A Study of Ipatasertib Plus Palbociclib and Fulvestrant Versus Placebo Plus Palbociclib and Fulvestrant in Hormone Receptor Positive and HER2 Negative Locally Advanced Unresectable or Metastatic Breast Cancer

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive

scholarly journals Olaparib in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer with a somatic BRCA2 mutation

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110069
Author(s):  
Lee S. Schwartzberg ◽  
Lesli A. Kiedrowski
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Brca2 Mutation ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Susceptibility Gene ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Breast Cancer Susceptibility Gene ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive

The oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib is approved for the treatment of patients with human epidermal growth factor 2-negative (HER2−) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and a germline breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation who have been treated with chemotherapy. This case report describes a 63-year-old postmenopausal woman with somatic BRCA2-mutated mBC who responded to olaparib treatment following multiple prior lines of therapy. The patient presented in January 2012 with locally advanced, hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2− BC which, despite initial response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, recurred as bone disease in February 2014, and subsequently skin (June 2016) and liver (October 2016) metastases. A comprehensive 592-gene next-generation sequencing panel (Caris Life Sciences), performed on a skin biopsy, detected a pathogenic frameshift mutation in BRCA2 (H3154fs, c.9460delC), which was not identified in a 28-gene hereditary cancer germline analysis (Myriad Genetics, Inc.), and was therefore considered to be a somatic mutation. In January 2017, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis (Guardant Health, Inc.) confirmed the BRCA2 H3154fs mutation in plasma. After several lines of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy, deriving clinical benefit from eribulin and capecitabine, the disease progressed by October 2017, and olaparib (300 mg orally twice daily) was initiated in January 2018. By April 2018, the liver lesions had shrunk by 80% and a >90% response in multiple skin lesions was noted. Clinical response was maintained for 8 months, followed by progression in the skin in September 2018. Biopsy of recurrent lesions revealed a novel BRCA2 mutation, E3152del (c.9455_9457delAGG), predicted to restore the open reading frame and presumably the mechanism of resistance to olaparib. Further likely resistance mutations were noted in subsequent cfDNA analyses. This case demonstrated a clinical response with olaparib as a later-line therapy for HR+, HER2− mBC with a somatic BRCA2 mutation.

A network meta-analysis of fulvestrant vs alternative first-line endocrine therapies for endocrine therapy-naive postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e12545-e12545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Telford ◽  
Shweta Takyar ◽  
Parth Joshi ◽  
Mattias Ekman ◽  
Nick Jones
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
First Line ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
American Society

e12545 Background: Fulvestrant (F) is a selective estrogen degrader for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC). This network meta-analysis examined the efficacy of F (500 mg) vs alternative endocrine therapies (ETs) for first-line treatment of ET-naïve HR+ LA/MBC. Methods: Randomized controlled trials of first-line F, tamoxifen (Tam), anastrozole (A), exemestane (E), letrozole (L), and toremifene (T) for women (≥18 years) with HR+ LA/MBC and no prior ET were identified in a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception to October 2016. Conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium from 2013-2016 were hand searched. Trials of targeted combination therapies were excluded. Studies were checked for heterogeneity. A standard fixed-effect Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted based on hazard ratios (HRs) and assuming proportional hazards for progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS). Results: Seven eligible studies (1 Phase [Ph] 2, 5 Ph 3, 1 Ph 2/3) were identified. All had PFS data; five had OS data. Two trials compared F vs A; PFS data were available for both trials; sufficiently mature OS data for F were available from Ph 2 only. The proportional hazards assumption was met for PFS only.F had significantly improved PFS vs Tam (HR 0.57, 95% credibility interval [Crl] 0.44-0.73), A (HR 0.75, 95% Crl 0.62-0.91), E (HR 0.65, 95% Crl 0.47-0.91), and T (HR 0.53, 95% Crl 0.37-0.78). Numerically improved PFS was observed for F vs L (HR 0.81, 95% Crl 0.59-1.11). F had significantly improved OS vs Tam (HR 0.63, 95% Crl 0.40-0.98), A (HR 0.63, 95% Crl 0.42-0.94), and E (HR 0.56, 95% Crl 0.33-0.95). OS was numerically improved with F vs L (HR 0.66, 95% Crl 0.41-1.04). Conclusions: This analysis suggests improved PFS and OS for fulvestrant vs tamoxifen, anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole, and PFS for fulvestrant vs toremifene. Further analysis should be conducted, using non-proportional hazard methods and more mature OS data, to confirm the OS results.

scholarly journals A phase Ib/II study of xentuzumab, an IGF-neutralising antibody, combined with exemestane and everolimus in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Schmid ◽  
Marie-Paule Sablin ◽  
Jonas Bergh ◽  
Seock-Ah Im ◽  
Yen-Shen Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Phase Ib ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
Visceral Metastases

Abstract Background Xentuzumab—a humanised IgG1 monoclonal antibody—binds IGF-1 and IGF-2, inhibiting their growth-promoting signalling and suppressing AKT activation by everolimus. This phase Ib/II exploratory trial evaluated xentuzumab plus everolimus and exemestane in hormone receptor-positive, locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC). Methods Patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative LA/MBC resistant to non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors were enrolled. Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane were determined in phase I (single-arm, dose-escalation). In phase II (open-label), patients were randomised 1:1 to the RP2D of xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane or everolimus/exemestane alone. Randomisation was stratified by the presence of visceral metastases. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results MTD was determined as xentuzumab 1000 mg weekly plus everolimus 10 mg/day and exemestane 25 mg/day. A total of 140 patients were enrolled in phase II (70 to each arm). Further recruitment was stopped following an unfavourable benefit-risk assessment by the internal Data Monitoring Committee appointed by the sponsor. Xentuzumab was discontinued; patients could receive everolimus/exemestane if clinically indicated. Median PFS was 7.3 months (95% CI 3.3–not calculable) in the xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane group and 5.6 months (3.7–9.1) in the everolimus/exemestane group (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.57–1.65; P = 0.9057). In a pre-specified subgroup of patients without visceral metastases at screening, xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane showed evidence of PFS benefit versus everolimus/exemestane (hazard ratio 0.21 [0.05–0.98]; P = 0.0293). Most common any-cause adverse events in phase II were diarrhoea (29 [41.4%] in the xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane group versus 20 [29.0%] in the everolimus/exemestane group), mucosal inflammation (27 [38.6%] versus 21 [30.4%]), stomatitis (24 [34.3%] versus 24 [34.8%]), and asthenia (21 [30.0%] versus 24 [34.8%]). Conclusions Addition of xentuzumab to everolimus/exemestane did not improve PFS in the overall population, leading to early discontinuation of the trial. Evidence of PFS benefit was observed in patients without visceral metastases when treated with xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane, leading to initiation of the phase II XENERA™-1 trial (NCT03659136). Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02123823. Prospectively registered, 8 March 2013.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document