Background: In the phase III IMpassion130 trial, combining atezolizumab with first-line nanoparticle albumin-boundpaclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC) showed a statistically significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive populations, and a clinically meaningful overall survival (OS) effect in PD-L1-positive aTNBC. The phase III KEYNOTE-355 trial adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy for aTNBC showed similar PFS effects. IMpassion131 evaluated first-line atezolizumabepaclitaxel in aTNBC. Patients and methods: Eligible patients [no prior systemic therapy or 12 months since (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy] were randomised 2:1 to atezolizumab 840 mg or placebo (days 1, 15), both with paclitaxel 90 mg/m 2 (days 1, 8, 15), every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were tumour PD-L1 status, prior taxane, liver metastases and geographical region. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS, tested hierarchically first in the PD-L1-positive [immune cell expression 1%, VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay] population, and then in the ITT population. OS was a secondary endpoint. Results: Of 651 randomised patients, 45% had PD-L1-positive aTNBC. At the primary PFS analysis, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve investigator-assessed PFS in the PD-L1-positive population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-1.12; P ¼ 0.20; median PFS 6.0 months with atezolizumabepaclitaxel versus 5.7 months with placeboepaclitaxel]. In the PD-L1-positive population, atezolizumabepaclitaxel was associated with more favourable unconfirmed best overall response rate (63% versus 55% with placeboepaclitaxel) and median duration of response (7.2 versus 5.5 months, respectively). Final OS results showed no difference between arms (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.64; median 22.1 months with atezolizumabepaclitaxel versus 28.3 months with placeboe paclitaxel in the PD-L1-positive population). Results in the ITT population were consistent with the PD-L1-positive population. The safety profile was consistent with known effects of each study drug. Conclusion: Combining atezolizumab with paclitaxel did not improve PFS or OS versus paclitaxel alone. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03125902.
Funding: Supported by National Cancer Institute grants U10CA180888, U10CA180819, U10CA180820, U10CA180821, U10CA180868, U10CA180863; and in part by Susan G. Komen for the Cure® Research Program, The Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Genomic Health, Inc. Acknowledgement: The authors wish to thank Dr. Ana M. Gonzalez-Angulo, MD, for her invaluable contributions to the design and implementation of this study. Background: The clinical utility of the RS to determine CT benefit is well established in pts with HR+, HER2-, axillary lymph node (LN)-negative BC. Retrospective analyses from SWOG S8814 support the potential prognostic and predictive role of RS for CT benefit in postmenopausal pts with LN+ BC. SWOG S1007 is a prospective, randomized trial of endocrine therapy (ET) vs. chemoendocrine therapy (CET) in women with 1-3 +LN and a RS < 25 (NCT01272037). Methods: Eligibility criteria included women > 18 years of age with HR+, HER2- BC and 1-3 +LN and no contraindications to taxane and/or anthracycline based CT. Women with a RS < 25 were randomized to receive ET or CET in 1:1 randomization using 3 stratification factors: (1) RS (0-13 vs.14-25); (2) menopausal status; and (3) axillary nodal dissection vs. sentinel node biopsy. The primary objective was to determine the effect of CT on invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and whether the effect depended on the RS. The primary analysis was to test for a significant interaction of the treatment arm and continuous RS using a Cox regression model for IDFS, adjusting for treatment, RS, and menopausal status. A total of 832 IDFS events were expected for the final analysis. Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS). The protocol specified that interaction between treatment and the stratification variables was to be tested and, if significant, separate analyses performed by stratum. Annual interim analyses were planned starting at 24% of events. At the third interim analysis with 410 IDFS events, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended reporting results, with a decision by the NCI’s Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, the study sponsor. Results: Of the 9,383 women screened from 2/28/11-9/29/17, 5,083 pts (54.2%) were randomized. With a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 447 IDFS events have been observed. For the primary analysis, the interaction test for CT benefit and continuous RS was not statistically significant, p=0.30. In a model with CT, RS, and menopausal status (no interaction term), higher continuous RS was associated with worse IDFS [HR 1.06, 2-sided p<0.001, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.04-1.07], and CT was associated with an improvement in IDFS (HR 0.81, p=0.026, 95% CI 0.67-0.98). In a pre-specified analysis, a significant interaction was identified between CT and menopausal status (p=0.004), necessitating separate analyses by menopausal status. In postmenopausal pts (N=3350, 67%), adjusting for continuous RS, the HR for CET vs. ET was not significant (HR=0.97, p=0.82, 95% CI 0.78-1.22; 5-year IDFS 91.6% vs. 91.9%) indicating no benefit from CT. In premenopausal pts (N=1665, 33%), the HR (0.54) was statistically significant (p=0.0004, 95% CI 0.38-0.76; 5-year IDFS 94.2% vs. 89.0%), indicating CT benefit. In premenopausal pts, ovarian suppression was performed in 15.9% vs. 3.7% (ET vs. CET), and 47.9% vs. 26.4% reported menstruation after 6 months of treatment. Although the number of events is limited, the HR for treatment adjusted by RS for OS in premenopausal pts was 0.47 (p=0.032, 95% CI 0.24-0.94). At this time, there is no differential effect with CT in regard to other stratification factors. Conclusions: There is a significant differential treatment effect of CT benefit based on RS for premenopausal vs. postmenopausal women requiring separate analyses. While only 54% of the protocol specified events are recorded and pts will be followed for 15 years, the current data show that adjuvant therapy can be de-escalated to ET alone in postmenopausal pts with a RS < 25 and 1-3 +LN. However, there is a strong IDFS benefit for CET in premenopausal pts, with an early indication of an OS improvement. Citation Format: Kevin Kalinsky, William E Barlow, Funda Meric-Bernstam, Julie R Gralow, Kathy S Albain, Daniel Hayes, Nancy Lin, Edith A Perez, Lori J Goldstein, Stephen Chia, Subkhbinder Dhesy-Thind, Priya Rastogi, Emilio Alba, Suzette Delaloge, Miguel Martín, Miguel Gil Gil, Claudia Arce-Salinas, Etienne Brain, In Hae Park, Jean-Yves Pierga, Ana Hernandez Lluch, Manuel Ramos Vasquez, Manuel Ruiz Borrego, Kyung Hae Jung, Jean-Marc Ferrero, Anne Schott, Steve Shak, Priyanka Sharma, Danika L Lew, Jieling Miao, Debu Tripathy, Gabriel Hortobagyi, Lajos Pusztai. First results from a phase III randomized clinical trial of standard adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) +/- chemotherapy (CT) in patients (pts) with 1-3 positive nodes, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer (BC) with recurrence score (RS) < 25: SWOG S1007 (RxPonder) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS3-00.
As compared with adjuvant FAC, adjuvant TAC improved the rate of disease-free survival among women with high-risk, node-negative breast cancer. (Funded by GEICAM and Sanofi-Aventis; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00121992.).
Addition of buparlisib to paclitaxel did not improve PFS in the full or PI3K pathway-activated study population. Consequently, the trial was stopped for futility at the end of phase II.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.