Clinical effectiveness and safety of olaparib in BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting: final analysis of LUCY.

PURPOSE: The interim analysis of the phase IIIb LUCY trial demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of olaparib in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC), with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.11 months, which was similar to that in the olaparib arm of the phase III OlympiAD trial (7.03 months). This prespecified analysis provides final overall survival (OS) and safety data. METHODS: The open-label, single-arm LUCY trial of olaparib (300 mg, twice daily) enrolled adults with gBRCAm or somatic BRCA-mutated (sBRCAm), HER2-negative mBC. Patients had previously received a taxane or anthracycline for neoadjuvant/adjuvant or metastatic disease and up to two lines of chemotherapy for mBC. RESULTS: Of 563 patients screened, 256 (gBRCAm, n = 253; sBRCAm, n = 3) were enrolled. In the gBRCAm cohort, median investigator-assessed PFS (primary endpoint) was 8.18 months and median OS was 24.94 months. Olaparib was clinically effective in all prespecified subgroups: hormone receptor status, previous chemotherapy for mBC, previous platinum-based chemotherapy (including by line of therapy), and previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor use. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nausea (55.3%) and anemia (39.2%). Few patients (6.3%) discontinued olaparib owing to a TEAE. No deaths associated with AEs occurred during the study treatment or 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSION: The LUCY patient population reflects a real-world population in line with the licensed indication of olaparib in mBC. These findings support the clinical effectiveness and safety of olaparib in patients with gBRCAm, HER2-negative mBC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials registration number: NCT03286842.

Maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer: Outcomes by somatic and germline BRCA and other homologous recombination repair gene mutation status in the ORZORA trial.

BACKGROUND: The open-label, single-arm, multicenter ORZORA trial (NCT02476968) evaluated the efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSR OC) who had tumor BRCA mutations (BRCAm) of germline (g) or somatic (s) origin or non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm) and were in response to their most recent platinum-based chemotherapy after ≥2 lines of treatment. METHODS: Patients received maintenance olaparib capsules (400 mg twice daily) until disease progression. Prospective central testing at screening determined tumor BRCAm status and subsequent testing determined gBRCAm or sBRCAm status. Patients with predefined non-BRCA HRRm were assigned to an exploratory cohort. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1) in BRCAm and sBRCAm cohorts. Secondary endpoints included health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and tolerability. RESULTS: 177 patients received olaparib. At the primary data cut-off (17 April 2020), the median follow-up for PFS in the BRCAm cohort was 22.3 months. The median PFS (95% CI) in BRCAm, sBRCAm, gBRCAm and non-BRCA HRRm cohorts was 18.0 (14.3-22.1), 16.6 (12.4-22.2), 19.3 (14.3-27.6) and 16.4 (10.9-19.3) months, respectively. Most patients with BRCAm reported improvements (21.8%) or no change (68.7%) in HRQoL and the safety profile was as expected. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance olaparib had similar clinical activity in PSR OC patients with sBRCAm and those with any BRCAm. Activity was also observed in patients with a non-BRCA HRRm. ORZORA further supports use of maintenance olaparib in all patients with BRCA-mutated, including sBRCA-mutated, PSR OC.

NEPTUNE: Phase 3 Study of First-Line Durvalumab Plus Tremelimumab in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: NEPTUNE, a phase 3, open-label study, evaluated first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). METHODS: Eligible patients with EGFR and ALK wild-type mNSCLC were randomized (1:1) to first-line durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks until progression) plus tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks for up to four doses) or standard chemotherapy. Randomization was stratified by tumor programmed death-ligand 1 expression (≥25% versus <25%), tumor histologic type, and smoking history. The amended primary end point was overall survival (OS) in patients with blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) greater than or equal to 20 mutations per megabase (mut/Mb). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with bTMB greater than or equal to 20 mut/Mb and safety and tolerability in all treated patients. RESULTS: As of June 24, 2019, 823 patients were randomized (intention-to-treat [ITT]); 512 (62%) were bTMB-evaluable, with 129 of 512 (25%) having bTMB greater than or equal to 20 mut/Mb (durvalumab plus tremelimumab [n = 69]; chemotherapy [n = 60]). Baseline characteristics were balanced in the intention-to-treat. Among patients with bTMB greater than or equal to 20 mut/Mb, OS improvement with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio 0.71 [95% confidence interval: 0.49-1.05; p = 0.081]; median OS, 11.7 versus 9.1 months); the hazard ratio for PFS was 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.15; median PFS, 4.2 versus 5.1 months). In the overall safety population, incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 20.7% (durvalumab plus tremelimumab) and 33.6% (chemotherapy). CONCLUSIONS: NEPTUNE did not meet its primary end point of improved OS with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with mNSCLC and bTMB greater than or equal to 20 mut/Mb. Despite the amended study design, with a resultant small primary analysis population, therapeutic activity was aligned with expectations based on mechanistic biology and previous studies.

Ribociclib plus letrozole in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with no prior endocrine therapy: subgroup safety analysis from the phase 3b CompLEEment-1 trial.

BACKGROUND: The CDK4/6 inhibitor, ribociclib in combination with endocrine therapy significantly improved progression-free survival in the first line setting in post-menopausal patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) in a pivotal phase 3, placebo-controlled trial (MONALEESA-2) and demonstrated superior overall survival in premenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC (MONALEESA-7). The multinational, phase 3b, CompLEEment-1 trial, which assessed the safety and efficacy of ribociclib plus letrozole in a broader population of patients who have not received prior endocrine therapy for advanced disease, is the largest phase 3 clinical trial to date to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a CDK4/6 inhibitor. We report a subanalysis of data from patients (N = 339) enrolled in the central and south European countries of the SERCE (Southern Europe, RUC, Central Europe) cluster of CompLEEment-1. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men and women of any menopausal status with HR+/HER2- ABC received once-daily oral ribociclib 600 mg (3-weeks on/1-week-off), plus letrozole 2.5 mg continuously. Men/premenopausal women also received a GnRH-agonist. The primary outcome was the number of patients with adverse events (AEs) over a timeframe of approximately 36 months. Time-to-progression, overall response rate, and clinical benefit rate were also measured. RESULTS: Safety results in the SERCE subgroup were consistent with those in the pivotal clinical trials of ribociclib in combination with endocrine therapy. Treatment-related AEs leading to dose adjustments/interruption occurred in 63.1% of patients but led to treatment discontinuation in only 10.6%. The most common treatment-related AEs of grade ≥ 3 were neutropenia and transaminase elevations. There were no fatal treatment-related events. CONCLUSIONS: These findings from the SERCE subgroup support the safety and manageable tolerability of ribociclib in a broad range of patients with HR+/HER2- ABC more representative of patients in real-world clinical practice.

The Place of Chemotherapy in The Evolving Treatment Landscape for Patients With HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC.

Endocrine therapy (ET) for the treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR-positive/HER2-negative) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has changed markedly over recent years with the emergence of new ETs and the use of molecularly targeted agents. Cytotoxic chemotherapy continues, however, to have an important role in these patients and it is important to maximize its efficacy while minimizing toxicity to optimize outcomes. This review examines current HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC clinical guidelines and addresses key questions around the use of chemotherapy in the face of emerging therapeutic options. Specifically, the indications for chemotherapy in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC and the choice of optimal chemotherapy are discussed.

Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as a potential predictive marker for treatment with pembrolizumab as a second line treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

The aim of this multicentric retrospective study is to evaluate the predictive and prognostic performance of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and their dynamics in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with pembrolizumab as a second line. Patients with metastatic NSCLC (n = 119), whose tumors expressed programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 1%, were retrospectively analyzed between Apr 2017 and Apr 2019. All patients received platinum-containing chemotherapy as a first line treatment. Pre-treatment NLR was calculated by dividing the number of neutrophils by the number of lymphocytes in peripheral blood before the first pembrolizumab infusion. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was compared by Kaplan-Meier method and Cox Proportional Hazard model. Patients with NLR > 5 before immunotherapy showed significantly shorter mean PFS of 6.86 months (95% CI: 5.81-7.90) as compared to those with NLR ≤ 5 of 18.82 months (95% CI: 15.87-21.78) (long rank test p < 0.001). Furthermore in the multivariate analysis, only NLR > 5 was an independent predictive factor for shorter PFS (HR: 4.47, 95% CI: 2.20-9.07, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, presence of bone metastases (HR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.10-4.94, p = 0.030), NLR > 5 before chemotherapy (HR: 8.09, 95% CI: 2.35-27.81, p = 0.001) and high PLR before chemotherapy (HR: 2.81, 95% CI: 1.13-6.97, p = 0.025) were found to be independent negative prognostic factors for poor OS. Our data suggests that NLR ≤ 5 is a potential predictive marker, which may identify patients appropriate for immunotherapy as a second line treatment.

A phase 1b/2, open-label, dose-escalation, and dose-confirmation study of eribulin mesilate in combination with capecitabine.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine and eribulin are widely used as single agents in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and have nonoverlapping toxicities. METHODS: In phase 1b (dose escalation), patients with advanced, treatment-refractory, solid tumours received eribulin mesilate intravenously in 21-day cycles according to schedule 1 (day 1) or schedule 2 (days 1, 8) with twice-daily oral capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 days 1-14). In phase 2 (dose confirmation), women with advanced/MBC and ≤3 prior chemotherapies received eribulin mesilate at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) per the preferred schedule plus capecitabine. Primary objectives were MTD and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; phase 1b) and objective response rate (ORR; phase 2). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: DLTs occurred in 4/19 patients (schedule 1) and 2/15 patients (schedule 2). Eribulin pharmacokinetics were dose proportional, irrespective of schedule or capecitabine coadministration. The MTD of eribulin was 1.6 mg/m2 day 1 for schedule 1 and 1.4 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 for schedule 2. ORR in phase 2 (eribulin 1.4 mg/m2 days 1, 8 plus capecitabine) was 43% and median PFS 7.2 months. The most common treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia, leukopenia, alopecia, nausea, and lethargy. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of capecitabine and eribulin showed promising efficacy with manageable tolerability in patients with MBC.

Delays in diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer: a multinational analysis.

BACKGROUND: Reducing treatment delay improves outcomes in breast cancer. The aim of this study was to determine factors influencing patient- and system-related delays in commencing breast cancer treatment in different countries. METHODS: A total of 6588 female breast cancer patients from 12 countries were surveyed. Total delay time was determined as the sum of the patient-related delay time (time between onset of the first symptoms and the first medical visit) and system-related delay time (time between the first medical visit and the start of therapy). RESULTS: The average patient-related delay time and total delay time were 4.7 (range: 3.4-6.2) weeks and 14.4 (range: 11.5-29.4) weeks, respectively. Longer patient-related delay times were associated with distrust and disregard, and shorter patient-related delay times were associated with fear of breast cancer, practicing self-examination, higher education level, being employed, having support from friends and family and living in big cities. The average system-related delay time was 11.1 (range: 8.3-24.7) weeks. Cancer diagnosis made by an oncologist versus another physician, higher education level, older age, family history of female cancers and having a breast lump as the first cancer sign were associated with shorter system-related delay times. Longer patient-related delay times and higher levels of distrust and disregard were predictors of longer system-related delay times. CONCLUSIONS: The delay in diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer remains a serious problem. Several psychological and behavioural patient attributes strongly determine both patient-related delay time and system-related delay time, but their strength is different in particular countries.

A phase II open-label randomized study to assess the efficacy and safety of selumetinib (AZD6244 [ARRY-142886]) versus capecitabine in patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who have failed first-line gemcitabine therapy.

Selumetinib is a potent, selective MEK inhibitor with efficacy in several tumor models. This study compared selumetinib with capecitabine in patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who had been pretreated with a gemcitabine-based regimen. In this randomized, multicenter phase II study (NCT00372944), patients received either 100 mg oral selumetinib twice daily or 1,250 mg/m(2) oral capecitabine twice daily for 2 weeks followed by a 1-week break, given in 3-weekly cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival. In all 70 patients were randomized. The median survival was 5.4 months in the selumetinib group and 5.0 months in the capecitabine group (hazard ratio 1.03; two-sided 80% confidence interval = 0.68,1.57; P = 0.92). Disease progression events occurred in 84% and 88% of patients in the selumetinib and capecitabine treatment groups, respectively. Gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea, vomiting and diarrhea) were commonly observed in both treatment groups. Other frequently reported adverse events were acneiform dermatitis and peripheral edema with selumetinib, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia with capecitabine. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between selumetinib and capecitabine as second-line treatment in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Selumetinib was well tolerated with a manageable safety profile.

Therapy of small cell lung cancer with emphasis on oral topotecan.

Systemic chemotherapy plays the major role in the management of patients with small cell lung cancer. Cisplatin plus etoposide is the most widely used regimen and is considered as standard in patients with limited disease. Cisplatin plus irinotecan improved survival compared to cisplatin plus etoposide in a Japanese trial but failed to do so in two trials in Caucasians. Cisplatin plus topotecan had similar efficacy compared to cisplatin plus etoposide in patients with extensive disease. In the second-line setting, topotecan showed similar efficacy but better tolerability compared to cyclophosphamide, doxorubin plus vincristine. Oral topotecan was as efficacious as its intravenous formulation and was shown to improve survival compared to best supportive care alone in patients previously treated with chemotherapy. Thus topotecan is considered as the standard second-line chemotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer.

Current standards in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer with focus on Lapatinib: a review by a Central European Consensus Panel.

In breast cancer, early detection as well as new developments in therapeutic options has resulted in less patients presenting with metastatic disease. However, about one-third of women with early stage breast cancer will eventually develop metastatic disease. Furthermore, approximately 20-30% of patients with breast cancer have tumors that overexpress human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER-2), which is associated with an aggressive tumor phenotype and poor prognosis. The identification of the HER-2 protein led to the development of highly effective therapeutics directed at this receptor. Trastuzumab, a recombinant, humanized, monoclonal antibody that binds to the extracellular domain of the HER-2 protein, has shown significant clinical benefit in metastatic and early-stage HER-2-positive breast cancer. Since the cancer recurs after adjuvant therapy in some women, and metastatic breast cancer eventually develops resistance to trastuzumab, there is a need for alternative treatment modalities to block HER-2 signaling. One of these treatment options is lapatinib, an orally active small molecule that inhibits the tyrosine kinases of HER-2 and the epidermal growth factor receptor type 1 (EGFR). In this consensus statement current treatment options in metastatic and locally advanced disease are discussed with a special focus on lapatinib.

Concomitant docetaxel plus gemcitabine versus sequential docetaxel followed by gemcitabine in anthracycline-pretreated metastatic or locally recurrent inoperable breast cancer patients: a prospective multicentre trial of the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG).

Docetaxel (D) plus gemcitabine (G) is an active combination in anthracycline pre-treated breast cancer. Impact of sequential administration of these drugs is unclear. This trial aimed to compare concomitant DG with sequential D --> G. Patients were randomised to eight cycles of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1 + 8 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8, or 4 cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m2 on day 1, followed by four cycles of gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 + 8, in a 21-day schedule. Time to progression (TTP) was defined as primary endpoint; secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), response duration (RD), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Due to poor recruitment, the trial was terminated after 100 of a pre-planned 430 patients. Patient characteristics were well balanced. No significant difference was observed in terms of TTP, ORR, RD and OS. Grade 3/4 adverse events encompassed leucopoenia (29 vs.68%, P < 0.001), neutropoenia (49 vs. 83%, P < 0.001) and febrile neutropoenia (4 vs. 9%, n.s.), all favouring D --> G. No difference in efficacy was observed between concomitant and sequential treatment. D --> G produced significantly more episodes of haematological toxicity due to the administration of docetaxel at 100 mg/m2 without GCSF support.