Talazoparib versus chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: final overall survival results from the EMBRACA trial.

BACKGROUND: In EMBRACA, talazoparib prolonged progression-free survival versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.542 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.413-0.711]; P < 0.0001) and improved patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated advanced breast cancer (ABC). We report final overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized phase III trial enrolled patients with gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC. Patients received talazoparib or physician's choice of chemotherapy. OS was analyzed using stratified HR and log-rank test and prespecified rank-preserving structural failure time model to account for subsequent treatments. RESULTS: A total of 431 patients were entered in a randomized study (287 talazoparib/144 chemotherapy) with 412 patients treated (286 talazoparib/126 chemotherapy). By 30 September 2019, 216 deaths (75.3%) occurred for talazoparib and 108 (75.0%) chemotherapy; median follow-up was 44.9 and 36.8 months, respectively. HR for OS with talazoparib versus chemotherapy was 0.848 (95% CI 0.670-1.073; P = 0.17); median (95% CI) 19.3 months (16.6-22.5 months) versus 19.5 months (17.4-22.4 months). Kaplan-Meier survival percentages (95% CI) for talazoparib versus chemotherapy: month 12, 71% (66% to 76%)/74% (66% to 81%); month 24, 42% (36% to 47%)/38% (30% to 47%); month 36, 27% (22% to 33%)/21% (14% to 29%). Most patients received subsequent treatments: for talazoparib and chemotherapy, 46.3%/41.7% received platinum and 4.5%/32.6% received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, respectively. Adjusting for subsequent PARP and/or platinum use, HR for OS was 0.756 (95% bootstrap CI 0.503-1.029). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 69.6% (talazoparib) and 64.3% (chemotherapy) patients, consistent with previous reports. Extended follow-up showed significant overall improvement and delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration in global health status/quality of life and breast symptoms favoring talazoparib versus chemotherapy (P < 0.01 for all), consistent with initial analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC, talazoparib did not significantly improve OS over chemotherapy; subsequent treatments may have impacted analysis. Safety was consistent with previous observations. PRO continued to favor talazoparib.

Correlation of extent of ALK FISH positivity and crizotinib efficacy in three prospective studies of ALK-positive patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: In clinical trials of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with crizotinib, evaluation of the relationship between the percentage of ALK-positive cells by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-particularly near the cut-off defining positive status-and clinical outcomes have been limited by small sample sizes. Patients and methods: Data were pooled from three large prospective trials (one single-arm and two randomized versus chemotherapy) of crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC determined by Vysis ALK Break Apart FISH using a cut-off of ≥15% ALK-positive cells. Logistic regression and proportional hazards regression analyses were used to explore the association of percent ALK-positive cells with objective response and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively. Results: Of 11 081 screened patients, 1958 (18%) were ALK positive, 7512 (68%) were ALK negative, and 1540 (14%) were uninformative. Median percentage of ALK-positive cells was 58% in ALK-positive patients and 2% in ALK-negative patients. Of ALK-positive patients, 5% had 15%-19% ALK-positive cells; of ALK-negative patients, 2% had 10%-14% ALK-positive cells. Objective response rate for ALK-positive, crizotinib-treated patients with ≥20% ALK-positive cells was 56% (n = 700/1246), 55% (n = 725/1312) for those with ≥15% ALK-positive cells, and 38% for those with 15%-19% ALK-positive cells (n = 25/66). As a continuous variable, higher percentages of ALK-positive cells were estimated to be associated with larger differences in objective response and PFS between crizotinib and chemotherapy; however, tests for interaction between treatment and percentage of ALK-positive cells were not significant (objective response, P = 0.054; PFS, P = 0.17). Conclusions: Patients with ALK-positive NSCLC benefit from treatment with crizotinib across the full range of percentage of ALK-positive cells, supporting the clinical utility of the 15% cut-off. The small number of patients with scores near the cut-off warrant additional study given the potential for misclassification of ALK status due to technical or biologic reasons.

Safety, activity and estrogen inhibition by exemestane in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: a phase I study.

Exemestane is an irreversible, steroidal, oral aromatase inhibitor under evaluation in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. A phase I study was conducted in 27 postmenopausal patients who were candidates for hormone therapy because they had advanced breast cancer and estrogen receptor-positive or unknown status. Most patients were moderately or heavily pretreated. Cohorts of at least three patients received sequentially escalating daily oral doses of 5-600 mg. The median duration of exemestane treatment was 13 weeks (range: 3-166 weeks). The maximal tolerated dose was not reached because of lack of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 toxicity. The most common adverse events, including those not related to treatment, were mild to moderate headache (44% of patients), dizziness (33%), nausea (33%), hot flushes (30%) and tumor-related pain (30%). There were three complete and four partial responses for an objective response rate of 26% (95% CI: 11.1-46.3%) in the intent-to-treat population; the median duration of response was 74 weeks (95% CI: 48-99 weeks). Exemestane, at the dose of 25 mg, maximally suppressed estradiol, estrone and estrone sulfate serum levels to 13, 5 and 10% of baseline, respectively. Exemestane appears to suppress estrogen, be well tolerated and have antitumor activity in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. A large, safe therapeutic window of up to 600 mg was defined. In view of its safety and estrogen-suppression profiles, the most favorable effects were observed at the 25 mg daily dose.

Third-line hormonal treatment with exemestane in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer progressing on aminoglutethimide: a phase II multicentre multinational study. Exemestane Study Group.

In a European multicentre phase II study, 80 postmenopausal patients (pts) with advanced breast cancer progressing on aminoglutethimide (AG) at daily doses of > or = 500 mg were enrolled. Seventy-eight received exemestane (200 mg daily orally), including 33 pts resistant to prior AG, 39 pts who had progressed after an initial response to AG, and 6 pts whose response to AG was either unavailable or not evaluable. Three pts were pretreated with AG only, 69 with tamoxifen and AG, and 6 with tamoxifen, AG and other hormone therapies; 55% had also previously received chemotherapy. The predominant site of disease was visceral in 34 cases, bone in 27 and soft tissue in 17. Based on Peer Review assessment, the overall objective response rate (CRs plus PRs) was 26% (12% in pts resistant to AG and 33% in AG-responsive pts). Disease stabilisation > or = 24 weeks was achieved in an additional 13% of patients (15% of those resistant to AG and 13% of those AG-responsive), resulting in an overall success rate of 39% (28-50, 95% confidence interval). The median duration of objective response, overall success and median TTP were 59, 48 and 21 weeks, respectively. Toxicities were usually mild to moderate in severity, with hot flushes (21%), nausea (19%), dizziness (12%), weakness (12%), increased sweating (12%), androgenic symptoms (10%) and peripheral oedema (9%) as the most common side-effects. Only 2 pts (3%) discontinued treatment due to adverse events. These results are very promising considering that exemestane was administered as third- or fourth-line hormonal treatment in most cases and confirm previous observations about the lack of cross-resistance when steroidal aromatase inhibitors are sequenced with the non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor AG.