr. Cascone added.

No new safety signals were observed. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32% of patients in the treatment arm and 25% in the placebo arm. Surgery-related adverse events occurred in 12% in each arm.

Despite the promising findings, some questions remain, said Dr. Garassino.

First, should PD-L1–negative patients and those with stage II NSCLC receive perioperative treatment? Pooled data from recent perioperative trials indicated EFS benefits in the perioperative setting for both PD-L1-negative disease (HR, 0.72) and stage II disease (HR, 0.68), she said.

So, “the answer is yes, we should treat” these patients, she said.

But a big question is whether patients who don’t achieve a pathological complete response need adjuvant therapy. “We really don’t know,” she continued. “What we know is that those patients who achieve pathological complete response do very, very well, and I think for those patients who don’t achieve pathological complete response, we have to work with new biomarkers, [circulating tumor] DNA, new drugs, and we have to run proper trials to increase the power of these patients, that unfortunately is still very low.”

CheckMate 77T is funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Cascone and Dr. Garassino each reported relationships (personal and institutional) with numerous pharmaceutical companies and other entities.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant nivolumab led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (EFS) in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from the phase 3 CheckMate 77T trial.

In the interim analysis, median EFS was not reached in 229 patients randomly assigned to the adjuvant nivolumab treatment group vs. 18.4 months in 232 patients randomly assigned to a placebo group over a minimum follow-up of 15.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.58), first author Tina Cascone, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“CheckMate 77T is the first phase 3 perioperative study to build on the standard of care neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy and supports perioperative nivolumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Cascone, associate professor in the division of cancer medicine at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Invited discussant Marina Garassino, MBBS, professor of medicine and director of the thoracic oncology program at the University of Chicago, noted that the “practice-changing” CheckMate 77T findings – including the “highly statistically significant impressive hazard ratio of 0.58” – add to the increasing evidence supporting perioperative immunochemotherapy in the resectable NSCLC space.

This trial is the fourth to show an EFS benefit in this setting with a perioperative approach. Most recently, Merck’s pembrolizumab (Keytruda) demonstrated improvements in both EFS and overall survival when used in the perioperative setting for patients with resectable NSCLC, according to data from the pivotal KEYNOTE-671 trial. Those findings, also presented at the ESMO congress, led to the approval this past week of pembrolizumab in that population.

The CheckMate 77T included 461 adults with untreated resectable stage IIA-IIIB NSCLC, 77% of whom underwent definitive surgery. The median age of participants was 66 years. Patients were randomly assigned to active treatment with nivolumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab or placebo. The neoadjuvant nivolumab dose was 360 mg every 3 weeks for four cycles, and the adjuvant dose was 480 mg every 4 weeks for 1 year.

Overall, adding adjuvant nivolumab led to a significant improvement in EFS over a follow-up spanning 15.7-44.2 months (not reached vs. 18.4 months; HR, 0.58; P = .00025).

The EFS benefits were observed across most key subgroups but was lower in patients with stage II vs. stage III disease (HR, 0.81 vs. 0.51), and in those with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of less than 1% vs. 1% or greater (HR, 0.73 vs. 0.52).

Neoadjuvant/adjuvant nivolumab also led to a significant improvement in pathological complete response (25.3% vs. 4.7%; odds ratio, 6.64) and major pathological response (35.4% vs. 12.1%; OR, 4.01) – the trial’s secondary endpoints.

In an exploratory analysis, perioperative nivolumab showed a trend toward improved EFS in patients without a pathological complete response, Dr. Cascone added.

No new safety signals were observed. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32% of patients in the treatment arm and 25% in the placebo arm. Surgery-related adverse events occurred in 12% in each arm.

Despite the promising findings, some questions remain, said Dr. Garassino.

First, should PD-L1–negative patients and those with stage II NSCLC receive perioperative treatment? Pooled data from recent perioperative trials indicated EFS benefits in the perioperative setting for both PD-L1-negative disease (HR, 0.72) and stage II disease (HR, 0.68), she said.

So, “the answer is yes, we should treat” these patients, she said.

But a big question is whether patients who don’t achieve a pathological complete response need adjuvant therapy. “We really don’t know,” she continued. “What we know is that those patients who achieve pathological complete response do very, very well, and I think for those patients who don’t achieve pathological complete response, we have to work with new biomarkers, [circulating tumor] DNA, new drugs, and we have to run proper trials to increase the power of these patients, that unfortunately is still very low.”

CheckMate 77T is funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Cascone and Dr. Garassino each reported relationships (personal and institutional) with numerous pharmaceutical companies and other entities.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant nivolumab led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (EFS) in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from the phase 3 CheckMate 77T trial.

In the interim analysis, median EFS was not reached in 229 patients randomly assigned to the adjuvant nivolumab treatment group vs. 18.4 months in 232 patients randomly assigned to a placebo group over a minimum follow-up of 15.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.58), first author Tina Cascone, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“CheckMate 77T is the first phase 3 perioperative study to build on the standard of care neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy and supports perioperative nivolumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Cascone, associate professor in the division of cancer medicine at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Invited discussant Marina Garassino, MBBS, professor of medicine and director of the thoracic oncology program at the University of Chicago, noted that the “practice-changing” CheckMate 77T findings – including the “highly statistically significant impressive hazard ratio of 0.58” – add to the increasing evidence supporting perioperative immunochemotherapy in the resectable NSCLC space.

This trial is the fourth to show an EFS benefit in this setting with a perioperative approach. Most recently, Merck’s pembrolizumab (Keytruda) demonstrated improvements in both EFS and overall survival when used in the perioperative setting for patients with resectable NSCLC, according to data from the pivotal KEYNOTE-671 trial. Those findings, also presented at the ESMO congress, led to the approval this past week of pembrolizumab in that population.

The CheckMate 77T included 461 adults with untreated resectable stage IIA-IIIB NSCLC, 77% of whom underwent definitive surgery. The median age of participants was 66 years. Patients were randomly assigned to active treatment with nivolumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab or placebo. The neoadjuvant nivolumab dose was 360 mg every 3 weeks for four cycles, and the adjuvant dose was 480 mg every 4 weeks for 1 year.

Overall, adding adjuvant nivolumab led to a significant improvement in EFS over a follow-up spanning 15.7-44.2 months (not reached vs. 18.4 months; HR, 0.58; P = .00025).

The EFS benefits were observed across most key subgroups but was lower in patients with stage II vs. stage III disease (HR, 0.81 vs. 0.51), and in those with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of less than 1% vs. 1% or greater (HR, 0.73 vs. 0.52).

Neoadjuvant/adjuvant nivolumab also led to a significant improvement in pathological complete response (25.3% vs. 4.7%; odds ratio, 6.64) and major pathological response (35.4% vs. 12.1%; OR, 4.01) – the trial’s secondary endpoints.

In an exploratory analysis, perioperative nivolumab showed a trend toward improved EFS in patients without a pathological complete response, Dr. Cascone added.

No new safety signals were observed. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32% of patients in the treatment arm and 25% in the placebo arm. Surgery-related adverse events occurred in 12% in each arm.

Despite the promising findings, some questions remain, said Dr. Garassino.

First, should PD-L1–negative patients and those with stage II NSCLC receive perioperative treatment? Pooled data from recent perioperative trials indicated EFS benefits in the perioperative setting for both PD-L1-negative disease (HR, 0.72) and stage II disease (HR, 0.68), she said.

So, “the answer is yes, we should treat” these patients, she said.

But a big question is whether patients who don’t achieve a pathological complete response need adjuvant therapy. “We really don’t know,” she continued. “What we know is that those patients who achieve pathological complete response do very, very well, and I think for those patients who don’t achieve pathological complete response, we have to work with new biomarkers, [circulating tumor] DNA, new drugs, and we have to run proper trials to increase the power of these patients, that unfortunately is still very low.”

CheckMate 77T is funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Cascone and Dr. Garassino each reported relationships (personal and institutional) with numerous pharmaceutical companies and other entities.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Further evidence for the benefit of adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early high-risk estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancer comes from results of two randomized trials presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

In the KEYNOTE-756 trial, adding pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in an 8.5% increase in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, compared with chemotherapy alone, regardless of the patients’ programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) status, reported Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the breast unit at the Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon.

In the Checkmate 7FL trial, a study bedeviled by unexpected circumstances, the addition of nivolumab (Opdivo) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in a 10.5% absolute increase in pCR rates, compared with chemotherapy alone, reported Sherene Loi, MBBS, PhD, from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne.

A new paradigm?

Taken together, the trials suggest that neoadjuvant immunotherapy has the potential to be “a new paradigm,” said ESMO invited discussant Steven RD Johnston, MD, PhD, professor of breast cancer medicine at the Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research in London.

“Is the management of ER-positive breast cancer going to change with immunotherapy? Can we improve pCR rates? Yes, we can. We’ve seen a significant improvement in two separate studies, albeit the rates are only at 24%, and at this point, it’s unclear if this will translate into a better event-free survival [EFS] because we have to wait and follow the data,” he said.

The data from the two studies suggest that the patients who are likely to benefit most would be those with higher-grade tumors, luminal B subtype tumors, and, possibly, those whose tumors express higher levels of PD-L1, although the definition of PD-L1 positive depends on the assay used, he said

“I think we have to make better efforts to evaluate whether genomic or immune signatures can further define those who have most to gain, and I would urge investigators in both studies to do more digging into understanding this, because you might really enrich the patients who have the most to gain from the is approach,” Dr. Johnston said.

Checkmate 7FL details

In this prospective, randomized multicenter trial patients received four cycles of neoadjuvant paclitaxel followed by four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) and surgery with adjuvant endocrine therapy. In arm A, 257 patients received neoadjuvant and adjuvant nivolumab. In arm B 253, patients received a nivolumab placebo in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.

Eligible patients had newly diagnosed ER+/HER2– breast cancer centrally confirmed. Patients with T1c or T2 tumors who were clinically node positive on histology and those with T3 or T4 tumors of any nodal status were eligible. Patients were required to have grade 3 histology as determined by the local pathologist, or grade 2 with low ER expression.

Patients were stratified by PD-L1 status, tumor grade, axillary nodal status and frequency of AC delivery (every 2 or 3 weeks) and were then randomized into one of the two treatment arms.

Destiny takes a hand

The protocol was changed following the approval in October 2021 of adjuvant abemaciclib in patients with high-risk ER+/HER2– disease.

“This was expected to result in a high rate of withdrawals due to safety concerns when combining a CDK4/6 inhibitor with an anti-PD-1, and this put the co-primary endpoint of EFS at risk,” Dr. Loi explained.

Therefore, the investigators amended the trial protocol to establish pCR as the sole primary endpoint and ceased accrual after 521 patients were randomized.

In addition, the primary efficacy population was modified to include 510 patients across 221 sites in 31 countries after Russian sites with a total of 11 patients closed due to Russia’s war on Ukraine.

And another hurdle, trial recruitment occurred from November 2019 through April 2022, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Checkmate 7FL results

The pCR rate in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population was 24.5% for patients who received nivolumab, compared with 13.8% for patients who did not, translating in an odds ratio for benefit with the ICI of 2.05 (P = .0021),

In patients with PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of cells, a secondary endpoint, the respective pCR rates were 44.3% and 20.2%, with OR of 3.11, and a confidence interval indicating statistical significance.

Residual cancer burden (RCB) rates of 0 or 1 were also higher in the nivolumab-containing arm in both the modified ITT population (30.7% vs. 21.3%), and in the PD-L1–enriched population (54.5% vs. 26.2%).

In the safety population, which included 517 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab or placebo, rates of overall adverse events and treatment-related adverse events were similar between the two arms, with the exception of two deaths from drug toxicity in Arm A (from pneumonitis in a patient 61 days after the last neoadjuvant cycles and hepatitis in a patient 51 days after) vs. no drug toxicity deaths reported in Arm B.

Safety of the nivolumab and neoadjuvant chemotherapy combinations was consistent with known safety profiles, with no new safety signals seen, Dr. Loi said.

KEYNOTE-756 details

The KEYNOTE-756 investigators had an easier time of it than Dr. Loi and colleagues. In fact, the trial “is the first fully accrued phase 3 immunotherapy study in high-risk, early-stage ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, and it met one of its primary endpoints, pCR,” Dr. Cardoso said.

She noted that in the adaptive I-SPY2 trial, the addition of pembrolizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in a nearly threefold improvement in estimated pCR rates in patients with ER+/HER2– tumors, indicating that the role of immunotherapy in this population warranted further exploration.

In the placebo-controlled KEYNOTE-756 trial, treatment-naive patients with locally confirmed invasive ductal breast carcinoma with stage T1c or T2 tumors 2 cm or larger with nodal status CN1 or 2, or T3 and T4 tumors with nodal status CN0-2 were enrolled.

In most centers (Eastern Europe and China being the exceptions) patients were stratified by PD-L1 status, nodal status, anthracycline regimen chosen (AC or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide [EC]) and by degree of ER-positivity. Patients, 1,278 in total, were then randomly assigned to pembrolizumab for four cycles plus paclitaxel for 12 weeks, followed by AC or EC for four cycles plus pembrolizumab, or to the same regimen without pembrolizumab.

Following surgery, patients went on to endocrine therapy for up to 10 years, with or without 6 months of additional pembrolizumab every 6 months.

KEYNOTE-756 results

For the ITT analysis, 635 patients assigned to pembrolizumab and 643 assigned to placebo were evaluable.

At the first interim assessment, conducted at a median follow-up of 33.2 months, with the longest follow-up out to 51.8 months, the co-primary endpoint of an improvement in pCR with immunotherapy was met. The pCR rate with pembrolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 15.6% with placebo, an absolute difference of 8.5% (P = .00005).

Data for the other co-primary endpoint, EFS, were not mature at the time of data cutoff, and will be reported at a future date, Dr. Cardoso said.

An analysis of pCR rates in subgroups showed that pembrolizumab benefited most patients, with the exception of those 65 years and older, patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (vs. 0), patients who received their anthracycline regimen every 2 weeks rather than every 3, and node-negative patients.

The benefit was particular pronounced among patients with less than 10% ER positivity, she pointed out.

Adverse events in the neoadjuvant phase were primarily related to chemotherapy, with no major differences between the arms, although grade 3 or greater events were slightly more frequent with pembrolizumab (52.5% vs. 46.4%), and two patients in the pembrolizumab arm died (one death was from acute myocardial infarction considered related to the long QT syndrome; cause of the other patient’s death was not specified).

Adverse events leading to discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab (19.1% vs. 10.1%, respectively).

Immune-mediated adverse events of any grade were also higher in the immunotherapy arm, occurring in 32.8% of patients vs. 7% of patients in the placebo arm.

There were no deaths from immune-related adverse events.

Eye on safety

In his discussion, Dr. Johnston emphasized that “it’s important in a curative population that we don’t harm patients in a setting where we have a variety of other therapies available.”

Recalling the deaths of patients in the immunotherapy arm of each trial, he commented that “deaths in early breast cancer in a treatment setting are always a disaster, and we have to make sure that we manage these adverse events as we can best, and we know how to do that now.”

Checkmate 7FL was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Loi reported financial and nonfinancial interests with BMS and with other companies. KEYNOTE-756 was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting and institutional research support from Merck and others. Dr. Johnston reported consulting or advisory roles, honoraria, and research funding from several companies, not including either BMS or Merck.

Further evidence for the benefit of adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early high-risk estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancer comes from results of two randomized trials presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

In the KEYNOTE-756 trial, adding pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in an 8.5% increase in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, compared with chemotherapy alone, regardless of the patients’ programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) status, reported Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the breast unit at the Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon.

In the Checkmate 7FL trial, a study bedeviled by unexpected circumstances, the addition of nivolumab (Opdivo) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in a 10.5% absolute increase in pCR rates, compared with chemotherapy alone, reported Sherene Loi, MBBS, PhD, from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne.

A new paradigm?

Taken together, the trials suggest that neoadjuvant immunotherapy has the potential to be “a new paradigm,” said ESMO invited discussant Steven RD Johnston, MD, PhD, professor of breast cancer medicine at the Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research in London.

“Is the management of ER-positive breast cancer going to change with immunotherapy? Can we improve pCR rates? Yes, we can. We’ve seen a significant improvement in two separate studies, albeit the rates are only at 24%, and at this point, it’s unclear if this will translate into a better event-free survival [EFS] because we have to wait and follow the data,” he said.

The data from the two studies suggest that the patients who are likely to benefit most would be those with higher-grade tumors, luminal B subtype tumors, and, possibly, those whose tumors express higher levels of PD-L1, although the definition of PD-L1 positive depends on the assay used, he said

“I think we have to make better efforts to evaluate whether genomic or immune signatures can further define those who have most to gain, and I would urge investigators in both studies to do more digging into understanding this, because you might really enrich the patients who have the most to gain from the is approach,” Dr. Johnston said.

Checkmate 7FL details

In this prospective, randomized multicenter trial patients received four cycles of neoadjuvant paclitaxel followed by four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) and surgery with adjuvant endocrine therapy. In arm A, 257 patients received neoadjuvant and adjuvant nivolumab. In arm B 253, patients received a nivolumab placebo in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.

Eligible patients had newly diagnosed ER+/HER2– breast cancer centrally confirmed. Patients with T1c or T2 tumors who were clinically node positive on histology and those with T3 or T4 tumors of any nodal status were eligible. Patients were required to have grade 3 histology as determined by the local pathologist, or grade 2 with low ER expression.

Patients were stratified by PD-L1 status, tumor grade, axillary nodal status and frequency of AC delivery (every 2 or 3 weeks) and were then randomized into one of the two treatment arms.

Destiny takes a hand

The protocol was changed following the approval in October 2021 of adjuvant abemaciclib in patients with high-risk ER+/HER2– disease.

“This was expected to result in a high rate of withdrawals due to safety concerns when combining a CDK4/6 inhibitor with an anti-PD-1, and this put the co-primary endpoint of EFS at risk,” Dr. Loi explained.

Therefore, the investigators amended the trial protocol to establish pCR as the sole primary endpoint and ceased accrual after 521 patients were randomized.

In addition, the primary efficacy population was modified to include 510 patients across 221 sites in 31 countries after Russian sites with a total of 11 patients closed due to Russia’s war on Ukraine.

And another hurdle, trial recruitment occurred from November 2019 through April 2022, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Checkmate 7FL results

The pCR rate in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population was 24.5% for patients who received nivolumab, compared with 13.8% for patients who did not, translating in an odds ratio for benefit with the ICI of 2.05 (P = .0021),

In patients with PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of cells, a secondary endpoint, the respective pCR rates were 44.3% and 20.2%, with OR of 3.11, and a confidence interval indicating statistical significance.

Residual cancer burden (RCB) rates of 0 or 1 were also higher in the nivolumab-containing arm in both the modified ITT population (30.7% vs. 21.3%), and in the PD-L1–enriched population (54.5% vs. 26.2%).

In the safety population, which included 517 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab or placebo, rates of overall adverse events and treatment-related adverse events were similar between the two arms, with the exception of two deaths from drug toxicity in Arm A (from pneumonitis in a patient 61 days after the last neoadjuvant cycles and hepatitis in a patient 51 days after) vs. no drug toxicity deaths reported in Arm B.

Safety of the nivolumab and neoadjuvant chemotherapy combinations was consistent with known safety profiles, with no new safety signals seen, Dr. Loi said.

KEYNOTE-756 details

The KEYNOTE-756 investigators had an easier time of it than Dr. Loi and colleagues. In fact, the trial “is the first fully accrued phase 3 immunotherapy study in high-risk, early-stage ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, and it met one of its primary endpoints, pCR,” Dr. Cardoso said.

She noted that in the adaptive I-SPY2 trial, the addition of pembrolizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in a nearly threefold improvement in estimated pCR rates in patients with ER+/HER2– tumors, indicating that the role of immunotherapy in this population warranted further exploration.

In the placebo-controlled KEYNOTE-756 trial, treatment-naive patients with locally confirmed invasive ductal breast carcinoma with stage T1c or T2 tumors 2 cm or larger with nodal status CN1 or 2, or T3 and T4 tumors with nodal status CN0-2 were enrolled.

In most centers (Eastern Europe and China being the exceptions) patients were stratified by PD-L1 status, nodal status, anthracycline regimen chosen (AC or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide [EC]) and by degree of ER-positivity. Patients, 1,278 in total, were then randomly assigned to pembrolizumab for four cycles plus paclitaxel for 12 weeks, followed by AC or EC for four cycles plus pembrolizumab, or to the same regimen without pembrolizumab.

Following surgery, patients went on to endocrine therapy for up to 10 years, with or without 6 months of additional pembrolizumab every 6 months.

KEYNOTE-756 results

For the ITT analysis, 635 patients assigned to pembrolizumab and 643 assigned to placebo were evaluable.

At the first interim assessment, conducted at a median follow-up of 33.2 months, with the longest follow-up out to 51.8 months, the co-primary endpoint of an improvement in pCR with immunotherapy was met. The pCR rate with pembrolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 15.6% with placebo, an absolute difference of 8.5% (P = .00005).

Data for the other co-primary endpoint, EFS, were not mature at the time of data cutoff, and will be reported at a future date, Dr. Cardoso said.

An analysis of pCR rates in subgroups showed that pembrolizumab benefited most patients, with the exception of those 65 years and older, patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (vs. 0), patients who received their anthracycline regimen every 2 weeks rather than every 3, and node-negative patients.

The benefit was particular pronounced among patients with less than 10% ER positivity, she pointed out.

Adverse events in the neoadjuvant phase were primarily related to chemotherapy, with no major differences between the arms, although grade 3 or greater events were slightly more frequent with pembrolizumab (52.5% vs. 46.4%), and two patients in the pembrolizumab arm died (one death was from acute myocardial infarction considered related to the long QT syndrome; cause of the other patient’s death was not specified).

Adverse events leading to discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab (19.1% vs. 10.1%, respectively).

Immune-mediated adverse events of any grade were also higher in the immunotherapy arm, occurring in 32.8% of patients vs. 7% of patients in the placebo arm.

There were no deaths from immune-related adverse events.

Eye on safety

In his discussion, Dr. Johnston emphasized that “it’s important in a curative population that we don’t harm patients in a setting where we have a variety of other therapies available.”

Recalling the deaths of patients in the immunotherapy arm of each trial, he commented that “deaths in early breast cancer in a treatment setting are always a disaster, and we have to make sure that we manage these adverse events as we can best, and we know how to do that now.”

Checkmate 7FL was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Loi reported financial and nonfinancial interests with BMS and with other companies. KEYNOTE-756 was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting and institutional research support from Merck and others. Dr. Johnston reported consulting or advisory roles, honoraria, and research funding from several companies, not including either BMS or Merck.

Further evidence for the benefit of adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early high-risk estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancer comes from results of two randomized trials presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

In the KEYNOTE-756 trial, adding pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in an 8.5% increase in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, compared with chemotherapy alone, regardless of the patients’ programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) status, reported Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the breast unit at the Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon.

In the Checkmate 7FL trial, a study bedeviled by unexpected circumstances, the addition of nivolumab (Opdivo) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in a 10.5% absolute increase in pCR rates, compared with chemotherapy alone, reported Sherene Loi, MBBS, PhD, from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne.

A new paradigm?

Taken together, the trials suggest that neoadjuvant immunotherapy has the potential to be “a new paradigm,” said ESMO invited discussant Steven RD Johnston, MD, PhD, professor of breast cancer medicine at the Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research in London.

“Is the management of ER-positive breast cancer going to change with immunotherapy? Can we improve pCR rates? Yes, we can. We’ve seen a significant improvement in two separate studies, albeit the rates are only at 24%, and at this point, it’s unclear if this will translate into a better event-free survival [EFS] because we have to wait and follow the data,” he said.

The data from the two studies suggest that the patients who are likely to benefit most would be those with higher-grade tumors, luminal B subtype tumors, and, possibly, those whose tumors express higher levels of PD-L1, although the definition of PD-L1 positive depends on the assay used, he said

“I think we have to make better efforts to evaluate whether genomic or immune signatures can further define those who have most to gain, and I would urge investigators in both studies to do more digging into understanding this, because you might really enrich the patients who have the most to gain from the is approach,” Dr. Johnston said.

Checkmate 7FL details

In this prospective, randomized multicenter trial patients received four cycles of neoadjuvant paclitaxel followed by four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) and surgery with adjuvant endocrine therapy. In arm A, 257 patients received neoadjuvant and adjuvant nivolumab. In arm B 253, patients received a nivolumab placebo in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.

Eligible patients had newly diagnosed ER+/HER2– breast cancer centrally confirmed. Patients with T1c or T2 tumors who were clinically node positive on histology and those with T3 or T4 tumors of any nodal status were eligible. Patients were required to have grade 3 histology as determined by the local pathologist, or grade 2 with low ER expression.

Patients were stratified by PD-L1 status, tumor grade, axillary nodal status and frequency of AC delivery (every 2 or 3 weeks) and were then randomized into one of the two treatment arms.

Destiny takes a hand

The protocol was changed following the approval in October 2021 of adjuvant abemaciclib in patients with high-risk ER+/HER2– disease.

“This was expected to result in a high rate of withdrawals due to safety concerns when combining a CDK4/6 inhibitor with an anti-PD-1, and this put the co-primary endpoint of EFS at risk,” Dr. Loi explained.

Therefore, the investigators amended the trial protocol to establish pCR as the sole primary endpoint and ceased accrual after 521 patients were randomized.

In addition, the primary efficacy population was modified to include 510 patients across 221 sites in 31 countries after Russian sites with a total of 11 patients closed due to Russia’s war on Ukraine.

And another hurdle, trial recruitment occurred from November 2019 through April 2022, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Checkmate 7FL results

The pCR rate in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population was 24.5% for patients who received nivolumab, compared with 13.8% for patients who did not, translating in an odds ratio for benefit with the ICI of 2.05 (P = .0021),

In patients with PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of cells, a secondary endpoint, the respective pCR rates were 44.3% and 20.2%, with OR of 3.11, and a confidence interval indicating statistical significance.

Residual cancer burden (RCB) rates of 0 or 1 were also higher in the nivolumab-containing arm in both the modified ITT population (30.7% vs. 21.3%), and in the PD-L1–enriched population (54.5% vs. 26.2%).

In the safety population, which included 517 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab or placebo, rates of overall adverse events and treatment-related adverse events were similar between the two arms, with the exception of two deaths from drug toxicity in Arm A (from pneumonitis in a patient 61 days after the last neoadjuvant cycles and hepatitis in a patient 51 days after) vs. no drug toxicity deaths reported in Arm B.

Safety of the nivolumab and neoadjuvant chemotherapy combinations was consistent with known safety profiles, with no new safety signals seen, Dr. Loi said.

KEYNOTE-756 details

The KEYNOTE-756 investigators had an easier time of it than Dr. Loi and colleagues. In fact, the trial “is the first fully accrued phase 3 immunotherapy study in high-risk, early-stage ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, and it met one of its primary endpoints, pCR,” Dr. Cardoso said.

She noted that in the adaptive I-SPY2 trial, the addition of pembrolizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in a nearly threefold improvement in estimated pCR rates in patients with ER+/HER2– tumors, indicating that the role of immunotherapy in this population warranted further exploration.

In the placebo-controlled KEYNOTE-756 trial, treatment-naive patients with locally confirmed invasive ductal breast carcinoma with stage T1c or T2 tumors 2 cm or larger with nodal status CN1 or 2, or T3 and T4 tumors with nodal status CN0-2 were enrolled.

In most centers (Eastern Europe and China being the exceptions) patients were stratified by PD-L1 status, nodal status, anthracycline regimen chosen (AC or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide [EC]) and by degree of ER-positivity. Patients, 1,278 in total, were then randomly assigned to pembrolizumab for four cycles plus paclitaxel for 12 weeks, followed by AC or EC for four cycles plus pembrolizumab, or to the same regimen without pembrolizumab.

Following surgery, patients went on to endocrine therapy for up to 10 years, with or without 6 months of additional pembrolizumab every 6 months.

KEYNOTE-756 results

For the ITT analysis, 635 patients assigned to pembrolizumab and 643 assigned to placebo were evaluable.

At the first interim assessment, conducted at a median follow-up of 33.2 months, with the longest follow-up out to 51.8 months, the co-primary endpoint of an improvement in pCR with immunotherapy was met. The pCR rate with pembrolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 15.6% with placebo, an absolute difference of 8.5% (P = .00005).

Data for the other co-primary endpoint, EFS, were not mature at the time of data cutoff, and will be reported at a future date, Dr. Cardoso said.

An analysis of pCR rates in subgroups showed that pembrolizumab benefited most patients, with the exception of those 65 years and older, patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (vs. 0), patients who received their anthracycline regimen every 2 weeks rather than every 3, and node-negative patients.

The benefit was particular pronounced among patients with less than 10% ER positivity, she pointed out.

Adverse events in the neoadjuvant phase were primarily related to chemotherapy, with no major differences between the arms, although grade 3 or greater events were slightly more frequent with pembrolizumab (52.5% vs. 46.4%), and two patients in the pembrolizumab arm died (one death was from acute myocardial infarction considered related to the long QT syndrome; cause of the other patient’s death was not specified).

Adverse events leading to discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab (19.1% vs. 10.1%, respectively).

Immune-mediated adverse events of any grade were also higher in the immunotherapy arm, occurring in 32.8% of patients vs. 7% of patients in the placebo arm.

There were no deaths from immune-related adverse events.

Eye on safety

In his discussion, Dr. Johnston emphasized that “it’s important in a curative population that we don’t harm patients in a setting where we have a variety of other therapies available.”

Recalling the deaths of patients in the immunotherapy arm of each trial, he commented that “deaths in early breast cancer in a treatment setting are always a disaster, and we have to make sure that we manage these adverse events as we can best, and we know how to do that now.”

Checkmate 7FL was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Loi reported financial and nonfinancial interests with BMS and with other companies. KEYNOTE-756 was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting and institutional research support from Merck and others. Dr. Johnston reported consulting or advisory roles, honoraria, and research funding from several companies, not including either BMS or Merck.

Adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy provided no meaningful benefit in patients with prostate cancer but increased the risk for urinary and bowel morbidity, compared with men followed with observation alone, according to the latest results from the phase 3 RADICALS-RT trial.

The new findings showed no difference in the rate of 10-year freedom from distant metastases or overall survival in patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy vs. those who underwent observation with salvage radiotherapy if their disease progressed and provided further confirmation of earlier results reported in The Lancet in 2020.

Observation with early salvage radiotherapy in cases of biochemical failure should be the standard of care, concluded study coauthor Noel Clarke, MBBS, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Invited discussant and session cochair Shahneed Sandhu, MBBS, said that the findings definitively confirm the value of observation with salvage radiotherapy over adjuvant radiotherapy in this patient population.

“The approach of early salvage radiotherapy spared morbidity [from] radiation in the vast majority of patients, and further bowel and bladder toxicity is reduced in the setting of salvage radiotherapy,” said Dr. Sandhu, an associate professor and consultant medical oncologist at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victoria, Australia.

The aim of the RADICALS-RT study was to clarify the optimal timing for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer, which previously had been uncertain.

In the study, 697 patients were randomly assigned to adjuvant radiotherapy and 699 to observation with salvage radiotherapy. Participants had undergone radical prostatectomy; had a postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≤ 0.2 ng/mL; and at least one risk factor for cancer relapse, including pathologic T-stage III or IV, Gleason score of 7-10, positive margins, or preoperative PSA ≥ 10 ng/mL.

Patients in the observation arm received salvage radiotherapy if they experienced two consecutive PSA increases ≥ 0.1 ng/mL or three consecutive rises.

Overall, the investigators found similar rates of 10-year freedom from distant metastases in both arms: 93% in the adjuvant radiotherapy group vs. 90% in the observation group (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .095). The 10-year overall survival rates were similar as well: 88% in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 87% in the observation group (HR, 0.98; P = .92).

However, self-reported urinary and fecal incontinence rates at 1 year were significantly higher in the adjuvant radiotherapy group vs. the observation group, 60% of whom had not received salvage radiotherapy at that time.

Secondary outcome measures, including biochemical progression-free survival and time to further hormone therapy, were also similar in the treatment and observation arms.

Overall, the trial results “support the use of early salvage radiotherapy for PSA failure after radical prostatectomy rather than early adjuvant intervention, “ concluded Dr. Clarke, a professor and consultant urologist at the Christie Hospital and Salford Royal Hospital, Manchester, England.

And when biochemical recurrence does occur, Dr. Sandhu noted that prostate-specific membrane antigen PET is increasingly used in practice to help “define the extent of disease” and “tailor radiation fields.”

Dr. Clarke reported serving on advisory boards for Janssen, Astellas, and Bayer. Dr. Sandhu reported receiving research grant support and/or serving as a consultant or adviser for Advanced Accelerator Application (a Novartis company), AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche/Genentech, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Janssen, and Sehnwa.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy provided no meaningful benefit in patients with prostate cancer but increased the risk for urinary and bowel morbidity, compared with men followed with observation alone, according to the latest results from the phase 3 RADICALS-RT trial.

The new findings showed no difference in the rate of 10-year freedom from distant metastases or overall survival in patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy vs. those who underwent observation with salvage radiotherapy if their disease progressed and provided further confirmation of earlier results reported in The Lancet in 2020.

Observation with early salvage radiotherapy in cases of biochemical failure should be the standard of care, concluded study coauthor Noel Clarke, MBBS, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Invited discussant and session cochair Shahneed Sandhu, MBBS, said that the findings definitively confirm the value of observation with salvage radiotherapy over adjuvant radiotherapy in this patient population.

“The approach of early salvage radiotherapy spared morbidity [from] radiation in the vast majority of patients, and further bowel and bladder toxicity is reduced in the setting of salvage radiotherapy,” said Dr. Sandhu, an associate professor and consultant medical oncologist at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victoria, Australia.

The aim of the RADICALS-RT study was to clarify the optimal timing for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer, which previously had been uncertain.

In the study, 697 patients were randomly assigned to adjuvant radiotherapy and 699 to observation with salvage radiotherapy. Participants had undergone radical prostatectomy; had a postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≤ 0.2 ng/mL; and at least one risk factor for cancer relapse, including pathologic T-stage III or IV, Gleason score of 7-10, positive margins, or preoperative PSA ≥ 10 ng/mL.

Patients in the observation arm received salvage radiotherapy if they experienced two consecutive PSA increases ≥ 0.1 ng/mL or three consecutive rises.

Overall, the investigators found similar rates of 10-year freedom from distant metastases in both arms: 93% in the adjuvant radiotherapy group vs. 90% in the observation group (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .095). The 10-year overall survival rates were similar as well: 88% in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 87% in the observation group (HR, 0.98; P = .92).

However, self-reported urinary and fecal incontinence rates at 1 year were significantly higher in the adjuvant radiotherapy group vs. the observation group, 60% of whom had not received salvage radiotherapy at that time.

Secondary outcome measures, including biochemical progression-free survival and time to further hormone therapy, were also similar in the treatment and observation arms.

Overall, the trial results “support the use of early salvage radiotherapy for PSA failure after radical prostatectomy rather than early adjuvant intervention, “ concluded Dr. Clarke, a professor and consultant urologist at the Christie Hospital and Salford Royal Hospital, Manchester, England.

And when biochemical recurrence does occur, Dr. Sandhu noted that prostate-specific membrane antigen PET is increasingly used in practice to help “define the extent of disease” and “tailor radiation fields.”

Dr. Clarke reported serving on advisory boards for Janssen, Astellas, and Bayer. Dr. Sandhu reported receiving research grant support and/or serving as a consultant or adviser for Advanced Accelerator Application (a Novartis company), AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche/Genentech, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Janssen, and Sehnwa.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy provided no meaningful benefit in patients with prostate cancer but increased the risk for urinary and bowel morbidity, compared with men followed with observation alone, according to the latest results from the phase 3 RADICALS-RT trial.

The new findings showed no difference in the rate of 10-year freedom from distant metastases or overall survival in patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy vs. those who underwent observation with salvage radiotherapy if their disease progressed and provided further confirmation of earlier results reported in The Lancet in 2020.

Observation with early salvage radiotherapy in cases of biochemical failure should be the standard of care, concluded study coauthor Noel Clarke, MBBS, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Invited discussant and session cochair Shahneed Sandhu, MBBS, said that the findings definitively confirm the value of observation with salvage radiotherapy over adjuvant radiotherapy in this patient population.

“The approach of early salvage radiotherapy spared morbidity [from] radiation in the vast majority of patients, and further bowel and bladder toxicity is reduced in the setting of salvage radiotherapy,” said Dr. Sandhu, an associate professor and consultant medical oncologist at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victoria, Australia.

The aim of the RADICALS-RT study was to clarify the optimal timing for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer, which previously had been uncertain.

In the study, 697 patients were randomly assigned to adjuvant radiotherapy and 699 to observation with salvage radiotherapy. Participants had undergone radical prostatectomy; had a postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≤ 0.2 ng/mL; and at least one risk factor for cancer relapse, including pathologic T-stage III or IV, Gleason score of 7-10, positive margins, or preoperative PSA ≥ 10 ng/mL.

Patients in the observation arm received salvage radiotherapy if they experienced two consecutive PSA increases ≥ 0.1 ng/mL or three consecutive rises.

Overall, the investigators found similar rates of 10-year freedom from distant metastases in both arms: 93% in the adjuvant radiotherapy group vs. 90% in the observation group (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .095). The 10-year overall survival rates were similar as well: 88% in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 87% in the observation group (HR, 0.98; P = .92).

However, self-reported urinary and fecal incontinence rates at 1 year were significantly higher in the adjuvant radiotherapy group vs. the observation group, 60% of whom had not received salvage radiotherapy at that time.

Secondary outcome measures, including biochemical progression-free survival and time to further hormone therapy, were also similar in the treatment and observation arms.

Overall, the trial results “support the use of early salvage radiotherapy for PSA failure after radical prostatectomy rather than early adjuvant intervention, “ concluded Dr. Clarke, a professor and consultant urologist at the Christie Hospital and Salford Royal Hospital, Manchester, England.

And when biochemical recurrence does occur, Dr. Sandhu noted that prostate-specific membrane antigen PET is increasingly used in practice to help “define the extent of disease” and “tailor radiation fields.”

Dr. Clarke reported serving on advisory boards for Janssen, Astellas, and Bayer. Dr. Sandhu reported receiving research grant support and/or serving as a consultant or adviser for Advanced Accelerator Application (a Novartis company), AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche/Genentech, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Janssen, and Sehnwa.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the proven benefit of adding an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) to preoperative chemotherapy for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the NeoTRIP Michelangelo trial stumbled at the finish line, showing that adding atezolizumab (Tecentriq) to nab-paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by surgery and adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy did not improve 5-year event-free survival (EFS), compared with the same regimen without atezolizumab.

Although the trial did not produce the desired result, it still provided important impetus for researchers to do better, said lead investigator Luca Gianni, MD, chair of the international breast cancer research committee at Fondazione Michelangelo in Milan.

“I strongly believe that the results of NeoTRIP, rather than being viewed as negative, should bring forth the search for dependable and widely applicable predictors of ICIs’ benefit in women with operable triple negative breast cancer,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Other neoadjuvant trials with different agents have shown benefit from the addition of an ICI to chemotherapy for patients with TNBC, Dr. Gianni noted, with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in Keynote-522, durvalumab (Imfinzi) in GeparNuevo, and with atezolizumab in IMpassion031.

NeoTRIP results

Dr. Gianni and colleagues had previously reported that adding atezolizumab to neoadjuvant carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel did not significantly improve pathologic complete response rates (pCR) in the randomized trial, although other trials of neoadjuvant ICIs in this population had shown a pCR benefit.

“Our analysis of NeoTRIP supports that pCR may not be an appropriate surrogate endpoint for the role of ICIs in early TNBC,” they wrote in that analysis.

At ESMO 2023, the investigators presented 5-year event-free survival rates, the primary study endpoint, and results of an exploratory analysis of predictive biomarkers.

In the phase 3 trial, patients with HER2-negative, estrogen receptor–negative, and progesterone receptor–negative early high-risk or locally advanced unilateral breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive eight cycles of carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab, followed by surgery and four cycles of an anthracycline-based chemotherapy regimen of the investigators choice.

A total of 280 patients were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, including 138 assigned to receive atezolizumab and 142 who received chemotherapy alone.

Of these groups. 119 and 120, respectively, went on to surgery and were eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy. In all, 79 patients (66%) in the atezolizumab arm and 90 (75%) in the no-atezolizumab arm completed the four planned cycles of postoperative chemotherapy.

At a median follow-up of 54 months, the EFS rate with atezolizumab was 70.6%, compared with 74.9% without atezolizumab, translating into a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 1.076­­ for disease progression while on primary therapy or disease recurrence after surgery, or death from any cause, including unknown causes.

Pathologic complete responses key

In multivariate analysis, significant predictors for better EFS included achievement of a pCR; disease stage (early high risk vs. locally advanced); programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) levels above 1% as assessed by the SP142 assay; and higher levels of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, but these factors were not predictive of atezolizumab benefit, Dr. Gianni said.

Among all patients who had a pCR, regardless of regimen, the 5-year EFS rate was 90.3%, compared with 55.7% for those who did not receive a pCR, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.19 for pathologic complete responses (P < .0001).

Looking at treatment-related adverse events occurring following surgery – that is, after atezolizumab therapy had stopped – they did not detect any new safety signals. The most common grade 3 or greater toxicity in each arm was neutropenia, followed by leukopenia, and in the atezolizumab arm there was one case of a grade 3 myocarditis that occurred 2 weeks after surgery and before the patient started on an anthracycline.

The authors also conducted a mass cytometry analysis of potential predictors of response to checkpoint inhibitors in TNBC, and reported the results in Nature.

“Basically, baseline density of several activated immune cells predicted for higher probability of pCR with atezolizumab but not with chemotherapy without atezolizumab,” Dr. Gianni said.

Specifically, they saw that high density of CD8-positive, TCF1-positive and Ki-67-positive markers were associated with increased pCR and EFS rates with the addition of atezolizumab.

Why no benefit to the ICI?

Invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University in Atlanta said that at least two possible explanations floated for the lack of either a pCR or EFS benefit in NeoTRIP don’t hold water.

For example, the theory that a difference in efficacy between PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors might explain the lack of benefit in NeoTRIP is undermined by IMpassion031, which showed pCR and EFS benefits with atezolizumab.

In addition, although NeoTRIP did not include an anthracycline in the neoadjuvant regimen, neither did the NeoPACT trial, in which patients received six cycles of neoadjuvant taxane, carboplatin, and pembrolizumab, and had a 58% pCR rate, with a high 2-year EFS rate among patients who had a pCR.

“As we know, triple-negative breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease. Could it be by chance that there are differences in tumor biology reflected across the various neoadjuvant trials, including molecular subtypes? Also in NeoTRIP, previously reported we’ve seen that there were a higher rate of TILs in the chemo-alone arm; high TILs can be associated with chemosensitivity, and maybe this influenced the results,” he said.

Predictive markers to immunotherapy in TNBC are still needed, he said, because neither PD-L1 expression, tumor mutational burden, or TILs have proven to be reliable biomarkers for this subtype.

The NeoTRIP Michelangelo trial was supported by Hoffman-La Roche and Celgene. Dr. Gianni disclosed financial interests with Roche and others including advisory board activity, consulting, and personal fees. Dr. Kalinsky reported advisory/consulting activities for various companies, including Genentech/Roche.

Despite the proven benefit of adding an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) to preoperative chemotherapy for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the NeoTRIP Michelangelo trial stumbled at the finish line, showing that adding atezolizumab (Tecentriq) to nab-paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by surgery and adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy did not improve 5-year event-free survival (EFS), compared with the same regimen without atezolizumab.

Although the trial did not produce the desired result, it still provided important impetus for researchers to do better, said lead investigator Luca Gianni, MD, chair of the international breast cancer research committee at Fondazione Michelangelo in Milan.

“I strongly believe that the results of NeoTRIP, rather than being viewed as negative, should bring forth the search for dependable and widely applicable predictors of ICIs’ benefit in women with operable triple negative breast cancer,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Other neoadjuvant trials with different agents have shown benefit from the addition of an ICI to chemotherapy for patients with TNBC, Dr. Gianni noted, with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in Keynote-522, durvalumab (Imfinzi) in GeparNuevo, and with atezolizumab in IMpassion031.

NeoTRIP results

Dr. Gianni and colleagues had previously reported that adding atezolizumab to neoadjuvant carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel did not significantly improve pathologic complete response rates (pCR) in the randomized trial, although other trials of neoadjuvant ICIs in this population had shown a pCR benefit.

“Our analysis of NeoTRIP supports that pCR may not be an appropriate surrogate endpoint for the role of ICIs in early TNBC,” they wrote in that analysis.

At ESMO 2023, the investigators presented 5-year event-free survival rates, the primary study endpoint, and results of an exploratory analysis of predictive biomarkers.

In the phase 3 trial, patients with HER2-negative, estrogen receptor–negative, and progesterone receptor–negative early high-risk or locally advanced unilateral breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive eight cycles of carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab, followed by surgery and four cycles of an anthracycline-based chemotherapy regimen of the investigators choice.

A total of 280 patients were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, including 138 assigned to receive atezolizumab and 142 who received chemotherapy alone.

Of these groups. 119 and 120, respectively, went on to surgery and were eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy. In all, 79 patients (66%) in the atezolizumab arm and 90 (75%) in the no-atezolizumab arm completed the four planned cycles of postoperative chemotherapy.

At a median follow-up of 54 months, the EFS rate with atezolizumab was 70.6%, compared with 74.9% without atezolizumab, translating into a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 1.076­­ for disease progression while on primary therapy or disease recurrence after surgery, or death from any cause, including unknown causes.

Pathologic complete responses key

In multivariate analysis, significant predictors for better EFS included achievement of a pCR; disease stage (early high risk vs. locally advanced); programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) levels above 1% as assessed by the SP142 assay; and higher levels of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, but these factors were not predictive of atezolizumab benefit, Dr. Gianni said.

Among all patients who had a pCR, regardless of regimen, the 5-year EFS rate was 90.3%, compared with 55.7% for those who did not receive a pCR, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.19 for pathologic complete responses (P < .0001).

Looking at treatment-related adverse events occurring following surgery – that is, after atezolizumab therapy had stopped – they did not detect any new safety signals. The most common grade 3 or greater toxicity in each arm was neutropenia, followed by leukopenia, and in the atezolizumab arm there was one case of a grade 3 myocarditis that occurred 2 weeks after surgery and before the patient started on an anthracycline.

The authors also conducted a mass cytometry analysis of potential predictors of response to checkpoint inhibitors in TNBC, and reported the results in Nature.

“Basically, baseline density of several activated immune cells predicted for higher probability of pCR with atezolizumab but not with chemotherapy without atezolizumab,” Dr. Gianni said.

Specifically, they saw that high density of CD8-positive, TCF1-positive and Ki-67-positive markers were associated with increased pCR and EFS rates with the addition of atezolizumab.

Why no benefit to the ICI?

Invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University in Atlanta said that at least two possible explanations floated for the lack of either a pCR or EFS benefit in NeoTRIP don’t hold water.

For example, the theory that a difference in efficacy between PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors might explain the lack of benefit in NeoTRIP is undermined by IMpassion031, which showed pCR and EFS benefits with atezolizumab.

In addition, although NeoTRIP did not include an anthracycline in the neoadjuvant regimen, neither did the NeoPACT trial, in which patients received six cycles of neoadjuvant taxane, carboplatin, and pembrolizumab, and had a 58% pCR rate, with a high 2-year EFS rate among patients who had a pCR.

“As we know, triple-negative breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease. Could it be by chance that there are differences in tumor biology reflected across the various neoadjuvant trials, including molecular subtypes? Also in NeoTRIP, previously reported we’ve seen that there were a higher rate of TILs in the chemo-alone arm; high TILs can be associated with chemosensitivity, and maybe this influenced the results,” he said.

Predictive markers to immunotherapy in TNBC are still needed, he said, because neither PD-L1 expression, tumor mutational burden, or TILs have proven to be reliable biomarkers for this subtype.

The NeoTRIP Michelangelo trial was supported by Hoffman-La Roche and Celgene. Dr. Gianni disclosed financial interests with Roche and others including advisory board activity, consulting, and personal fees. Dr. Kalinsky reported advisory/consulting activities for various companies, including Genentech/Roche.

Despite the proven benefit of adding an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) to preoperative chemotherapy for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the NeoTRIP Michelangelo trial stumbled at the finish line, showing that adding atezolizumab (Tecentriq) to nab-paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by surgery and adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy did not improve 5-year event-free survival (EFS), compared with the same regimen without atezolizumab.

Although the trial did not produce the desired result, it still provided important impetus for researchers to do better, said lead investigator Luca Gianni, MD, chair of the international breast cancer research committee at Fondazione Michelangelo in Milan.

“I strongly believe that the results of NeoTRIP, rather than being viewed as negative, should bring forth the search for dependable and widely applicable predictors of ICIs’ benefit in women with operable triple negative breast cancer,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Other neoadjuvant trials with different agents have shown benefit from the addition of an ICI to chemotherapy for patients with TNBC, Dr. Gianni noted, with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in Keynote-522, durvalumab (Imfinzi) in GeparNuevo, and with atezolizumab in IMpassion031.

NeoTRIP results

Dr. Gianni and colleagues had previously reported that adding atezolizumab to neoadjuvant carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel did not significantly improve pathologic complete response rates (pCR) in the randomized trial, although other trials of neoadjuvant ICIs in this population had shown a pCR benefit.

“Our analysis of NeoTRIP supports that pCR may not be an appropriate surrogate endpoint for the role of ICIs in early TNBC,” they wrote in that analysis.

At ESMO 2023, the investigators presented 5-year event-free survival rates, the primary study endpoint, and results of an exploratory analysis of predictive biomarkers.

In the phase 3 trial, patients with HER2-negative, estrogen receptor–negative, and progesterone receptor–negative early high-risk or locally advanced unilateral breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive eight cycles of carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab, followed by surgery and four cycles of an anthracycline-based chemotherapy regimen of the investigators choice.

A total of 280 patients were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, including 138 assigned to receive atezolizumab and 142 who received chemotherapy alone.

Of these groups. 119 and 120, respectively, went on to surgery and were eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy. In all, 79 patients (66%) in the atezolizumab arm and 90 (75%) in the no-atezolizumab arm completed the four planned cycles of postoperative chemotherapy.

At a median follow-up of 54 months, the EFS rate with atezolizumab was 70.6%, compared with 74.9% without atezolizumab, translating into a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 1.076­­ for disease progression while on primary therapy or disease recurrence after surgery, or death from any cause, including unknown causes.

Pathologic complete responses key

In multivariate analysis, significant predictors for better EFS included achievement of a pCR; disease stage (early high risk vs. locally advanced); programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) levels above 1% as assessed by the SP142 assay; and higher levels of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, but these factors were not predictive of atezolizumab benefit, Dr. Gianni said.

Among all patients who had a pCR, regardless of regimen, the 5-year EFS rate was 90.3%, compared with 55.7% for those who did not receive a pCR, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.19 for pathologic complete responses (P < .0001).

Looking at treatment-related adverse events occurring following surgery – that is, after atezolizumab therapy had stopped – they did not detect any new safety signals. The most common grade 3 or greater toxicity in each arm was neutropenia, followed by leukopenia, and in the atezolizumab arm there was one case of a grade 3 myocarditis that occurred 2 weeks after surgery and before the patient started on an anthracycline.

The authors also conducted a mass cytometry analysis of potential predictors of response to checkpoint inhibitors in TNBC, and reported the results in Nature.

“Basically, baseline density of several activated immune cells predicted for higher probability of pCR with atezolizumab but not with chemotherapy without atezolizumab,” Dr. Gianni said.

Specifically, they saw that high density of CD8-positive, TCF1-positive and Ki-67-positive markers were associated with increased pCR and EFS rates with the addition of atezolizumab.

Why no benefit to the ICI?

Invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University in Atlanta said that at least two possible explanations floated for the lack of either a pCR or EFS benefit in NeoTRIP don’t hold water.

For example, the theory that a difference in efficacy between PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors might explain the lack of benefit in NeoTRIP is undermined by IMpassion031, which showed pCR and EFS benefits with atezolizumab.

In addition, although NeoTRIP did not include an anthracycline in the neoadjuvant regimen, neither did the NeoPACT trial, in which patients received six cycles of neoadjuvant taxane, carboplatin, and pembrolizumab, and had a 58% pCR rate, with a high 2-year EFS rate among patients who had a pCR.

“As we know, triple-negative breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease. Could it be by chance that there are differences in tumor biology reflected across the various neoadjuvant trials, including molecular subtypes? Also in NeoTRIP, previously reported we’ve seen that there were a higher rate of TILs in the chemo-alone arm; high TILs can be associated with chemosensitivity, and maybe this influenced the results,” he said.

Predictive markers to immunotherapy in TNBC are still needed, he said, because neither PD-L1 expression, tumor mutational burden, or TILs have proven to be reliable biomarkers for this subtype.

The NeoTRIP Michelangelo trial was supported by Hoffman-La Roche and Celgene. Dr. Gianni disclosed financial interests with Roche and others including advisory board activity, consulting, and personal fees. Dr. Kalinsky reported advisory/consulting activities for various companies, including Genentech/Roche.

During treatment for metastatic cancer, remote monitoring of symptoms using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) reduced health care visits and improved patients’ physical function and quality of life, but did not impact overall survival, according to findings from the PRO-TECT trial.

“Although survival was not impacted in this trial, patients found the intervention to be valuable and experienced improved quality of life and decreased hospitalizations,” said Ethan Basch, MD, University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Jiyoung Ahn, PhD, professor of population health at NYU Langone Health and associate director of population science, NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, both in New York, said this study “provides exciting scientific evidence” supporting real-time, remote monitoring of PROs. Dr. Ahn was not involved with the PRO-TECT trial.

Symptoms among patients with advanced cancer receiving treatment are “exceedingly common,” Dr. Basch explained, but “unfortunately, evidence demonstrates that we as clinicians miss up to 50% of our patients’ symptoms with potential serious downstream consequences.”

Remote monitoring with ePROs can help clinicians detect patients’ symptoms early so they can intervene early.

In the PRO-TECT cluster-randomized trial, 52 oncology practices in the United States were randomly assigned (1:1) to remote monitoring with ePRO surveys or usual care. The cohort included 1,191 patients with metastatic cancer – with 593 patients at PRO practices and 598 patients at control practices. Participating practices could enroll up to 50 patients with any type of metastatic cancer, except for indolent lymphoma or acute leukemia, who were receiving systemic treatment.

Patients in the ePRO practices completed weekly surveys either online or using an automated telephone system for up to 1 year. The survey included questions related to nine common symptoms, performance status, and falls.

For symptoms that are severe or worsening, a real-time alert goes to the care team through the electronic health record or by an email, Dr. Basch explained. Similarly, reports highlighting the longitudinal trajectory of symptoms can be generated at patient visits and reviewed by clinicians, which can bring “the patient and the care team closer together by elevating those issues that are particularly salient to the patient’s experience,” he noted.

Patients completed over 91% of the electronic symptom surveys. After 24 months, the team observed no significant difference in the primary outcome of overall survival – 42.0 months with ePRO vs. 43.5 months with usual care (hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .86).

Dr. Basch and colleagues did, however, observe a 6% reduction in emergency or hospital admissions in the ePRO group, compared with usual care. The ePRO group also had a significantly longer time to first emergency admission (HR, 0.84; P = .03) and a decreased average number of admissions per patient over 1 year (1.48 vs. 1.81; P = .006).

At multiple time points, the team also observed “clinically meaningful and statistically significant” benefits in physical functioning, symptom control, and health-related quality of life, Dr. Basch reported. More patients in the ePRO than the usual-care group experienced benefits in fatigue (odds ratio, 1.77; P < .001), anorexia (OR, 1.32; P = .03), nausea/vomiting (OR, 1.40; P = .01), and sleep (OR, 1.73; P < .001).

Patients’ impressions of the ePRO symptom monitoring system were also “overwhelmingly” positive, Dr. Basch said. Most found the questions relevant and easy to understand and felt that their care team used the information, which made patients feel more in control of their care.

Nurses generally had a favorable impression of the system, with the majority stating that the information was helpful for electronic health record documentation and that it improved discussions with their patients and improved their efficiency.

However, about one-quarter of the nurses expressed reluctance about continuing to use the system, citing the “added work of the ePROs, particularly alerts that were triggered that prompted them to call their patients, particularly during the pandemic when nurses in the United States were pulled in many directions,” Dr. Basch said.

He noted that future ePRO implementations should aim to integrate ePROs into care processes and adjust nurse responsibilities to allow time for ePRO work.

It will also be important to offer a variety of ePRO platforms that are easily accessible for different patient groups. “Notably,” said Dr. Basch, about one-third of the patients selected the automated telephone option. These were largely patients living in rural areas of the United States with lower socioeconomic status and lower health literacy, “suggesting that we need to think about our technologies to meet patients where they are,” he said.

Despite the positive outcomes, there are “challenges to widespread adoption,” agreed NYU’s Dr. Ahn.

These challenges include the need for physician adaptation to new technologies, data security, and ensuring patient engagement and compliance with remote monitoring systems.

“Successfully addressing these challenges is crucial for optimizing the integration of ePROs into cancer care,” Dr. Ahn said.

ESMO’s invited discussant, Anne Letsch, MD, noted that “cancer therapies are getting more complex, and it’s important that patients are well informed and empowered to get together with the treatment teams throughout therapy.”

The high completion rate with ePRO symptom surveys was “quite remarkable,” said Dr. Letsch, head of the Cancer Center at the University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Kiel, Germany.

But, Dr. Letsch said, it’s “a pity” that there was no overall survival benefit among patients in the ePRO group. Perhaps overall survival is not what matters most in this context, she said. Instead, she asked, “are other outcomes, like health-related quality of life, symptom control and treatment safety, much more important?”

Dr. Basch also questioned whether the survival differences between the two groups may have been blunted because a substantial portion of the trial was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when medical resources and treatments were delayed and diverted.

Dr. Basch pointed to a 2017 study he and colleagues conducted at a single tertiary care medical center, in which patients monitored with ePROs did demonstrate an overall survival benefit, compared with usual care.

Overall, though, the study demonstrated that “symptom monitoring with ePROs is feasible during routine treatment for advanced cancers across diverse practices in the U.S.” and improved patients’ quality of life, Dr. Basch said.

Funding for the study was provided by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Basch has disclosed relationships with Resilience Health, Sivan Health, Navigating Cancer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Letsch and Dr. Ahn report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During treatment for metastatic cancer, remote monitoring of symptoms using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) reduced health care visits and improved patients’ physical function and quality of life, but did not impact overall survival, according to findings from the PRO-TECT trial.

“Although survival was not impacted in this trial, patients found the intervention to be valuable and experienced improved quality of life and decreased hospitalizations,” said Ethan Basch, MD, University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Jiyoung Ahn, PhD, professor of population health at NYU Langone Health and associate director of population science, NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, both in New York, said this study “provides exciting scientific evidence” supporting real-time, remote monitoring of PROs. Dr. Ahn was not involved with the PRO-TECT trial.

Symptoms among patients with advanced cancer receiving treatment are “exceedingly common,” Dr. Basch explained, but “unfortunately, evidence demonstrates that we as clinicians miss up to 50% of our patients’ symptoms with potential serious downstream consequences.”

Remote monitoring with ePROs can help clinicians detect patients’ symptoms early so they can intervene early.

In the PRO-TECT cluster-randomized trial, 52 oncology practices in the United States were randomly assigned (1:1) to remote monitoring with ePRO surveys or usual care. The cohort included 1,191 patients with metastatic cancer – with 593 patients at PRO practices and 598 patients at control practices. Participating practices could enroll up to 50 patients with any type of metastatic cancer, except for indolent lymphoma or acute leukemia, who were receiving systemic treatment.

Patients in the ePRO practices completed weekly surveys either online or using an automated telephone system for up to 1 year. The survey included questions related to nine common symptoms, performance status, and falls.

For symptoms that are severe or worsening, a real-time alert goes to the care team through the electronic health record or by an email, Dr. Basch explained. Similarly, reports highlighting the longitudinal trajectory of symptoms can be generated at patient visits and reviewed by clinicians, which can bring “the patient and the care team closer together by elevating those issues that are particularly salient to the patient’s experience,” he noted.

Patients completed over 91% of the electronic symptom surveys. After 24 months, the team observed no significant difference in the primary outcome of overall survival – 42.0 months with ePRO vs. 43.5 months with usual care (hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .86).

Dr. Basch and colleagues did, however, observe a 6% reduction in emergency or hospital admissions in the ePRO group, compared with usual care. The ePRO group also had a significantly longer time to first emergency admission (HR, 0.84; P = .03) and a decreased average number of admissions per patient over 1 year (1.48 vs. 1.81; P = .006).

At multiple time points, the team also observed “clinically meaningful and statistically significant” benefits in physical functioning, symptom control, and health-related quality of life, Dr. Basch reported. More patients in the ePRO than the usual-care group experienced benefits in fatigue (odds ratio, 1.77; P < .001), anorexia (OR, 1.32; P = .03), nausea/vomiting (OR, 1.40; P = .01), and sleep (OR, 1.73; P < .001).

Patients’ impressions of the ePRO symptom monitoring system were also “overwhelmingly” positive, Dr. Basch said. Most found the questions relevant and easy to understand and felt that their care team used the information, which made patients feel more in control of their care.

Nurses generally had a favorable impression of the system, with the majority stating that the information was helpful for electronic health record documentation and that it improved discussions with their patients and improved their efficiency.

However, about one-quarter of the nurses expressed reluctance about continuing to use the system, citing the “added work of the ePROs, particularly alerts that were triggered that prompted them to call their patients, particularly during the pandemic when nurses in the United States were pulled in many directions,” Dr. Basch said.

He noted that future ePRO implementations should aim to integrate ePROs into care processes and adjust nurse responsibilities to allow time for ePRO work.

It will also be important to offer a variety of ePRO platforms that are easily accessible for different patient groups. “Notably,” said Dr. Basch, about one-third of the patients selected the automated telephone option. These were largely patients living in rural areas of the United States with lower socioeconomic status and lower health literacy, “suggesting that we need to think about our technologies to meet patients where they are,” he said.

Despite the positive outcomes, there are “challenges to widespread adoption,” agreed NYU’s Dr. Ahn.

These challenges include the need for physician adaptation to new technologies, data security, and ensuring patient engagement and compliance with remote monitoring systems.

“Successfully addressing these challenges is crucial for optimizing the integration of ePROs into cancer care,” Dr. Ahn said.

ESMO’s invited discussant, Anne Letsch, MD, noted that “cancer therapies are getting more complex, and it’s important that patients are well informed and empowered to get together with the treatment teams throughout therapy.”

The high completion rate with ePRO symptom surveys was “quite remarkable,” said Dr. Letsch, head of the Cancer Center at the University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Kiel, Germany.

But, Dr. Letsch said, it’s “a pity” that there was no overall survival benefit among patients in the ePRO group. Perhaps overall survival is not what matters most in this context, she said. Instead, she asked, “are other outcomes, like health-related quality of life, symptom control and treatment safety, much more important?”

Dr. Basch also questioned whether the survival differences between the two groups may have been blunted because a substantial portion of the trial was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when medical resources and treatments were delayed and diverted.

Dr. Basch pointed to a 2017 study he and colleagues conducted at a single tertiary care medical center, in which patients monitored with ePROs did demonstrate an overall survival benefit, compared with usual care.

Overall, though, the study demonstrated that “symptom monitoring with ePROs is feasible during routine treatment for advanced cancers across diverse practices in the U.S.” and improved patients’ quality of life, Dr. Basch said.

Funding for the study was provided by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Basch has disclosed relationships with Resilience Health, Sivan Health, Navigating Cancer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Letsch and Dr. Ahn report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During treatment for metastatic cancer, remote monitoring of symptoms using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) reduced health care visits and improved patients’ physical function and quality of life, but did not impact overall survival, according to findings from the PRO-TECT trial.

“Although survival was not impacted in this trial, patients found the intervention to be valuable and experienced improved quality of life and decreased hospitalizations,” said Ethan Basch, MD, University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Jiyoung Ahn, PhD, professor of population health at NYU Langone Health and associate director of population science, NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, both in New York, said this study “provides exciting scientific evidence” supporting real-time, remote monitoring of PROs. Dr. Ahn was not involved with the PRO-TECT trial.

Symptoms among patients with advanced cancer receiving treatment are “exceedingly common,” Dr. Basch explained, but “unfortunately, evidence demonstrates that we as clinicians miss up to 50% of our patients’ symptoms with potential serious downstream consequences.”

Remote monitoring with ePROs can help clinicians detect patients’ symptoms early so they can intervene early.

In the PRO-TECT cluster-randomized trial, 52 oncology practices in the United States were randomly assigned (1:1) to remote monitoring with ePRO surveys or usual care. The cohort included 1,191 patients with metastatic cancer – with 593 patients at PRO practices and 598 patients at control practices. Participating practices could enroll up to 50 patients with any type of metastatic cancer, except for indolent lymphoma or acute leukemia, who were receiving systemic treatment.

Patients in the ePRO practices completed weekly surveys either online or using an automated telephone system for up to 1 year. The survey included questions related to nine common symptoms, performance status, and falls.

For symptoms that are severe or worsening, a real-time alert goes to the care team through the electronic health record or by an email, Dr. Basch explained. Similarly, reports highlighting the longitudinal trajectory of symptoms can be generated at patient visits and reviewed by clinicians, which can bring “the patient and the care team closer together by elevating those issues that are particularly salient to the patient’s experience,” he noted.

Patients completed over 91% of the electronic symptom surveys. After 24 months, the team observed no significant difference in the primary outcome of overall survival – 42.0 months with ePRO vs. 43.5 months with usual care (hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .86).

Dr. Basch and colleagues did, however, observe a 6% reduction in emergency or hospital admissions in the ePRO group, compared with usual care. The ePRO group also had a significantly longer time to first emergency admission (HR, 0.84; P = .03) and a decreased average number of admissions per patient over 1 year (1.48 vs. 1.81; P = .006).

At multiple time points, the team also observed “clinically meaningful and statistically significant” benefits in physical functioning, symptom control, and health-related quality of life, Dr. Basch reported. More patients in the ePRO than the usual-care group experienced benefits in fatigue (odds ratio, 1.77; P < .001), anorexia (OR, 1.32; P = .03), nausea/vomiting (OR, 1.40; P = .01), and sleep (OR, 1.73; P < .001).

Patients’ impressions of the ePRO symptom monitoring system were also “overwhelmingly” positive, Dr. Basch said. Most found the questions relevant and easy to understand and felt that their care team used the information, which made patients feel more in control of their care.

Nurses generally had a favorable impression of the system, with the majority stating that the information was helpful for electronic health record documentation and that it improved discussions with their patients and improved their efficiency.

However, about one-quarter of the nurses expressed reluctance about continuing to use the system, citing the “added work of the ePROs, particularly alerts that were triggered that prompted them to call their patients, particularly during the pandemic when nurses in the United States were pulled in many directions,” Dr. Basch said.

He noted that future ePRO implementations should aim to integrate ePROs into care processes and adjust nurse responsibilities to allow time for ePRO work.

It will also be important to offer a variety of ePRO platforms that are easily accessible for different patient groups. “Notably,” said Dr. Basch, about one-third of the patients selected the automated telephone option. These were largely patients living in rural areas of the United States with lower socioeconomic status and lower health literacy, “suggesting that we need to think about our technologies to meet patients where they are,” he said.

Despite the positive outcomes, there are “challenges to widespread adoption,” agreed NYU’s Dr. Ahn.

These challenges include the need for physician adaptation to new technologies, data security, and ensuring patient engagement and compliance with remote monitoring systems.

“Successfully addressing these challenges is crucial for optimizing the integration of ePROs into cancer care,” Dr. Ahn said.

ESMO’s invited discussant, Anne Letsch, MD, noted that “cancer therapies are getting more complex, and it’s important that patients are well informed and empowered to get together with the treatment teams throughout therapy.”

The high completion rate with ePRO symptom surveys was “quite remarkable,” said Dr. Letsch, head of the Cancer Center at the University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Kiel, Germany.

But, Dr. Letsch said, it’s “a pity” that there was no overall survival benefit among patients in the ePRO group. Perhaps overall survival is not what matters most in this context, she said. Instead, she asked, “are other outcomes, like health-related quality of life, symptom control and treatment safety, much more important?”

Dr. Basch also questioned whether the survival differences between the two groups may have been blunted because a substantial portion of the trial was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when medical resources and treatments were delayed and diverted.

Dr. Basch pointed to a 2017 study he and colleagues conducted at a single tertiary care medical center, in which patients monitored with ePROs did demonstrate an overall survival benefit, compared with usual care.

Overall, though, the study demonstrated that “symptom monitoring with ePROs is feasible during routine treatment for advanced cancers across diverse practices in the U.S.” and improved patients’ quality of life, Dr. Basch said.

Funding for the study was provided by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Basch has disclosed relationships with Resilience Health, Sivan Health, Navigating Cancer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Letsch and Dr. Ahn report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Short-term fasting during chemotherapy enhances health-related quality of life in patients with early breast cancer, with no untoward effects, according to late-breaking research presented on day 1 of the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“Strikingly,” fasting also appeared to prevent fatigue, something patients with breast cancer struggle with, Daniela A. Koppold, MD, Charité University Medicine Berlin, noted in her oral presentation.

The study adds to other evidence suggesting that fasting around chemotherapy cycles may reduce toxicity and adverse effects associated with chemotherapy.

The invited discussant, Jann Arends, MD, with Freiburg (Germany) University Medical Center, said that the findings fit “very well” with previous observations. “Short-term fasting in subjects not at risk for malnutrition is feasible, well tolerated, and appears to improve several parameters of quality of life,” Dr. Arends said.
 

Promising supportive therapy

The randomized controlled trial assessed the feasibility and impact of short-term fasting on health-related quality of life, compared with a plant-based, low-sugar diet (active comparator) in 106 women with early breast cancer.

The chemotherapy regimens in the trial included four cycles of doxorubicin or epirubicin, followed by taxane therapy. The interventions for both groups occurred about 2 days before chemotherapy plus 24 hours after each cycle ended (about 60-72 hours total).

For the fasting group, this meant about 200 kcal/day through vegetable juices and vegetable broths. In between chemotherapy sessions, both groups were advised to eat a more vegetarian-focused diet, but that was not mandatory.

Health-related quality of life assessments occurred at baseline and after each chemotherapy session (cycle four at day 7) as well as after 4 and 6 months.

The investigators assessed health-related quality of life using the 27-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) that measured the domains of physical, social/familial, emotional, and functional well-being.

At baseline, the two groups had similar FACT-G scores (fasting, 82.9 vs. plant diet, 81.9; P = .523). By day 7, the short-term–fasting group had a significantly better FACT-G score, compared with the plant-based–diet group (fasting, 78.3 vs. plant, 69.5; P = .021).

Although the two groups “started out from the same point, the fasting group had an incremental effect, which quite startled us,” Dr. Koppold told the audience. “Over the course of the chemotherapies, [fasting] had additive effects” and by cycle four of chemotherapy, the difference became statistically and clinically significant, indicating “much better” quality of life in the short-term–fasting group.

What was “even more striking,” said Dr. Koppold, was the impact fasting had on the secondary outcome of fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue).

“Short-term fasting not only had a protective effect on fatigue, compared to the control group, but the short-term–fasting group didn’t develop any clinically visible fatigue,” Dr. Koppold said. “They were in a normal range by cycle four while the control group developed fatigue as we would have expected.”

Importantly, she noted, fasting had no significant impact on weight. The study excluded women who were underweight or had a history of eating disorder or relevant psychopathology.

Summing up, Dr. Koppold said that short-term fasting represents a “promising” supportive therapy during breast cancer chemotherapy to enhance quality of life.

Commenting on the study, Rebecca Guterman, a registered dietitian at Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, said that it’s well known that a healthy diet plays “a key role during anticancer treatments.” Dietary changes can, for instance, help alleviate common chemotherapy side effects such as loss of appetite, nausea, fatigue, or diarrhea, she said.

These new findings support fasting for 60-72 hours around chemotherapy for some patients with breast cancer who may experience more rapid recovery and better quality of life, said Ms. Guterman.

However, she noted, the results should not be applied to patient populations outside of breast cancer or treatment regimens outside this study. And, she noted, “how the patient feels during the 60-72 hour fast also has to be considered.”

An individual’s “nutritional status must be considered. If a patient has poor appetite and loses weight between treatments, fasting should not be done before next treatment,” Ms. Guterman said.

The study was funded by a private sponsor (G. Müller, Munich, Germany) and a grant from the Günter and Regine KelmFoundation (Zurich). Dr. Koppold is a member of the steering board of ÄGHE e.V. (German-speaking Medical Association for Fasting and Nutrition); cofounder of the Academy for Integrative Fasting GbR; and consults for a mobile app on intermittent fasting (Fastic) as well as a company producing plant-based supplements (EVERYYIN). Dr. Arends has disclosed relationships with Baxter. Ms. Guterman has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Short-term fasting during chemotherapy enhances health-related quality of life in patients with early breast cancer, with no untoward effects, according to late-breaking research presented on day 1 of the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“Strikingly,” fasting also appeared to prevent fatigue, something patients with breast cancer struggle with, Daniela A. Koppold, MD, Charité University Medicine Berlin, noted in her oral presentation.

The study adds to other evidence suggesting that fasting around chemotherapy cycles may reduce toxicity and adverse effects associated with chemotherapy.

The invited discussant, Jann Arends, MD, with Freiburg (Germany) University Medical Center, said that the findings fit “very well” with previous observations. “Short-term fasting in subjects not at risk for malnutrition is feasible, well tolerated, and appears to improve several parameters of quality of life,” Dr. Arends said.
 

Promising supportive therapy

The randomized controlled trial assessed the feasibility and impact of short-term fasting on health-related quality of life, compared with a plant-based, low-sugar diet (active comparator) in 106 women with early breast cancer.

The chemotherapy regimens in the trial included four cycles of doxorubicin or epirubicin, followed by taxane therapy. The interventions for both groups occurred about 2 days before chemotherapy plus 24 hours after each cycle ended (about 60-72 hours total).

For the fasting group, this meant about 200 kcal/day through vegetable juices and vegetable broths. In between chemotherapy sessions, both groups were advised to eat a more vegetarian-focused diet, but that was not mandatory.

Health-related quality of life assessments occurred at baseline and after each chemotherapy session (cycle four at day 7) as well as after 4 and 6 months.

The investigators assessed health-related quality of life using the 27-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) that measured the domains of physical, social/familial, emotional, and functional well-being.

At baseline, the two groups had similar FACT-G scores (fasting, 82.9 vs. plant diet, 81.9; P = .523). By day 7, the short-term–fasting group had a significantly better FACT-G score, compared with the plant-based–diet group (fasting, 78.3 vs. plant, 69.5; P = .021).

Although the two groups “started out from the same point, the fasting group had an incremental effect, which quite startled us,” Dr. Koppold told the audience. “Over the course of the chemotherapies, [fasting] had additive effects” and by cycle four of chemotherapy, the difference became statistically and clinically significant, indicating “much better” quality of life in the short-term–fasting group.

What was “even more striking,” said Dr. Koppold, was the impact fasting had on the secondary outcome of fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue).

“Short-term fasting not only had a protective effect on fatigue, compared to the control group, but the short-term–fasting group didn’t develop any clinically visible fatigue,” Dr. Koppold said. “They were in a normal range by cycle four while the control group developed fatigue as we would have expected.”

Importantly, she noted, fasting had no significant impact on weight. The study excluded women who were underweight or had a history of eating disorder or relevant psychopathology.

Summing up, Dr. Koppold said that short-term fasting represents a “promising” supportive therapy during breast cancer chemotherapy to enhance quality of life.

Commenting on the study, Rebecca Guterman, a registered dietitian at Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, said that it’s well known that a healthy diet plays “a key role during anticancer treatments.” Dietary changes can, for instance, help alleviate common chemotherapy side effects such as loss of appetite, nausea, fatigue, or diarrhea, she said.

These new findings support fasting for 60-72 hours around chemotherapy for some patients with breast cancer who may experience more rapid recovery and better quality of life, said Ms. Guterman.

However, she noted, the results should not be applied to patient populations outside of breast cancer or treatment regimens outside this study. And, she noted, “how the patient feels during the 60-72 hour fast also has to be considered.”

An individual’s “nutritional status must be considered. If a patient has poor appetite and loses weight between treatments, fasting should not be done before next treatment,” Ms. Guterman said.

The study was funded by a private sponsor (G. Müller, Munich, Germany) and a grant from the Günter and Regine KelmFoundation (Zurich). Dr. Koppold is a member of the steering board of ÄGHE e.V. (German-speaking Medical Association for Fasting and Nutrition); cofounder of the Academy for Integrative Fasting GbR; and consults for a mobile app on intermittent fasting (Fastic) as well as a company producing plant-based supplements (EVERYYIN). Dr. Arends has disclosed relationships with Baxter. Ms. Guterman has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Short-term fasting during chemotherapy enhances health-related quality of life in patients with early breast cancer, with no untoward effects, according to late-breaking research presented on day 1 of the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“Strikingly,” fasting also appeared to prevent fatigue, something patients with breast cancer struggle with, Daniela A. Koppold, MD, Charité University Medicine Berlin, noted in her oral presentation.

The study adds to other evidence suggesting that fasting around chemotherapy cycles may reduce toxicity and adverse effects associated with chemotherapy.

The invited discussant, Jann Arends, MD, with Freiburg (Germany) University Medical Center, said that the findings fit “very well” with previous observations. “Short-term fasting in subjects not at risk for malnutrition is feasible, well tolerated, and appears to improve several parameters of quality of life,” Dr. Arends said.
 

Promising supportive therapy

The randomized controlled trial assessed the feasibility and impact of short-term fasting on health-related quality of life, compared with a plant-based, low-sugar diet (active comparator) in 106 women with early breast cancer.

The chemotherapy regimens in the trial included four cycles of doxorubicin or epirubicin, followed by taxane therapy. The interventions for both groups occurred about 2 days before chemotherapy plus 24 hours after each cycle ended (about 60-72 hours total).

For the fasting group, this meant about 200 kcal/day through vegetable juices and vegetable broths. In between chemotherapy sessions, both groups were advised to eat a more vegetarian-focused diet, but that was not mandatory.

Health-related quality of life assessments occurred at baseline and after each chemotherapy session (cycle four at day 7) as well as after 4 and 6 months.

The investigators assessed health-related quality of life using the 27-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) that measured the domains of physical, social/familial, emotional, and functional well-being.

At baseline, the two groups had similar FACT-G scores (fasting, 82.9 vs. plant diet, 81.9; P = .523). By day 7, the short-term–fasting group had a significantly better FACT-G score, compared with the plant-based–diet group (fasting, 78.3 vs. plant, 69.5; P = .021).

Although the two groups “started out from the same point, the fasting group had an incremental effect, which quite startled us,” Dr. Koppold told the audience. “Over the course of the chemotherapies, [fasting] had additive effects” and by cycle four of chemotherapy, the difference became statistically and clinically significant, indicating “much better” quality of life in the short-term–fasting group.

What was “even more striking,” said Dr. Koppold, was the impact fasting had on the secondary outcome of fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue).

“Short-term fasting not only had a protective effect on fatigue, compared to the control group, but the short-term–fasting group didn’t develop any clinically visible fatigue,” Dr. Koppold said. “They were in a normal range by cycle four while the control group developed fatigue as we would have expected.”

Importantly, she noted, fasting had no significant impact on weight. The study excluded women who were underweight or had a history of eating disorder or relevant psychopathology.

Summing up, Dr. Koppold said that short-term fasting represents a “promising” supportive therapy during breast cancer chemotherapy to enhance quality of life.

Commenting on the study, Rebecca Guterman, a registered dietitian at Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, said that it’s well known that a healthy diet plays “a key role during anticancer treatments.” Dietary changes can, for instance, help alleviate common chemotherapy side effects such as loss of appetite, nausea, fatigue, or diarrhea, she said.

These new findings support fasting for 60-72 hours around chemotherapy for some patients with breast cancer who may experience more rapid recovery and better quality of life, said Ms. Guterman.

However, she noted, the results should not be applied to patient populations outside of breast cancer or treatment regimens outside this study. And, she noted, “how the patient feels during the 60-72 hour fast also has to be considered.”

An individual’s “nutritional status must be considered. If a patient has poor appetite and loses weight between treatments, fasting should not be done before next treatment,” Ms. Guterman said.

The study was funded by a private sponsor (G. Müller, Munich, Germany) and a grant from the Günter and Regine KelmFoundation (Zurich). Dr. Koppold is a member of the steering board of ÄGHE e.V. (German-speaking Medical Association for Fasting and Nutrition); cofounder of the Academy for Integrative Fasting GbR; and consults for a mobile app on intermittent fasting (Fastic) as well as a company producing plant-based supplements (EVERYYIN). Dr. Arends has disclosed relationships with Baxter. Ms. Guterman has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) improved progression-free survival when added to standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy in the first-line for newly diagnosed, locally advanced cervical cancer in the KEYNOTE-A18 trial, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Overall survival (OS) trends also favored pembrolizumab add-on, but OS data in the interim analysis was not mature and did not reach statistical significance.

The study “supports pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy as a new potential standard of care” in the first-line setting for high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer, said lead investigator Domenica Lorusso, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Catholic University of Rome, who reported the findings at the meeting.

The results of the trial “are compelling, especially considering newly diagnosed patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer have not seen an advance in treatment options in 20 years,” she said in a press release from pembrolizumab maker Merck.

Trial data are under review at the Food and Drug Administration as part of Merck’s application for a first-line indication for pembrolizumab added to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed patients with high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer; the agency’s decision is expected in Jan. 2024.

Pembrolizumab already carries indications for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Women in the trial were new to treatment and had either stage 1B2-2B disease with lymph node involvement or stage 3-4A disease; almost 85% had squamous cell cancer. About half the women were White; 28% were Asian, and about 2% were Black. About 5% of subjects were PD-L1 negative.

Overall, 529 women were randomized to 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for five cycles with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT); they then received pembrolizumab 400 mg every 6 weeks for 15 cycles; 531 were randomized to placebo with CCRT, followed by 15 6-week placebo cycles.

CCRT included five cycles of cisplatin 40 mg/m² every week for 5-6 weeks plus external beam radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy.

Two-year progression-free survival was 57.3% with placebo but 67.8% with pembrolizumab add-on, a 30% reduction in the risk of progression (P = .002).

On subgroup analysis, pembrolizumab’s PFS benefit was not statistically significant for White women (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.15) and women with stage 1B2 to 2B disease (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63-1.31), among others.

Although OS is not yet mature, 80.8% of placebo subjects but 87.2% of pembrolizumab women were alive at 2 years, a 27% drop in the risk of death (95% CI, 0.49-1.07).

At the meeting, Bradley Monk, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, who was also the study discussant, noted that “the magnitude of the benefit here is difficult to interpret because 55% of the patients [were] still on treatment” in the interim analysis, but the difference “is substantial enough for us to have confidence.”

Rates of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were 60.6% in the placebo group and 67% with pembrolizumab, with anemia, nausea, and diarrhea the most common.

Grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 1.1% of placebo and 4.2% of pembrolizumab subjects; hypothyroidism was the most common with pembrolizumab.

Protocol amendments in the trial included a change from PFS assessment by blinded, independent, central review to investigator assessment.

In the press release, Dr. Monk, said the results “demonstrate that, by moving an immunotherapy regimen to earlier stages of cervical cancer, we have the potential to improve outcomes for these patients compared to the current standard of care.”

The study was funded by Merck, maker of pembrolizumab. Investigators reported wide-ranging ties to the company, including Dr. Lorusso, who reported honoraria from Merck as well as ties to other companies. Dr. Monk also had deep industry ties, including being a speaker and consultant for Merck and reporting honoraria from the company.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) improved progression-free survival when added to standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy in the first-line for newly diagnosed, locally advanced cervical cancer in the KEYNOTE-A18 trial, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Overall survival (OS) trends also favored pembrolizumab add-on, but OS data in the interim analysis was not mature and did not reach statistical significance.

The study “supports pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy as a new potential standard of care” in the first-line setting for high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer, said lead investigator Domenica Lorusso, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Catholic University of Rome, who reported the findings at the meeting.

The results of the trial “are compelling, especially considering newly diagnosed patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer have not seen an advance in treatment options in 20 years,” she said in a press release from pembrolizumab maker Merck.

Trial data are under review at the Food and Drug Administration as part of Merck’s application for a first-line indication for pembrolizumab added to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed patients with high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer; the agency’s decision is expected in Jan. 2024.

Pembrolizumab already carries indications for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Women in the trial were new to treatment and had either stage 1B2-2B disease with lymph node involvement or stage 3-4A disease; almost 85% had squamous cell cancer. About half the women were White; 28% were Asian, and about 2% were Black. About 5% of subjects were PD-L1 negative.

Overall, 529 women were randomized to 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for five cycles with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT); they then received pembrolizumab 400 mg every 6 weeks for 15 cycles; 531 were randomized to placebo with CCRT, followed by 15 6-week placebo cycles.

CCRT included five cycles of cisplatin 40 mg/m² every week for 5-6 weeks plus external beam radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy.

Two-year progression-free survival was 57.3% with placebo but 67.8% with pembrolizumab add-on, a 30% reduction in the risk of progression (P = .002).

On subgroup analysis, pembrolizumab’s PFS benefit was not statistically significant for White women (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.15) and women with stage 1B2 to 2B disease (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63-1.31), among others.

Although OS is not yet mature, 80.8% of placebo subjects but 87.2% of pembrolizumab women were alive at 2 years, a 27% drop in the risk of death (95% CI, 0.49-1.07).

At the meeting, Bradley Monk, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, who was also the study discussant, noted that “the magnitude of the benefit here is difficult to interpret because 55% of the patients [were] still on treatment” in the interim analysis, but the difference “is substantial enough for us to have confidence.”

Rates of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were 60.6% in the placebo group and 67% with pembrolizumab, with anemia, nausea, and diarrhea the most common.

Grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 1.1% of placebo and 4.2% of pembrolizumab subjects; hypothyroidism was the most common with pembrolizumab.

Protocol amendments in the trial included a change from PFS assessment by blinded, independent, central review to investigator assessment.

In the press release, Dr. Monk, said the results “demonstrate that, by moving an immunotherapy regimen to earlier stages of cervical cancer, we have the potential to improve outcomes for these patients compared to the current standard of care.”

The study was funded by Merck, maker of pembrolizumab. Investigators reported wide-ranging ties to the company, including Dr. Lorusso, who reported honoraria from Merck as well as ties to other companies. Dr. Monk also had deep industry ties, including being a speaker and consultant for Merck and reporting honoraria from the company.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) improved progression-free survival when added to standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy in the first-line for newly diagnosed, locally advanced cervical cancer in the KEYNOTE-A18 trial, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Overall survival (OS) trends also favored pembrolizumab add-on, but OS data in the interim analysis was not mature and did not reach statistical significance.

The study “supports pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy as a new potential standard of care” in the first-line setting for high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer, said lead investigator Domenica Lorusso, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Catholic University of Rome, who reported the findings at the meeting.

The results of the trial “are compelling, especially considering newly diagnosed patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer have not seen an advance in treatment options in 20 years,” she said in a press release from pembrolizumab maker Merck.

Trial data are under review at the Food and Drug Administration as part of Merck’s application for a first-line indication for pembrolizumab added to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed patients with high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer; the agency’s decision is expected in Jan. 2024.

Pembrolizumab already carries indications for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Women in the trial were new to treatment and had either stage 1B2-2B disease with lymph node involvement or stage 3-4A disease; almost 85% had squamous cell cancer. About half the women were White; 28% were Asian, and about 2% were Black. About 5% of subjects were PD-L1 negative.

Overall, 529 women were randomized to 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for five cycles with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT); they then received pembrolizumab 400 mg every 6 weeks for 15 cycles; 531 were randomized to placebo with CCRT, followed by 15 6-week placebo cycles.

CCRT included five cycles of cisplatin 40 mg/m² every week for 5-6 weeks plus external beam radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy.

Two-year progression-free survival was 57.3% with placebo but 67.8% with pembrolizumab add-on, a 30% reduction in the risk of progression (P = .002).

On subgroup analysis, pembrolizumab’s PFS benefit was not statistically significant for White women (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.15) and women with stage 1B2 to 2B disease (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63-1.31), among others.

Although OS is not yet mature, 80.8% of placebo subjects but 87.2% of pembrolizumab women were alive at 2 years, a 27% drop in the risk of death (95% CI, 0.49-1.07).

At the meeting, Bradley Monk, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, who was also the study discussant, noted that “the magnitude of the benefit here is difficult to interpret because 55% of the patients [were] still on treatment” in the interim analysis, but the difference “is substantial enough for us to have confidence.”

Rates of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were 60.6% in the placebo group and 67% with pembrolizumab, with anemia, nausea, and diarrhea the most common.

Grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 1.1% of placebo and 4.2% of pembrolizumab subjects; hypothyroidism was the most common with pembrolizumab.

Protocol amendments in the trial included a change from PFS assessment by blinded, independent, central review to investigator assessment.

In the press release, Dr. Monk, said the results “demonstrate that, by moving an immunotherapy regimen to earlier stages of cervical cancer, we have the potential to improve outcomes for these patients compared to the current standard of care.”

The study was funded by Merck, maker of pembrolizumab. Investigators reported wide-ranging ties to the company, including Dr. Lorusso, who reported honoraria from Merck as well as ties to other companies. Dr. Monk also had deep industry ties, including being a speaker and consultant for Merck and reporting honoraria from the company.

MADRID – Five years on, the addition of the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy for women with high-risk hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) early breast cancer continues to show modest but clinically significant benefits, compared with endocrine therapy alone.

Results of a planned 5-year efficacy analysis of the monarchE trial showed that at a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the abemaciclib/endocrine therapy combination was associated with a 7.6% absolute improvement in invasive disease–free survival (IDFS) and 6.7% edge in distant relapse–free survival (DRFS), compared with endocrine therapy alone, reported Nadia Harbeck, MD, from the Breast Center at Ludwig Maximilians University Hospital in Munich.

“The data are consistent with a carryover effect and further support the addition of adjuvant abemaciclib to endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive high-risk early breast cancer,” she said at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
 

High recurrence risk

Although HR+/HER2– breast cancer, the most common subtype of breast cancer, is generally associated with better outcomes than other subtypes, patients with node-positive early disease are at high risk for early recurrence and need treatment intensification, Dr. Harbeck said.

The monarchE trial included two cohorts: a primary cohort consisting of patients deemed at high risk based on clinical pathological features such as the number of involved axillary nodes, grade 3 disease, and tumors 5 cm or larger, and a second cohort of patients with lower disease grade and smaller tumors but with high levels of the proliferation marker Ki-67.

A total of 5,637 patients were randomized to receive either 2 years of abemaciclib 150 mg twice daily plus endocrine therapy, or endocrine therapy alone, followed by 3-8 years of additional endocrine as clinically indicated in each study arm.

An earlier preplanned interim analysis of the phase 3 trial of more than 5,600 patients was presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020, and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

As that analysis showed, at a median follow-up of 15.5 months abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy was associated with a 25% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of IDFS vs. endocrine therapy alone.

At the time, the findings were hailed as practice-changing and, once approved for high-risk HR+/HER2-negative early breast cancer, as the new standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Harbeck and colleagues looked at 5-year outcomes from a prespecified analysis, with a data cutoff of July 3, 2023.

All patients originally assigned to abemaciclib are now off the drug, and more than 80% have been followed for a minimum of 2 year since completing therapy with the CDK4/6 inhibitor.
 

Results

At 5 years there were cumulative totals of 407 IDFS events in the combination arm, compared with 585 in the endocrine therapy alone arm, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio of 0.68 favoring abemaciclib (P < .001).

The IDFS benefit with the combination was consistent across most subgroups, including older patients, perimenopausal and postmenopausal patients, those who had received prior neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, all tumor sizes, number of positive lymph nodes, less favorable tumor stage or grade, and order of endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor as first drug).

As noted before, DRFS, a secondary endpoint, also favored abemaciclib, with 345 events occurring over 5 years in the combination arm, compared with 501 in the endocrine therapy arm alone. This translated into a HR with the combination of 0.68 (P < .001).

There were fewer deaths in the abemaciclib arm (208 vs. 234), but this difference was not statistically significant.

The proportions of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs) were higher in the combination arm than in the endocrine therapy alone arm in all previous analyses of the trial data.

In the current analysis, “I would say it’s reassuring to see that the SAEs reported in the follow-up period, after the study treatment had been completed, are quite similar between the endocrine therapy alone arm and the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy arm,” Dr. Harbeck said.
 

Changing road map

Invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, commented that CDK4/6 inhibitors “have changed the road map for treating hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease.”

To put the monarchE results in context, he compared them with those of the NATALEE trial, in which patients were randomized to endocrine therapy with or without the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali). That combination was previously shown to provide a significant survival advantage for women with metastatic breast cancer.

In NATALEE, which included both high-risk and intermediate-risk patients with early breast cancer, the absolute difference in 3-year IDFS rates between the combination group and endocrine monotherapy groups was 3.3%.

To determine the ultimate value of combining a CDK4/6 inhibitor with endocrine therapy in early breast cancer, longer follow-up of both trials will be necessary, Dr. Kalinsky said.

“The reason that follow-up is critical for both of these studies is that for this subtype of breast cancer, based upon data including from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Group, we can see approximately 50% of recurrences after the first 5 years, and we think of cytotoxic chemotherapy as benefiting patients within those first 5 years. And while we think of CDK4/6 inhibitors as being cytostatic drugs, we are seeing a carryover effect in which 2 years of abemaciclib is improving outcome at the 5-year landmark,” he said.

Questions that still need to be answered include the optimal duration of CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, whether adjuvant therapy should be resumed when there are signs of renewed proliferation, and whether there would be a benefit to restarting CDK4/6 inhibitors when metastasis occurs.

The monarchE trial was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Co. Dr. Harbeck disclosed research funding and speaker’s bureau activity for Lilly and others, and a consulting or advisory role with Gilead, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, and Seagen. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed a consulting or advisory role with multiple companies, not including Lilly.

MADRID – Five years on, the addition of the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy for women with high-risk hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) early breast cancer continues to show modest but clinically significant benefits, compared with endocrine therapy alone.

Results of a planned 5-year efficacy analysis of the monarchE trial showed that at a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the abemaciclib/endocrine therapy combination was associated with a 7.6% absolute improvement in invasive disease–free survival (IDFS) and 6.7% edge in distant relapse–free survival (DRFS), compared with endocrine therapy alone, reported Nadia Harbeck, MD, from the Breast Center at Ludwig Maximilians University Hospital in Munich.

“The data are consistent with a carryover effect and further support the addition of adjuvant abemaciclib to endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive high-risk early breast cancer,” she said at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
 

High recurrence risk

Although HR+/HER2– breast cancer, the most common subtype of breast cancer, is generally associated with better outcomes than other subtypes, patients with node-positive early disease are at high risk for early recurrence and need treatment intensification, Dr. Harbeck said.

The monarchE trial included two cohorts: a primary cohort consisting of patients deemed at high risk based on clinical pathological features such as the number of involved axillary nodes, grade 3 disease, and tumors 5 cm or larger, and a second cohort of patients with lower disease grade and smaller tumors but with high levels of the proliferation marker Ki-67.

A total of 5,637 patients were randomized to receive either 2 years of abemaciclib 150 mg twice daily plus endocrine therapy, or endocrine therapy alone, followed by 3-8 years of additional endocrine as clinically indicated in each study arm.

An earlier preplanned interim analysis of the phase 3 trial of more than 5,600 patients was presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020, and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

As that analysis showed, at a median follow-up of 15.5 months abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy was associated with a 25% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of IDFS vs. endocrine therapy alone.

At the time, the findings were hailed as practice-changing and, once approved for high-risk HR+/HER2-negative early breast cancer, as the new standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Harbeck and colleagues looked at 5-year outcomes from a prespecified analysis, with a data cutoff of July 3, 2023.

All patients originally assigned to abemaciclib are now off the drug, and more than 80% have been followed for a minimum of 2 year since completing therapy with the CDK4/6 inhibitor.
 

Results

At 5 years there were cumulative totals of 407 IDFS events in the combination arm, compared with 585 in the endocrine therapy alone arm, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio of 0.68 favoring abemaciclib (P < .001).

The IDFS benefit with the combination was consistent across most subgroups, including older patients, perimenopausal and postmenopausal patients, those who had received prior neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, all tumor sizes, number of positive lymph nodes, less favorable tumor stage or grade, and order of endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor as first drug).

As noted before, DRFS, a secondary endpoint, also favored abemaciclib, with 345 events occurring over 5 years in the combination arm, compared with 501 in the endocrine therapy arm alone. This translated into a HR with the combination of 0.68 (P < .001).

There were fewer deaths in the abemaciclib arm (208 vs. 234), but this difference was not statistically significant.

The proportions of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs) were higher in the combination arm than in the endocrine therapy alone arm in all previous analyses of the trial data.

In the current analysis, “I would say it’s reassuring to see that the SAEs reported in the follow-up period, after the study treatment had been completed, are quite similar between the endocrine therapy alone arm and the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy arm,” Dr. Harbeck said.
 

Changing road map

Invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, commented that CDK4/6 inhibitors “have changed the road map for treating hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease.”

To put the monarchE results in context, he compared them with those of the NATALEE trial, in which patients were randomized to endocrine therapy with or without the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali). That combination was previously shown to provide a significant survival advantage for women with metastatic breast cancer.

In NATALEE, which included both high-risk and intermediate-risk patients with early breast cancer, the absolute difference in 3-year IDFS rates between the combination group and endocrine monotherapy groups was 3.3%.

To determine the ultimate value of combining a CDK4/6 inhibitor with endocrine therapy in early breast cancer, longer follow-up of both trials will be necessary, Dr. Kalinsky said.

“The reason that follow-up is critical for both of these studies is that for this subtype of breast cancer, based upon data including from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Group, we can see approximately 50% of recurrences after the first 5 years, and we think of cytotoxic chemotherapy as benefiting patients within those first 5 years. And while we think of CDK4/6 inhibitors as being cytostatic drugs, we are seeing a carryover effect in which 2 years of abemaciclib is improving outcome at the 5-year landmark,” he said.

Questions that still need to be answered include the optimal duration of CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, whether adjuvant therapy should be resumed when there are signs of renewed proliferation, and whether there would be a benefit to restarting CDK4/6 inhibitors when metastasis occurs.

The monarchE trial was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Co. Dr. Harbeck disclosed research funding and speaker’s bureau activity for Lilly and others, and a consulting or advisory role with Gilead, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, and Seagen. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed a consulting or advisory role with multiple companies, not including Lilly.

MADRID – Five years on, the addition of the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy for women with high-risk hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) early breast cancer continues to show modest but clinically significant benefits, compared with endocrine therapy alone.

Results of a planned 5-year efficacy analysis of the monarchE trial showed that at a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the abemaciclib/endocrine therapy combination was associated with a 7.6% absolute improvement in invasive disease–free survival (IDFS) and 6.7% edge in distant relapse–free survival (DRFS), compared with endocrine therapy alone, reported Nadia Harbeck, MD, from the Breast Center at Ludwig Maximilians University Hospital in Munich.

“The data are consistent with a carryover effect and further support the addition of adjuvant abemaciclib to endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive high-risk early breast cancer,” she said at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
 

High recurrence risk

Although HR+/HER2– breast cancer, the most common subtype of breast cancer, is generally associated with better outcomes than other subtypes, patients with node-positive early disease are at high risk for early recurrence and need treatment intensification, Dr. Harbeck said.

The monarchE trial included two cohorts: a primary cohort consisting of patients deemed at high risk based on clinical pathological features such as the number of involved axillary nodes, grade 3 disease, and tumors 5 cm or larger, and a second cohort of patients with lower disease grade and smaller tumors but with high levels of the proliferation marker Ki-67.

A total of 5,637 patients were randomized to receive either 2 years of abemaciclib 150 mg twice daily plus endocrine therapy, or endocrine therapy alone, followed by 3-8 years of additional endocrine as clinically indicated in each study arm.

An earlier preplanned interim analysis of the phase 3 trial of more than 5,600 patients was presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020, and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

As that analysis showed, at a median follow-up of 15.5 months abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy was associated with a 25% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of IDFS vs. endocrine therapy alone.

At the time, the findings were hailed as practice-changing and, once approved for high-risk HR+/HER2-negative early breast cancer, as the new standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Harbeck and colleagues looked at 5-year outcomes from a prespecified analysis, with a data cutoff of July 3, 2023.

All patients originally assigned to abemaciclib are now off the drug, and more than 80% have been followed for a minimum of 2 year since completing therapy with the CDK4/6 inhibitor.
 

Results

At 5 years there were cumulative totals of 407 IDFS events in the combination arm, compared with 585 in the endocrine therapy alone arm, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio of 0.68 favoring abemaciclib (P < .001).

The IDFS benefit with the combination was consistent across most subgroups, including older patients, perimenopausal and postmenopausal patients, those who had received prior neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, all tumor sizes, number of positive lymph nodes, less favorable tumor stage or grade, and order of endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor as first drug).

As noted before, DRFS, a secondary endpoint, also favored abemaciclib, with 345 events occurring over 5 years in the combination arm, compared with 501 in the endocrine therapy arm alone. This translated into a HR with the combination of 0.68 (P < .001).

There were fewer deaths in the abemaciclib arm (208 vs. 234), but this difference was not statistically significant.

The proportions of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs) were higher in the combination arm than in the endocrine therapy alone arm in all previous analyses of the trial data.

In the current analysis, “I would say it’s reassuring to see that the SAEs reported in the follow-up period, after the study treatment had been completed, are quite similar between the endocrine therapy alone arm and the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy arm,” Dr. Harbeck said.
 

Changing road map

Invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, commented that CDK4/6 inhibitors “have changed the road map for treating hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease.”

To put the monarchE results in context, he compared them with those of the NATALEE trial, in which patients were randomized to endocrine therapy with or without the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali). That combination was previously shown to provide a significant survival advantage for women with metastatic breast cancer.

In NATALEE, which included both high-risk and intermediate-risk patients with early breast cancer, the absolute difference in 3-year IDFS rates between the combination group and endocrine monotherapy groups was 3.3%.

To determine the ultimate value of combining a CDK4/6 inhibitor with endocrine therapy in early breast cancer, longer follow-up of both trials will be necessary, Dr. Kalinsky said.

“The reason that follow-up is critical for both of these studies is that for this subtype of breast cancer, based upon data including from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Group, we can see approximately 50% of recurrences after the first 5 years, and we think of cytotoxic chemotherapy as benefiting patients within those first 5 years. And while we think of CDK4/6 inhibitors as being cytostatic drugs, we are seeing a carryover effect in which 2 years of abemaciclib is improving outcome at the 5-year landmark,” he said.

Questions that still need to be answered include the optimal duration of CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, whether adjuvant therapy should be resumed when there are signs of renewed proliferation, and whether there would be a benefit to restarting CDK4/6 inhibitors when metastasis occurs.

The monarchE trial was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Co. Dr. Harbeck disclosed research funding and speaker’s bureau activity for Lilly and others, and a consulting or advisory role with Gilead, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, and Seagen. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed a consulting or advisory role with multiple companies, not including Lilly.