Rowland, K. M.

Abstract Background: TNBC is characterized by unique molecular profiles, aggressive behavior, poor prognosis and lack of targeted therapies. Brostallicin is a novel synthetic compound from the class of DNA minor groove binding (MGB) anti-cancer agents, making it a logical agent to evaluate in the setting of TNBC. It retains activity in cancer cells resistant to alkylating agents, topoisomerase I inhibitors and is fully active against DNA-mismatch repair deficient tumor cells. Preclinical models using cell lines demonstrate that cells expressing relatively high glutathione/glutathione S-transferase (GSH/GST) levels are more susceptible to brostallicin's antitumor efficacy. Cisplatin administration increases expression of GSH/GST in tumor cells, thus leading to an increased anti-tumor efficacy of brostallicin. Methods: Phase II cooperative group study in pts with mTNBC (³18 years of age with measurable metastatic disease, ER/PR ≤1%; HER2 negative, who had received 0–4 prior chemotherapy regimens in the metastatic setting; with adequate hematologic, renal and hepatic functions; and no active CNS metastases; prior exposure to cisplatin allowed). Cisplatin on Day 1 followed by brostallicin on Day 2, repeated every 21 days. Aim: efficacy of brostallicin and proof of concept of its mechanism of action in mTNBC. Primary endpoint progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 months with 89% power (0.10 significance level) to detect an absolute difference of 20% (35% vs 55%), based on the median PFS of 60 days in pts with mTNBC from the N0234 trial of erlotinib and gemcitabine as 1st/2nd line. Secondary endpoints include ORR, duration of response (DOR), 6-month PFS, OS and AE profile. Tertiary endpoints include assessment of 1) GSH levels prior to the administration of cisplatin and of brostallicin; and 2) the prevalence of BCRA-1 mutation by IHC in primary or metastatic tumor. Results: Study closed on 3/28/12 and it accrued 48 pts (median f/u 2.3 mo; 0–15.3); 33 pts are off treatment and 15 pts remain on study; 38 pts evaluable for response, and 43 evaluable for AEs. 50% received therapy as 3rd to 5th line. Median number of cycles 2.5 (off-treatment: 2; on-treatment: 3, range 0–15). There are currently 5 confirmed responses (4 PR and 1 CR); DOR: 2.8–13.3 months. The 6-mo PFS is currently 19.2% (95% CI: 8.9%, 41.3%); the median TTP is 3.0 months (95% CI: 1.7 months, 4.2 months). Current data are premature to determine the primary endpoint (3-mo PFS) but we expect to report such data by November 2012. Current toxicity data: 69.7% G3/4 heme toxicity. Non-heme toxicity G3 (30.2%) and G4 (9.3)% (febrile neutropenia 21%; fatigue G3 14%); and no G5 non-heme AE. Conclusions: The current preliminary data of this trial show very encouraging activity of this regimen (brostallicin plus cisplatin) in mTNBC. Near 1/3 of pts are still currently receiving therapy, and we expect to provide primary and additional secondary endpoint data at SABCS 2012. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-12-06.

Abstract Background Tumors that are negative for estrogen and progesterone receptors and do not over express HER2 are referred as “triple negative” breast cancer (TNBC). These tumors are characterized by unique molecular profiles on gene expression arrays, aggressive behavior with a high recurrence rate, an increased risk of visceral metastases, poor prognosis and lack of targeted therapies. Brostallicin is a novel synthetic compound from the class of DNA minor groove binding (MGB) anti-cancer agents. It retains activity in cancer cells resistant to alkylating agents, topoisomerase I inhibitors and is fully active against DNA-mismatch repair deficient tumor cells. Cells expressing relatively high glutathione/glutathione S-transferase (GSH/GST) levels are more susceptible to brostallicin antitumor efficacy. Cisplatin administration increases expression of GST in tumor cells leading to an increased anti-tumor efficacy of brostallicin. Trial design: Single-stage phase II study — based on the effects of cisplatin on GSH/GST levels in preclinical models, the most reasonable sequence to explore was cisplatin on Day 1 followed by brostallicin on Day 2 repeated every 21 days. Eligibility criteria: Women or men ≥18 years of age with confirmed adenocarcinoma of the breast with clinical evidence of measurable metastatic disease and triple negative subtype according to current ASCO CAP guidelines [ER/PR ≤1%; HER2 negative), who received 0–4 prior chemotherapy regimens in the metastatic setting; with adequate hematologic, renal and hepatic functions; and no active CNS metastases. Aims: To study the efficacy of the novel drug, brostallicin, as well as to serve as proof of concept of its mechanism of action in TNBC. The primary endpoint is to evaluate clinical efficacy of the combination of brostallicin and cisplatin in the treatment of patients with metastatic TNBC, as measured by progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 months with 89% power (0.10 significance level) to detect an absolute difference of 20%. Secondary endpoints include ORR by RECIST, duration of response, 6-month PFS, overall survival (OS) and adverse event profile. Tertiary endpoints include assessment of 1) GSH levels prior to the administration of cisplatin and of brostallicin; and 2) the prevalence of BCRA-1 mutation by IHC in the primary or metastatic tumor. Statistical methods: The largest 3-month PFS proportion where the proposed treatment regimen would be considered ineffective in this population was estimated at 35% based on the median PFS of 60 days in patients with metastatic TNBC enrolled in the N0234 trial (erlotinib and gemcitabine as 1st/2nd line), and the smallest 3-month PFS success proportion that may warrant subsequent studies with the proposed regimen in this patient population was estimated at 55%. The interim analysis will be reported when the 20th eligible patient has been followed for 3 months. Present accrual and target accrual: 21 patients have been accrued at the time of abstract submission (June 2011). Target accrual is 42 evaluable patients. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr OT3-01-14.

Abstract Abstract #6149 Background: Internal Review Boards and Data and Safety Monitoring Boards often require protocol-specified adverse event (AE) stopping rules for safety monitoring. However, availability of safety data for investigational agent(s) may be limited at the time of protocol development in the phase II setting. This meta-analysis was undertaken to quantify the variability of AE rates in North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) phase II metastatic breast cancer (MBC) clinical trials and to investigate whether study factors are associated with AE rates for the development of AE stopping rules in future phase II clinical trials.
 Methods: All closed NCCTG phase II MBC clinical trials using CTC v2.0 or CTCAE v3.0 for AE monitoring were selected. Rates of G3/4 AEs (overall, hematologic [H], and non-hematologic [NH]) and of study discontinuation [SD] due to AEs were calculated for each trial. Associations between study factors [number of agents (single vs combination); line of therapy (first-line only vs other); and type of therapy (chemotherapy vs other)] and AE rates were assessed via Wilcoxon rank sum tests.
 Results: 15 trials met inclusion criteria. 7 used CTCAE v3.0; 6 investigated single agents; 5 investigated first-line therapy; and 11 investigated chemotherapy regimens. 694 pts were evaluable for AE analysis. The G3/4 AE rate across trials was 68% (16-98%) overall, 45% (0-96%) H, and 51% (16-78%) NH. The overall rate of SD due to AEs was 13% (0-40%). The overall rate of G3/4 AEs was significantly lower in single agents vs combination regimens (30% vs 86%, p=0.004). This association held for H (2% vs 66%, p<0.0001) and NH (27% vs 57%, p=0.03) Aes. The rate of SD due to AEs was also significantly lower in single agents vs combination regimens (0.5% vs 15%, p=0.04). The rate of G3/4 AEs was significantly higher in first-line only trials vs other trials (overall: 90% vs 47%, p=0.04; H: 73% vs 5%, p=0.02; NH: 66% vs 41%, p=0.08). The rate of SD due to AEs was also significantly higher in first-line only trials (18% vs 4%, p=0.008). The only significant association with chemotherapy vs other therapy was G3/4 H AE rates (51% vs 2%, p=0.02).
 Discussion: High variability in G3/4 AE rates overall and in H and NH AEs was noted in these 15 trials. There is also high variability in the rates of SD due to AEs. The data suggest that clinical trials with single agent regimens have lower AE rates than combination regimens and, surprisingly, trials of first-line therapy only have higher AE rates than other trials. This may be due to more aggressive therapy being tested in the first-line setting. Although data from previous trials with the investigational agent(s) should be used for developing AE stopping rules when available, this study suggests that study factors such as number of agents and line of therapy can be useful when previous data are limited. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 6149.

Abstract Abstract #6147 Background: Phase II metastatic breast cancer (MBC) clinical trials evaluating efficacy of cancer treatments are often designed using a binary primary endpoint (i.e., each evaluable patient [pt] is classified as a “success” or “failure”). In the era of novel agents in cancer research, endpoints such as 6-month progression-free survival [PFS6] for measuring efficacy of cytostatic agents are more commonly being used. This meta-analysis was undertaken to compare two binary classifications of PFS6 and to compare these binary endpoints with other efficacy endpoints in the phase II setting.
 Material and Methods: All closed North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) phase II MBC clinical trials using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) with at least 1 year of follow-up since last pt accrued were selected. All eligible pts initiating treatment were included. Two binary classifications of PFS6 were computed for each trial. Success for PFS6-1 is defined as on study treatment 6 months from registration without documentation of disease progression. Success for PFS6-2 does not require a pt to be on study treatment at 6 months. Also computed for each trial are Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates of PFS6 (PFS6-KM) and 1-year overall survival (OS1-KM). Trial-level endpoints were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared using weighted (by trial sample sizes) Pearson correlations. Lastly, the concordance rate of PFS6-1 and PFS6-2 status with OS status at 1 year at the pt level was computed across all pts (pts censored for OS prior to one year were excluded [n=10]).
 Results: 11 trials met inclusion criteria. All trials required measurable disease and had a single arm. 485 evaluable pts were accrued (median 48 pts per trial [range 19-77]). Median PFS6-1 was 27% (range 10-44%) and median PFS6-2 was 34% (range 10-73%). The median trial-level difference between PFS6-1 and PFS6-2 was 5% (range 0-43%). The correlation between PFS6-1 and PFS6-2 was 0.81 (p<0.01). Among the endpoints, PFS6-2 and PFS6-KM had the highest correlation (>0.99, p<0.01) due to only 2 pts being censored for PFS prior to 6 months. Among the PFS endpoints, OS1-KM was most highly correlated with PFS6-1 (0.79, p<0.01) with the correlations with PFS6-2 and PFS6-KM not being statistically different from zero (both 0.59 with p>0.05). However, overall patient-level concordance between PFS6 status and OS status at 1 year was higher using PFS6-2 (68%) than PFS6-1 (59%).
 Discussion: Differences were observed between the two binary classifications of PFS6. PFS6 with (as compared to without) the requirement that a pt be on study treatment at 6 months appears to have higher correlation with OS at 1 year at the trial level but lower concordance with OS status at 1 year at the pt level. Selection of the historical control should take into consideration the definition of PFS6 being used. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 6147.