Dataset Information

Efficacy of Circulating Tumor Cell Count-Driven vs Clinician-Driven First-line Therapy Choice in Hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: The STIC CTC Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The 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).

Objective

To compare the efficacy of a clinician-driven treatment choice vs a CTC-driven choice for first-line treatment.

Interventions

In 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 participants

In 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 measures

The 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.

Results

Among 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 relevance

This 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 registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710605.

SUBMITTER: Bidard FC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7645742 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceERBB2-low (ie, ERBB2 immunohistochemistry score of 1+ or 2+ in the absence of ERBB2 gene amplification) breast cancer (BC) is a new entity, with emerging dedicated treatments. Little is known about its prognosis and response to conventional therapy compared with ERBB2-zero breast tumors (ie, those with an immunohistochemistry score of 0).ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes for patients with ERBB2-low metastatic BC (MBC) with those of patients with ERBB2-zero MBC.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study was conducted from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics MBC platform and included patients with MBC treated between 2008 and 2016 in 18 French comprehensive cancer centers. The data analysis was conducted from July 16, 2020, to April 1, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was overall survival (OS), and the secondary outcome was progression-free survival under first-line treatments (PFS1).ResultsThe median (range) age was 60.0 (22.0-103.0) years. Among 15 054 patients with MBC, 4671 (31%) had ERBB2-low MBC and 10 383 (69%) had ERBB2-zero MBC. The proportion of ERBB2-low cancers was higher among patients with hormone receptor-positive MBC than those with hormone receptor-negative disease (4083 patients [33.0%] vs 588 patients [21.0%]). With a median follow-up of 49.5 months (95% CI, 48.6-50.4 months), the median OS of the ERBB2-low group was 38.0 months (95% CI, 36.4-40.5 months) compared with 33.9 months (95% CI, 32.9-34.9 months) for the ERBB2-zero group (P < .001). After adjustment for age, visceral metastases, number of metastatic sites, de novo disease, period of care, and hormone receptor status, patients with ERBB2-low MBC had slightly better OS compared with patients with ERBB2-zero MBC (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99; P = .02). In contrast, PFS1 did not differ by ERBB2 status (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.02; P = .45). No significant differences in OS and PFS1 were observed in multivariate analyses by hormone receptor status and types of frontline treatment.Conclusions and relevanceIn this large cohort study, patients with ERBB2-low MBC had a slightly better OS than those with completely ERBB2-zero tumors, but identical PFS1, which could help guide treatment selection.

Project description:ImportanceThe cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor palbociclib in combination with letrozole has become a standard first-line treatment for patients with endocrine-sensitive, hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer. Meanwhile, the antiestrogen fulvestrant was shown to be superior to anastrozole in the absence of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibition for this patient population.ObjectiveTo assess whether fulvestrant is superior to letrozole when combined with palbociclib in the first-line scenario.Design, setting, and participantsIn this international, randomized, open-label, phase 2 clinical study conducted from July 30, 2015, to January 8, 2018, patients with hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer with no prior therapy in the metastatic setting and endocrine-sensitive criteria were recruited from 47 centers in 7 countries. Data were analyzed from February 11 to May 15, 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive palbociclib with either fulvestrant or letrozole. Stratification factors were type of disease presentation (de novo vs recurrent) and the presence of visceral involvement (yes vs no).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.ResultsA total of 486 women (median age, 63 years [range, 25-90 years]; 3 Asian women [0.6%]; 4 Black women [0.8%]; 461 White women [94.9%]; 18 women of unknown race [3.7%]) were randomized (243 to fulvestrant-palbociclib and 243 to letrozole-palbociclib). Median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 27.9 months (95% CI, 24.2-33.1 months) in the fulvestrant-palbociclib group vs 32.8 months (95% CI, 25.8-35.9 months) in the letrozole-palbociclib group (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.89-1.45; P = .32). This result was consistent across the stratification factors. No significant differences were observed in objective response rate (46.5% vs 50.2%) and 3-year overall survival rate (79.4% vs 77.1%) for fulvestrant-palbociclib and letrozole-palbociclib, respectively. Grade 3-4 adverse events were comparable among treatment groups, and no new safety signals were identified. No treatment-related deaths were reported.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough fulvestrant-palbociclib demonstrated significant antitumor activity, this randomized clinical trial failed to identify an improvement in progression-free survival with this regimen over letrozole-palbociclib in patients with endocrine-sensitive, hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02491983.

Project description:Increasing the efficacy of targeted cancer therapies requires the identification of robust biomarkers suitable for patient stratification. This study focused on the identification of molecular mechanisms causing resistance against the anti-ERBB2-directed therapeutic antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab presently used to treat patients with ERBB2-amplified breast cancer. Immunohistochemistry and clinical data were evaluated and yielded evidence for the existence of ERBB2-amplified breast cancer with high-level epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR) expression as a separate tumor entity. Because the proto-oncogene EGFR tightly interacts with ERBB2 on the protein level, the hypothesis that high-level EGFR expression might contribute to resistance against ERBB2-directed therapies was experimentally validated. SKBR3 and HCC1954 cells were chosen as model systems of EGFR-high/ERBB2-amplified breast cancer and exposed to trastuzumab, pertuzumab and erlotinib, respectively, and in combination. Drug impact was quantified in cell viability assays and on the proteomic level using reverse-phase protein arrays. Phosphoprotein dynamics revealed a significant downregulation of AKT signaling after exposure to trastuzumab, pertuzumab or a coapplication of both antibodies in SKBR3 cells but no concomitant impact on ERK1/2, RB or RPS6 phosphorylation. On the other hand, signaling was fully downregulated in SKBR3 cells after coinhibition of EGFR and ERBB2. Inhibitory effects in HCC1954 cells were driven by erlotinib alone, and a significant upregulation of RPS6 and RB phosphorylation was observed after coincubation with pertuzumab and trastuzumab. In summary, proteomic data suggest that high-level expression of EGFR in ERBB2-amplified breast cancer cells attenuates the effect of anti-ERBB2-directed antibodies. In conclusion, EGFR expression may serve as diagnostic and predictive biomarker to advance personalized treatment concepts of patients with ERBB2-amplified breast cancer.