Dataset Information

Efficacy of everolimus with exemestane versus exemestane alone in Asian patients with HER2-negative, hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer in BOLERO-2.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The addition of mTOR inhibitor everolimus (EVE) to exemestane (EXE) was evaluated in an international, phase 3 study (BOLERO-2) in patients with hormone-receptor-positive (HR(+)) breast cancer refractory to letrozole or anastrozole. The safety and efficacy of anticancer treatments may be influenced by ethnicity (Sekine et al. in Br J Cancer 99:1757-62, 2008). Safety and efficacy results from Asian versus non-Asian patients in BOLERO-2 are reported.

Methods

Patients were randomized (2:1) to 10 mg/day EVE + EXE or placebo (PBO) + EXE. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival, response rate, clinical benefit rate, and safety.

Results

Of 143 Asian patients, 98 received EVE + EXE and 45 received PBO + EXE. Treatment with EVE + EXE significantly improved median PFS versus PBO + EXE among Asian patients by 38 % (HR = 0.62; 95 % CI, 0.41-0.94). Median PFS was also improved among non-Asian patients by 59 % (HR = 0.41; 95 % CI, 0.33-0.50). Median PFS duration among EVE-treated Asian patients was 8.48 versus 4.14 months for PBO + EXE, and 7.33 versus 2.83 months, respectively, in non-Asian patients. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (stomatitis, anemia, elevated liver enzymes, hyperglycemia, and dyspnea) occurred at similar frequencies in Asian and non-Asian patients. Grade 1/2 interstitial lung disease occurred more frequently in Asian patients. Quality of life was similar between treatment arms in Asian patients.

Conclusion

Adding EVE to EXE provided substantial clinical benefit in both Asian and non-Asian patients with similar safety profiles. This combination represents an improvement in the management of postmenopausal women with HR(+)/HER2(-) advanced breast cancer progressing on nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors, regardless of ethnicity.

SUBMITTER: Noguchi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4210660 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Everolimus plus exemestane and capecitabine are approved second-line therapies for advanced breast cancer. Objective:A postapproval commitment to health authorities to estimate the clinical benefit of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus or capecitabine monotherapy for estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Design:Open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial of treatment effects in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer that had progressed during treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. Interventions:Patients were randomized to 3 treatment regimens: (1) everolimus (10 mg/d) plus exemestane (25 mg/d); (2) everolimus alone (10 mg/d); and (3) capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m2 twice daily). Main Outcomes and Measures:Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone (primary objective) or capecitabine alone (key secondary objective). Safety was a secondary objective. No formal statistical comparisons were planned. Results:A total of 309 postmenopausal women were enrolled, median age, 61 years (range, 32-88 years). Of these, 104 received everolimus plus exemestane; 103, everolimus alone; and 102, capecitabine alone. Median follow-up from randomization to the analysis cutoff (June 1, 2017) was 37.6 months. Estimated HR of PFS was 0.74 (90% CI, 0.57-0.97) for the primary objective of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone and 1.26 (90% CI, 0.96-1.66) for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine alone. Between treatment arms, potential informative censoring was noted, and a stratified multivariate Cox regression model was used to account for imbalances in baseline characteristics; a consistent HR was observed for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus (0.73; 90% CI, 0.56-0.97), but the HR was closer to 1 for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine (1.15; 90% CI, 0.86-1.52). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more frequent with capecitabine (74%; n?=?75) vs everolimus plus exemestane (70%; n?=?73) or everolimus alone (59%; n?=?61). Serious adverse events were more frequent with everolimus plus exemestane (36%; n?=?37) vs everolimus alone (29%; n?=?30) or capecitabine (29%; n?=?30). Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that everolimus plus exemestane combination therapy offers a PFS benefit vs everolimus alone, and they support continued use of this therapy in this setting. A numerical PFS difference with capecitabine vs everolimus plus exemestane should be interpreted cautiously owing to imbalances among baseline characteristics and potential informative censoring. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01783444.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The prognostic and predictive value of the two nonluminal (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-enriched and basal-like) subtypes within advanced hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer is currently unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This study retrospectively analyzed 261 tumors (80.7% primary; 19.3% metastatic) from the BOLERO-2 study; BOLERO-2 randomized 724 patients with advanced HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer to everolimus plus exemestane or placebo plus exemestane. Tumors were classified using a PAM50 subtype predictor. Multivariable Cox regression analyses tested the independent prognostic significance of PAM50, and associations between PAM50 subtypes and treatment upon progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated. RESULTS:Subtype distribution was 46.7% luminal A (n = 122), 21.5% HER2-enriched (n = 56), 15.7% luminal B (n = 41), 14.2% normal-like (n = 37), and 1.9% basal-like (n = 5); HER2-enriched subtypes were more common in metastatic versus primary tumors (32.0% vs. 18.7%; p = .038). Median PFS differences between luminal and nonluminal (6.7 vs. 5.2 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.94; p = .020) and HER2-enriched and non-HER2-enriched subtypes (5.2 vs. 6.2 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.07-2.19; p = .019) were significant. Everolimus plus exemestane significantly improved median PFS versus placebo plus exemestane among patients with HER2-enriched tumors (5.8 vs. 4.1 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.90; p = .034); however, the association between HER2-enriched tumors and everolimus benefit was nonsignificant (p = .433). CONCLUSION:The HER2-enriched subtype was identified in a substantial proportion of advanced HR+/HER2-negative breast tumors, and was a consistent biomarker of poor prognosis. Tailored therapies are therefore needed for HER2-enriched tumors in the advanced HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Using 261 tumor samples from the BOLERO-2 phase III clinical trial, this study shows that a substantial proportion (20%-30%) of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancers do not have a luminal A or B gene expression profile. This group of patients with nonluminal disease has a poor survival outcome regardless of the addition of everolimus to exemestane. This is the second study that confirms the prognostic value of this biomarker. Overall, these findings indicate a necessity to design novel clinical trials targeting nonluminal disease within HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer.

Project description:BackgroundXentuzumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody that binds to IGF-1 and IGF-2, neutralising their proliferative activity and restoring inhibition of AKT by everolimus. This study evaluated the addition of xentuzumab to everolimus and exemestane in patients with advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease.MethodsThis double-blind, randomised, Phase II study was undertaken in female patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease who had received prior endocrine therapy with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors. Patients received a weekly intravenous infusion of xentuzumab (1000 mg) or placebo in combination with everolimus (10 mg/day orally) and exemestane (25 mg/day orally). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review.ResultsA total of 103 patients were randomised and 101 were treated (n = 50 in the xentuzumab arm and n = 51 in the placebo arm). The trial was unblinded early due to high rates of discordance between independent and investigator assessment of PFS. Per independent assessment, median PFS was 12.7 (95% CI 6.8-29.3) months with xentuzumab and 11.0 (7.7-19.5) months with placebo (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.59; p = 0.6534). Per investigator assessment, median PFS was 7.4 (6.8-9.7) months with xentuzumab and 9.2 (5.6-14.4) months with placebo (hazard ratio 1.23; 95% CI 0.69-2.20; p = 0.4800). Tolerability was similar between the arms, with diarrhoea (33.3-56.0%), fatigue (33.3-44.0%) and headache (21.6-40.0%) being the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 hyperglycaemia was similar between the xentuzumab (2.0%) and placebo (5.9%) arms.ConclusionsWhile this study demonstrated that xentuzumab could be safely combined with everolimus and exemestane in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease, there was no PFS benefit with the addition of xentuzumab. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03659136. Prospectively registered, September 6, 2018.

Project description:BackgroundThere is currently no clinical trial data regarding the efficacy of everolimus exemestane (EE) following prior treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i). This study assesses the use and efficacy of everolimus exemestane in patients with metastatic HR+ HER2- breast cancer previously treated with endocrine therapy (ET) or endocrine therapy + CDK4/6i.MethodsRetrospective analysis of electronic health record-derived data for HR+ HER2- metastatic breast cancer from 2012 to 2018. The proportion of patients receiving EE first-line, second-line, or third-line, and the median duration of EE prior to next line of treatment (TTNT) by line of therapy was calculated. OS for patients receiving EE first-line, second-line, or third-line, indexed to the date of first-line therapy initiation and stratified by prior treatment received, was calculated with Kaplan-Meier method with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.ResultsSix hundred twenty-two patients received EE first-line (n = 104, 16.7%), second-line (n = 273, 43.9%) or third-line (n = 245, 39.4%). Median TTNT was 8.3 months, 5.5 months, and 4.8 months respectively. Median TTNT of EE second-line was longer following prior ET alone compared to prior ET + CDK4/6i (6.2 months (95% CI 5.2, 7.3) vs 4.3 months (95% CI 3.2, 5.7) respectively, p = 0.03). Similarly, EE third-line following ET alone vs ET + CDK4/6i in first- or second-line resulted in median TTNT 5.6 months (95% CI 4.4, 6.9) vs 4.1 months (95% CI 3.6, 6.1) respectively, although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.08). Median OS was longer for patients who received EE following prior ET + CDK4/6i. EE second-line following ET + CDK 4/6i vs ET alone resulted in median OS 37.7 months vs. 32.7 months (p = 0.449). EE third-line following ET + CDK4/6i vs prior ET alone resulted in median OS 59.2 months vs. 40.8 months (p < 0.010). This difference in OS was not statistically significant when indexed to the start of EE therapy.ConclusionThis study suggests that EE remains an effective treatment option after prior ET or ET + CDK4/6i use. Median TTNT of EE was longer for patients who received prior ET, whereas median OS was longer for patients who received prior ET + CDK4/6i. However, this improvement in OS was not statistically significant when indexed to the start of EE therapy suggesting that OS benefit is primarily driven by prior CDK4/6i use. EE remains an effective treatment option regardless of prior treatment option.

Project description:BackgroundXentuzumab-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).MethodsPatients 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).ResultsMTD 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%]).ConclusionsAddition 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02123823 . Prospectively registered, 8 March 2013.

Project description:Male breast cancer is a rare event, accounting for approximately 1% of all breast carcinomas. Although men with breast cancer had poorer survival when compared with women, data on prognosis principally derive from retrospective studies and from extrapolation of female breast cancer series. We reported the case of a very long survival patient.A caucasian 42-year-old man underwent radical mastectomy with axillary dissection for breast cancer in 1993. Pathologic stage was pT4pN0M0 infiltrating ductal carcinoma of right breast without lymph nodes metastases. Biological characterization was not available. He received adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy, six cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil, then endocrine therapy with tamoxifen for 5 years and complementary radiotherapy. Then he began clinical-instrumental follow up. In May 1996, a computed tomography scan showed multiple lung metastases. Hereafter he received several oncologic treatment including seven chemotherapy and five endocrine therapy lines with two re-challenge of endocrine therapy. In October 2007 further lung progression was showed and a biopsy was performed to characterize the disease. Histological examination confirmed breast cancer metastases, immunohistochemistry showed positive staining for estrogen receptor, negative for progesterone receptor and human epithelial growth factor receptor 2, proliferative index was 21%. In April 2013, bone disease progression was evident and he received radiant treatment to sacral spine. In May 2014 an off-label treatment with exemestane and everolimus combination was approved by Ethics Committee of the Marche Region. The patient received treatment for 3 months with evident clinical benefit to subcutaneous lesions of the chest wall that were not visible nor palpable on physical examination after 1 month of treatment.That is the case of long survival male breast cancer patient with luminal B subtype and no BRCA mutations. He achieved higher progression free survival with endocrine therapy creating the rationale for last line treatment with everolimus and exemestane combination. Attending conclusive results from ongoing studies, everolimus and exemestane should not be used routinely in male metastatic breast cancer patients, but taking into account for selected cases. At the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of male beast cancer treated with exemestane and everolimus combination.