Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hope S. Rugo, MD Professor of Medicine Director, Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
Outline
Whats new in the treatment of HER2 positive metastatic breast cancer?
Emilia - TDM1 compared to lapatinib/capecitabine
Blackwell et al, #LBA1
Outline (2)
DCIS
RTOG 9804 - does everyone with DCIS need radiation?
McCormick et al, #1004
What is the role of maintenance chemotherapy for patients with metastatic disease?
Im et al, #1003
How can we overcome resistance that we dont understand? Data before pertuzumab and T-DM1:
Start with trastuzumab + chemotherapy/hormone rx Continue HER2 directed therapy through progression
Capecitabine/lapatinib > capecitabine (Geyer et al) Capecitabine/trastuzumab > capecitabine (von Minckwitz et al) Lapatinib/trastuzumab > lapatinib (Blackwell et al)
Potent antimicrotubule agent is released once inside the HER2-positive tumor cell
HER2-positive, recurrent locally advanced breast cancer or MBC (N=137) First line setting
PDa
1:1
(n=70) T-DM1
3.6 mg/kg q3w IV
PDa
(n=67)
Stratification factors: World region, prior adjuvant trastuzumab therapy, disease-free interval Primary end points: PFS by investigator assessment, and safety Data analyses were based on clinical data cut of Nov 15, 2010 prior to T-DM1 crossover
Key secondary end points: OS, ORR, DOR, CBR, and QOL
Demographics imbalanced: 29 vs 34 % stage IV at diagnosis, 27 vs 18% exposed to prior trastuzumab, 40 vs 33% exposed to prior taxanes
Hurvitz et al, ESMO 2011
aPatients bThis
were treated until PD or unacceptable toxicity. was a hypothesis generating study; the final PFS analysis was to take place after 72 events had occurred.
PFS by Investigator
1.0
N=137
Log-rank P value
Proportion progression-free
0.8
0.594
0.0353
0.6
0.4
0.2
Crossover allowed to TDM1 Significantly less toxicity with TDM1, better patient reported outcomes
Capecitabine + lapatinib
Randomized phase 3 trial in patients who received prior trastuzumab Median TTP longer with capecitabine + lapatinib (n=163) vs. capecitabine (n=161), no difference in OS 8.4 vs. 4.4 months (HR=0.49; P<0.001)4
1Burris
HA, et al. J Clin Oncol 2011; 2Krop I, et al. J Clin Oncol 2012; 3Hurvitz S, et al. ESMO 2011; 4Geyer CE, et al. N Engl J Med 2006.
PD
Capecitabine
1000 mg/m2 orally bid, days 114, q3w
+ Lapatinib
1250 mg/day orally qd
PD
Stratification factors: World region, number of prior chemo regimens for MBC or unresectable LABC, presence of visceral disease
EMILIA - Demographics
496 vs 495 randomized Median age 53, 27% from U.S. Prior therapy
All treated with prior taxane 16% received prior trastuzumab for early stage disease 57% received at least one year of prior trastuzumab, 88% prior treatment for MBC 79% measurable disease, 53-57% HR+
No. at risk by independent review: Cap + Lap 496 404 310 176 T-DM1 495 419 341 236
129 183
73 130
53 101
35 72
25 54
14 44
9 30
8 18
5 9
1 3
0 1
0 0
Objective Response Rate (ORR) and Duration of Response (DOR) in Patients with Measurable Disease
ORR DOR
+ Lap: CAD, multiorgan failure, coma, hydrocephalus, ARDS; aT-DM1: metabolic encephalopathy. bEvaluable pts: 445 (Cap + Lap); 481 (T-DM1).
Cap and Lap: More grade 3 diarrhea (21 vs 1.6%), hand foot syndrome (16 vs 0%) TDM1: More transaminiitis (4 vs 1%), grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (13 vs 0%)
Th3RESA (n=795)
Prior trastuzumab/lapatinib/anthra/taxane/cape 2:1 randomization to TDM1 v TPC
Two Questions
Can lapatinib overcome trastuzumab resistance?
Doesnt require externalized receptor Can this agent overcome resistance mediated by alterations of the PI3K pathway?
Can dual targeting of the HER2 Receptor overcome resistance more effectively?
Maintains benefits of trastuzumab while targeting the pathway through an alternate mechansim
Trastuzumab 2 1
Lapatinib
STANDARD ARM
24 Weeks: Until PD: Trastuzumab plus Trastuzumab Taxane
TTAX/T LTAX/L
TTAX/T LTAX/L
** Protocol Amendment after first 189 patients were randomized mandated * Included as one of the adverse terms a single SAE report primary GCSF prophylaxis for event patients onwithin docetaxel and lapatinib
Neo-Altto
(N=455)
GeparQuinto
(N=615)
NSABP B-41
Schema (n=529)
Tissue for Biomarkers Tissue for Biomarkers
AC WP + T
R
AC WP + L1250
AC WP + T + L 750
WP=Weekly Paclitaxel
Results
pCR breast
53% (T) vs 53% (L)vs 62% (TL) (P 0.095 for TL vs T) pCR breast and nodes 49% (T) vs 47% (L) vs 60% (TL) (p=0.056 TL vs T) pCR based on HER2 (IHC 3+, n=421, 81%) 55% (T) vs 53% (L) vs 71% (TL) (p=0.006 TL vs T) Completion of protocol defined neoadjuvant Rx 78% (T) vs 68% (L) vs 63% (TL) (p=0.01)
ALTTO
Paclitaxel weekly or TCH
Lapatinib Closed due to futility
Surgery
+/Anthracycline containing CT
Trastuzumab
Lapatinib
Trastuzumab
Lapatinib Trastuzumab
1 year
Clinical Context
What does this data mean to our clinical practice?
TDM-1 is a new and effective treatment for HER2+ metastatic disease progressing on trastuzumab Toxicities are unique but generally well tolerated Likely to be FDA approved by the end of the year
Pertuzumab approved in the first-line setting in combination with trastuzumab/docetaxel (PFS 18.5 mo.) Lapatinib is associated with more toxicity and less efficacy than trastuzumab in the first-line metastatic setting Lapatinib/capecitabine is still an option for later line therapy or in special settings (low EF (?), brain metastases)
Pertuzumab/ Trastuzumab/ Taxane Pertuzumab/ Trastuzumab TDM-1
Lapatinib/ Capecitabine
Osteoporosis
Osteoporosis is characterized
by decreased bone mineral density.
Control Subjects
(% bisphosphonate)
Rennert Newcomb
Chlebowski Cohort
154, 768 women, 2816 (1.8%) bisphosphonate users, 5,092 breast cancer cases
Rennert G, Pinchev M, Rennert HS JCO, 2010 June 12 Epub ahead of print Newcomb PA, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton JM Bristish J of Cancer 2010;102:799-802 Chlebowski RT, Chen Z, Cauley JA, et al JCO 2010 June 12 Epub ahead of print
Conclusions
Patients with self-reported osteoporosis and osteoporosis therapy had a lower incidence of breast cancer relapse Patients receiving osteoporosis therapy, regardless of report of osteoporosis, had a lower incidence of relapse Limitations
Self reporting Variations in osteoporosis therapy and duration Event rate (9.2%) and distant relapse rate low (4.1%)
Standard therapy
8 doses Q 3 months 30
5 doses Q 6 months 60
0.8
0.6
(95% CI: 0.97-1.36; P = .11) 288 vs 256 events 0.4 Pts at Risk, n 0.2 1162 1088 996 0
No ZOL: 1156 1092 995 ZOL: 919 920 829 853 393 388 57 47 0 0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84
N=2318
OS: Pre, Peri, and Unknown Menopause
1.0
Proportion Alive Proportion Alive 0.8 0.6
N=1041
OS: > 5 Yrs Postmenopausal
1.0
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
(95% CI: 0.78-1.21; P = .81) 161 vs 165 events 0.4 Pts at Risk, n 0.2 1162 1131 1078 1020 0
No ZOL: 1156 1123 0 1076 1032 ZOL: 955 963 466 446 71 60 0 0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
21 (heterogeneity) = 14.00; P = < .001 Adjusted for imbalances in ER, lymph node status, and T stage. by menopausal status or age No significant differences in bone recurrence
SABCS 2011
Conclusions
In this population of patients, primarily treated with adjuvant chemotherapy
No effect of zoledronate on breast cancer outcome in the unselected overall population Suggestion of improved outcome in pts with >5 years of menopause, due to recurrence outside bone
Unplanned subset analysis of interest but not sufficient to influence patient care
Variable results in 7 published trials Bisphosphonates should be used to prevent or treat bone loss in patients with breast cancer Bisphosphonates should not be used only for the purpose of preventing breast cancer recurrence
Ongoing studies are evaluating the impact of denosumab on breast cancer outcome in women with early stage disease
D-Care, ABCSG-18 UCSF phase II trial in pts with DTCs
N=585
Arm 1 Observation
tamoxifen, 20 mg per day for 5 years
Results at 5 years
Local failure in ipsilateral breast 3.2 vs 0.4% HR 0.14, p=0.0022 15 vs 2 events DFS Identical HR 0.84, p=0.48
Summary
In patients with good risk DCIS, the addition of radiation
Added little to local control Added nothing to survival
Use of genomic tests, such as the GH DCIS score, may help refine treatment decisions Longer follow-up of this trial will be interesting.
TAC q 3 wk
AC q 2 wk
P q 2 wk
N+
AC q 2 wk PG q2 wk
ER positive: hormonal therapy for 5 yrs after chemo 80% ER+ 65% 1-3+ nodes
Treat
Events
0.410 0.388
0.0
0.2
# at risk
1610 1618 1613 1532 1554 1533 1424 1452 1453
Control
mg/m2
Exp 2
All chemotherapy was given on a 3 week on, one week off schedule Patients could discontinue chemotherapy and continue bevacizumab alone after 6 cycles if stable or responding disease
1. Miller et al, N Engl J Med, 2007 2. Gradishar et al, J Clin Oncol, 2009 3. Dickson et al, Proc ASCO 2006.
0.8
Pac 0.96-1.49
1.24-1.90 Ixa
Nab
0.4
0.6
0.0
0
Agent paclitaxel nab-Paclitaxel ixabepilone
0.2
10
N 283 271 245
20
Median PFS 10.6 9.2 7.6
30
0.4
Comparison
0.6
0.8
HR 1.02 1.28
0.2 0.0
0
10
Agent paclitaxel nab-paclitaxel ixabepilone
20
N 283 271 245
30
Median OS 26 27 21
40
Percent
30
15%
15%
20
10
Cycle number
Sensory Neuropathy
Arm nab
(N = 258)
pac
(N = 262)
ixa
(N = 237)
Grade 3+ Leukopenia
17%
p = 0.0004
7% 18% 8% 9% 4% 2%
3%
p = 0.042
25%
p=0.012
Neutropenia Hypertension
47%
p = 0.0001
7%
p = 0.0002
7% 16%
p = 0.010
11% 15%
p = 0.036
pac
(N = 262)
16% 25%
p=0.022
ixa
(N = 237)
10%
p = 0.010
4% 6%
p = 0.021
10%
p = 0.0003
till PD
CR/PR/SD N=231
N=115
Observation till PD
Stratification 1. Visceral diseases 2. Prior adjuvant taxane 3. Response(CR/PR vs. SD) 4. HR(+) vs. HR(-)
N=116
Primary Endpoint; PFS from Randomization Secondary Endpoints; OS, Toxicities, QoL, and Response Duration
Im et al, #1003
Subgroup analysis
Primary benefit in HR negative (n=59), and in premenopausal women
Toxicity
More toxicity in the maintenance arm > cycle 6 QOL similar between the two arms
26 patients
Median age 66 15% visceral metastases Median 1 prior chemotherapy regimen for MBC
Summary
New HER2 directed therapy provides increased efficacy without significant toxicity
Adjuvant and neoadjuvant trials are ongoing or planned
Zoledronate may improve outcome in subsets of women with early stage breast cancer and high bone turnover
This is not practice changing The current recommendation is to use potent bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis, or osteopenia in high risk women
Radiation appears to add little benefit to patients with low risk DCIS treated with BCT
Summary (2)
Early stage disease
Gemcitabine does not add to DD AC/P but increases toxicity Approach to clinical trials needs to change
Its all about biology and understanding the drivers of disease
Metastatic disease
Paclitaxel is the preferred microtubule targeting agent in 1st line MBC Maintenance chemotherapy may provide benefit, but this is likely to be in HR negative or resistant disease More studies targeting the androgen receptor are warranted
KOMEN Promise Grant: Can inhibition of macrophages Second Cohort = 800 mg/day reverse chemotherapy 3-6 patients resistance?
Phase II Primary Endpoint: PFS at 12 weeks
Lead in period of 5-7d with PLX3397 at MTD oral daily dosing (day -7/5 to day 0) Add Eribulin 1.4 mg/m2 iv day 1 and 8 Each cycle of treatment lasts 21 days
Starting Day 1
PI: Hope S. Rugo, UCSF, Lisa Coussens, OHSU, Shelley Hwang, Duke.