Dataset Information

Everolimus Plus Exemestane vs Everolimus or Capecitabine Monotherapy for Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: The BOLERO-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Jerusalem G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6233772 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Everolimus Plus Exemestane vs Everolimus or Capecitabine Monotherapy for Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: The BOLERO-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Jerusalem Guy G de Boer Richard H RH Hurvitz Sara S Yardley Denise A DA Kovalenko Elena E Ejlertsen Bent B Blau Sibel S Özgüroglu Mustafa M Landherr László L Ewertz Marianne M Taran Tetiana T Fan Jenna J Noel-Baron Florence F Louveau Anne-Laure AL Burris Howard H

JAMA oncology 20181001 10

<h4>Importance</h4>Everolimus plus exemestane and capecitabine are approved second-line therapies for advanced breast cancer.<h4>Objective</h4>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.<h4>Design</h4>Open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial of treatment effects in postmenopausal women w ...[more]

PMID: 29862411

Similar Datasets

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: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 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: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.

Dataset Information

Everolimus Plus Exemestane vs Everolimus or Capecitabine Monotherapy for Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: The BOLERO-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Publications

Everolimus Plus Exemestane vs Everolimus or Capecitabine Monotherapy for Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: The BOLERO-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets