Dataset Information

Effect of Eribulin With or Without Pembrolizumab on Progression-Free Survival for Patients With Hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Prior studies have shown that only a small proportion of patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) experience benefit from programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors given as monotherapy. There are data suggesting that activity may be greater with combination strategies.

Objective

To compare the efficacy of eribulin plus pembrolizumab vs eribulin alone in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative MBC.

Design, setting, and participants

Multicenter phase 2 randomized clinical trial of patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative MBC who had received 2 or more lines of hormonal therapy and 0 to 2 lines of chemotherapy.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 1:1 to eribulin, 1.4 mg/m2 intravenously, on days 1 and 8 plus pembrolizumab, 200 mg/m2 intravenously, on day 1 of a 21-day cycle or eribulin alone. At time of progression, patients in the eribulin monotherapy arm could cross over and receive pembrolizumab monotherapy.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). Exploratory analyses assessed the association between PFS and PD-L1 status, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), tumor mutational burden (TMB), and genomic alterations.

Results

Eighty-eight patients started protocol therapy; the median (range) age was 57 (30-76) years, median (range) number of prior lines of chemotherapy was 1 (0-2), and median (range) number of prior lines of hormonal therapy was 2 (0-5). Median follow-up was 10.5 (95% CI, 0.4-22.8) months. Median PFS and ORR were not different between the 2 groups (PFS, 4.1 vs 4.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.50-1.26; P = .33; ORR, 27% vs 34%, respectively; P = .49). Fourteen patients started crossover treatment with pembrolizumab; 1 patient experienced stable disease. All-cause adverse events occurred in all patients (grade ≥3, 65%) including 2 treatment-related deaths in the combination group, both from immune-related colitis in the setting of sepsis, attributed to both drugs. The PD-L1 22C3 assay was performed on archival tumor samples in 65 patients: 24 (37%) had PD-L1-positive tumors. Analysis indicated that PD-L1 status, TILs, TMB, and genomic alterations were not associated with PFS.

Conclusions and relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative MBC, the addition of pembrolizumab to eribulin did not improve PFS, ORR, or OS compared with eribulin alone in either the intention-to-treat or PD-L1-positive populations. Further efforts to explore the benefits of adding checkpoint inhibition to chemotherapy among less heavily pretreated patients are needed.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03051659.

SUBMITTER: Tolaney SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7489368 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Response rates to single agent immune checkpoint blockade in unselected pretreated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are low. However, they may be augmented when combined with chemotherapy. METHODS:We conducted a single-arm, phase II study of patients with triple negative (TN) or hormone receptor-positive endocrine-refractory (HR+) MBC who were candidates for capecitabine. Patients were treated with pembrolizumab 200?mg intravenously day 1 and capecitabine 1000?mg/m2 by mouth twice daily on days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was median progression-free survival (mPFS) compared with historic controls and secondary end points were overall response rate (ORR), safety and tolerability. The study had 80% power to detect a 2-month improvement in mPFS with the addition of pembrolizumab over historic controls treated with capecitabine alone. RESULTS:Thirty patients, 16 TN and 14 HR+ MBC, were enrolled from 2017 to 2018. Patients had a median age of 51 years and received a median of 1 (range 0-6) prior lines of therapy for MBC. Of 29 evaluable patients, the mPFS was 4.0 (95% CI 2.0 to 6.4) months and was not significantly longer than historic controls of 3 months. The median overall survival was 15.4 (95% CI 8.2 to 20.3) months. The ORR was 14% (n=4), stable disease (SD) was 41% (n=12) and clinical benefit rate (CBR=partial response+SD>6 months) was 28% (n=8). The ORR and CBR were not significantly different between disease subtypes (ORR 13% and 14%, CBR 25% and 29% for TN and HR+, respectively). The 1-year PFS rate was 20.7% and three patients have ongoing responses. The most common adverse events were low grade and consistent with those seen in MBC patients receiving capecitabine, including hand-foot syndrome, gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue and cytopenias. Toxicities at least possibly from pembrolizumab included grade 3 or 4 liver test abnormalities (7%), rash (7%) and diarrhea (3%), as well as grade 5 hepatic failure in a patient with liver metastases. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with historical controls, pembrolizumab with capecitabine did not improve PFS in this biomarker unselected, pretreated cohort. However, some patients had prolonged disease control. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03044730.

Project description:We reviewed randomized phase II/III trials comparing first- or second-line endocrine therapy as monotherapy or in combination with targeted therapies for treatment of postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. First-line was defined as treatment for endocrine therapy-naïve advanced breast cancer or advanced disease treated with endocrine therapy in the adjuvant/neoadjuvant setting. Second-line was defined as endocrine therapy for advanced breast cancer following disease progression on endocrine therapy for advanced disease. Publications reporting progression-free survival (PFS)/time to progression (TTP) or overall survival (OS) for FDA-approved agents anastrozole, exemestane, fulvestrant 250 mg, fulvestrant 500 mg, letrozole (0.5 and 2.5 mg), megestrol acetate, and tamoxifen as monotherapy, or in combination with everolimus, palbociclib or ribociclib, were assessed. First-line monotherapy with anastrozole, fulvestrant 500 mg or letrozole 2.5 mg significantly improved PFS/TTP versus comparator endocrine therapy; however, only fulvestrant 500 mg improved OS. For endocrine therapy in combination with targeted therapies, palbociclib plus letrozole 2.5 mg, and ribociclib plus letrozole 2.5 mg significantly improved PFS versus letrozole 2.5 mg alone first-line. For second-line monotherapies, exemestane, fulvestrant 500 mg and letrozole 2.5 mg significantly improved PFS/TTP versus comparator endocrine therapy; only fulvestrant 500 mg and letrozole 2.5 mg improved OS. For second-line combination therapies, everolimus plus exemestane, and palbociclib plus fulvestrant 500 mg, improved PFS versus endocrine therapy alone. In both first- and second-line settings, aromatase inhibitors demonstrated PFS benefits versus comparator endocrine therapy; however, fulvestrant 500 mg was the only endocrine therapy included in our review to show both PFS and OS advantages compared with other endocrine therapies. Targeted agents in combination with endocrine therapy have demonstrated PFS improvements both first- and second-line; OS data are awaited.

Project description:ImportanceThe choice between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy as first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2 (also known as HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer is usually based on the presence of clinical features associated with a poor prognosis. In this setting, a high circulating tumor cell (CTC) count (≥5 CTCs/7.5 mL) is a strong adverse prognostic factor for overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS).ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of a clinician-driven treatment choice vs a CTC-driven choice for first-line treatment.InterventionsIn the CTC arm, patients received chemotherapy or endocrine therapy according to the CTC count (chemotherapy if ≥5 CTCs/7.5 mL; endocrine therapy if <5 CTCs/7.5 mL), whereas in the control arm, the choice was left to the investigator.Design, setting, and participantsIn the STIC CTC randomized, open-label, noninferiority phase 3 trial, participants were randomized to a clinician-driven choice of first-line treatment or a CTC count-driven first-line treatment choice. Eligible participants were premenopausal and postmenopausal women 18 years or older diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Data were collected at 17 French cancer centers from February 1, 2012, to July 28, 2016, and analyzed June 2019 to October 2019.Main outcome and measuresThe primary end point was the investigator-assessed PFS in the per-protocol population, with a noninferiority margin of 1.25 for the 90% CI of the hazard ratio.ResultsAmong the 755 women in the per-protocol population, the median (range) age was 63 (30-88) years [64 (30-88) years for the 377 patients allocated to the CTC arm and 63 (31-87) years for the 378 patients allocated to the standard arm]; 138 (37%) and 103 (27%) received chemotherapy, respectively. Median PFS was 15.5 months (95% CI, 12.7-17.3) in the CTC arm and 13.9 months (95% CI, 12.2-16.3) in the standard arm. The primary end point was met, with a hazard ratio of 0.94 (90% CI, 0.81-1.09).Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that the CTC count may be a reliable biomarker method for guiding the choice between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy as the first-line treatment in hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative metastatic breast cancer.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710605.