Dataset Information

A randomized phase II study of lapatinib + pazopanib versus lapatinib in patients with HER2+ inflammatory breast cancer.

ABSTRACT: This multi-center Phase II study evaluated lapatinib, pazopanib, and the combination in patients with relapsed HER2+ inflammatory breast cancer. In Cohort 1, 76 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive lapatinib 1,500 mg + placebo or lapatinib 1,500 mg + pazopanib 800 mg (double-blind) once daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Due to high-grade diarrhea observed with this dose combination in another study (VEG20007), Cohort 1 was closed. The protocol was amended such that an additional 88 patients (Cohort 2) were randomized in a 5:5:2 ratio to receive daily monotherapy lapatinib 1,500 mg, lapatinib 1,000 mg + pazopanib 400 mg, or monotherapy pazopanib 800 mg, respectively. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. In Cohort 1, ORR for the lapatinib (n = 38) and combination (n = 38) arms was 29 and 45 %, respectively; median PFS was 16.1 and 14.3 weeks, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were more frequent in the combination arm (71 %) than in the lapatinib arm (24 %). Dose reductions and interruptions due to AEs were also more frequent in the combination arm (45 and 53 %, respectively) than in the lapatinib monotherapy arm (0 and 11 %, respectively). In Cohort 2, ORR for patients treated with lapatinib (n = 36), lapatinib + pazopanib (n = 38), and pazopanib (n = 13) was 47, 58, and 31 %, respectively; median PFS was 16.0, 16.0, and 11.4 weeks, respectively. In the lapatinib, combination, and pazopanib therapy arms, grade ≥3 AEs were reported for 17, 50, and 46 % of patients, respectively, and the incidence of discontinuations due to AEs was 0, 24, and 23 %, respectively. The lapatinib-pazopanib combination was associated with a numerically higher ORR but no increase in PFS compared to lapatinib alone. The combination also had increased toxicity resulting in more dose reductions, modifications, and treatment delays. Activity with single-agent lapatinib was confirmed in this population.

SUBMITTER: Cristofanilli M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3539065 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNeoadjuvant dual human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab plus paclitaxel leads to an overall pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of 46%. Dual HER2 blockade with ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and lapatinib plus nab-paclitaxel has shown efficacy in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. To test neoadjuvant effectiveness of this regimen, an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase II trial was conducted comparing T-DM1, lapatinib, and nab-paclitaxel with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and paclitaxel in patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer.MethodsStratification by estrogen receptor (ER) status occurred prior to randomization. Patients in the experimental arm received 6 weeks of targeted therapies (T-DM1 and lapatinib) followed by T-DM1 every 3 weeks, lapatinib daily, and nab-paclitaxel weekly for 12 weeks. In the standard arm, patients received 6 weeks of trastuzumab and pertuzumab followed by trastuzumab weekly, pertuzumab every 3 weeks, and paclitaxel weekly for 12 weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate the proportion of patients with residual cancer burden (RCB) 0 or I. Key secondary objectives included pCR rate, safety, and change in tumor size at 6 weeks. Hypothesis-generating correlative assessments were also performed.ResultsThe 30 evaluable patients were well-balanced in patient and tumor characteristics. The proportion of patients with RCB 0 or I was higher in the experimental arm (100% vs. 62.5% in the standard arm, p = 0.0035). In the ER-positive subset, all patients in the experimental arm achieved RCB 0-I versus 25% in the standard arm (p = 0.0035). Adverse events were similar between the two arms.ConclusionIn early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer, the neoadjuvant treatment with T-DM1, lapatinib, and nab-paclitaxel was more effective than the standard treatment, particularly in the ER-positive cohort.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02073487 , February 27, 2014.

Project description:In this multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II investigator-sponsored neoadjuvant trial with funding provided by Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline (TRIO-US B07, Clinical Trials NCT00769470), participants with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer (N = 128) were recruited from 13 United States oncology centers throughout the Translational Research in Oncology network. Participants were randomized to receive trastuzumab (T; N = 34), lapatinib (L; N = 36), or both (TL; N = 58) as HER2-targeted therapy, with each participant given one cycle of this designated anti-HER2 therapy alone followed by six cycles of standard combination chemotherapy with the same anti-HER2 therapy. The primary objective was to estimate the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) at the time of surgery in each of the three arms. In the intent-to-treat population, we observed similar pCR rates between T (47%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 30-65%) and TL (52%, 95% CI 38-65%), and a lower pCR rate with L (25%, 95% CI 13-43%). In the T arm, 100% of participants completed all protocol-specified treatment prior to surgery, as compared to 69% in the L arm and 74% in the TL arm. Tumor or tumor bed tissue was collected whenever possible pre-treatment (N = 110), after one cycle of HER2-targeted therapy alone (N = 89), and at time of surgery (N = 59). Higher-level amplification of HER2 and hormone receptor (HR)-negative status were associated with a higher pCR rate. Large shifts in the tumor, immune, and stromal gene expression occurred after one cycle of HER2-targeted therapy. In contrast to pCR rates, the L-containing arms exhibited greater proliferation reduction than T at this timepoint. Immune expression signatures increased in all arms after one cycle of HER2-targeted therapy, decreasing again by the time of surgery. Our results inform approaches to early assessment of sensitivity to anti-HER2 therapy and shed light on the role of the immune microenvironment in response to HER2-targeted agents.

Project description:PURPOSE:NALA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01808573) is a randomized, active-controlled, phase III trial comparing neratinib, an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), plus capecitabine (N+C) against lapatinib, a reversible dual TKI, plus capecitabine (L+C) in patients with centrally confirmed HER2-positive, metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with ? 2 previous HER2-directed MBC regimens. METHODS:Patients, including those with stable, asymptomatic CNS disease, were randomly assigned 1:1 to neratinib (240 mg once every day) plus capecitabine (750 mg/m2 twice a day 14 d/21 d) with loperamide prophylaxis, or to lapatinib (1,250 mg once every day) plus capecitabine (1,000 mg/m2 twice a day 14 d/21 d). Coprimary end points were centrally confirmed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). NALA was considered positive if either primary end point was met (? split between end points). Secondary end points were time to CNS disease intervention, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), clinical benefit rate, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS:A total of 621 patients from 28 countries were randomly assigned (N+C, n = 307; L+C, n = 314). Centrally reviewed PFS was improved with N+C (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.93; stratified log-rank P = .0059). The OS HR was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.07; P = .2098). Fewer interventions for CNS disease occurred with N+C versus L+C (cumulative incidence, 22.8% v 29.2%; P = .043). ORRs were N+C 32.8% (95% CI, 27.1 to 38.9) and L+C 26.7% (95% CI, 21.5 to 32.4; P = .1201); median DoR was 8.5 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74; P = .0004). The most common all-grade adverse events were diarrhea (N+C 83% v L+C 66%) and nausea (53% v 42%). Discontinuation rates and HRQoL were similar between groups. CONCLUSION:N+C significantly improved PFS and time to intervention for CNS disease versus L+C. No new N+C safety signals were observed.

Project description:BackgroundTemsirolimus has level 1 evidence for initial treatment of poor-risk patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but its efficacy has not been directly compared with an antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor [VEGFR TKi]) in this setting.ObjectiveTo evaluate temsirolimus versus pazopanib as first-line therapy in patients with mRCC, predominant clear-cell features, and clinical characteristics of a poor prognosis.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized (1:1) phase II trial in 69 treatment-naïve mRCC patients and with three or more predictors of short survival for temsirolimus was conducted during 2012-2017 in a single academic cancer center. Crossover to the alternative treatment upon discontinuation of the first-line agent was permitted.InterventionMechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitor temsirolimus and VEGFR TKi pazopanib.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Radiographic response was assessed by blinded radiologists. Efficacy outcomes were adjusted by prior nephrectomy status, prior interleukin-2 treatment, and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score.Results and limitationsThirty-five patients received temsirolimus and 34 received pazopanib upfront; 72% overall had poor risk by IMDC. Median PFS in the first line was 2.7mo with temsirolimus and 5.2mo with pazopanib (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-2.22; p=0.210). Median OS was 7.1mo with temsirolimus and 11.9mo with pazopanib (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.70-1.93; p=0.558), and ORRs were 5.9% and 21.2%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 5.2, 95% CI 0.9-29.3; p=0.062). PRO measures favored pazopanib. Five patients discontinued first-line therapy due to adverse events.ConclusionsTemsirolimus and pazopanib had modest activity in patients with poor-risk clear-cell mRCC, and therefore their use should be discouraged in this setting.Patient summaryWe evaluated outcomes of advanced renal cell carcinoma patients presenting with aggressive features when treated with temsirolimus or pazopanib as first-line therapy. Survival was <1yr for most, suggesting that more efficacious alternative treatments should be favored for these patients.

Dataset Information

A randomized phase II study of lapatinib + pazopanib versus lapatinib in patients with HER2+ inflammatory breast cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets