Mayer, Erica L.

Abstract Purpose: Preclinical data demonstrating androgen receptor (AR)–positive (AR+) triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells are sensitive to AR antagonists, and PI3K inhibition catalyzed an investigator-initiated, multi-institutional phase Ib/II study TBCRC032. The trial investigated the safety and efficacy of the AR-antagonist enzalutamide alone or in combination with the PI3K inhibitor taselisib in patients with metastatic AR+ (≥10%) breast cancer. Patients and Methods: Phase Ib patients [estrogen receptor positive (ER+) or TNBC] with AR+ breast cancer received 160 mg enzalutamide in combination with taselisib to determine dose-limiting toxicities and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Phase II TNBC patients were randomized to receive either enzalutamide alone or in combination with 4 mg taselisib until disease progression. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 16 weeks. Results: The combination was tolerated, and the MTD was not reached. The adverse events were hyperglycemia and skin rash. Overall, CBR for evaluable patients receiving the combination was 35.7%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.4 months. Luminal AR (LAR) TNBC subtype patients trended toward better response compared with non-LAR (75.0% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.06), and increased PFS (4.6 vs. 2.0 months, P = 0.082). Genomic analyses revealed subtype-specific treatment response, and novel FGFR2 fusions and AR splice variants. Conclusions: The combination of enzalutamide and taselisib increased CBR in TNBC patients with AR+ tumors. Correlative analyses suggest AR protein expression alone is insufficient for identifying patients with AR-dependent tumors and knowledge of tumor LAR subtype and AR splice variants may identify patients more or less likely to benefit from AR antagonists.

CRA1002 Background: Weekly P is superior to q 3 week (wk) dosing, and adding B improves progression free survival (PFS) (E2100). Ix is a potent epothilone that can be effective after microtubule inhibitor resistance. NP is a novel albumin-bound formulation of P with promising activity in the first-line MBC setting. In this phase III trial, the efficacy of weekly Ix or NP is compared to P, in combination with B in patients (pts) with chemotherapy (CTX) naïve MBC. Toxicity including >Grade 2 sensory neuropathy (SN) is compared to P. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to receive P (90 mg/m2), Ix (16 mg/m2) or NP (150 mg/m2) on a 3 wk on, 1 wk off schedule, stratified by prior adjuvant taxane use and hormone receptor status. B was initially given to all pts, but became optional in 3/2011 and was added to stratification. The primary end point of PFS is defined as time from randomization to progression or all-cause death. With a target N=900 pts, the study was powered to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.36 (median PFS 10 vs 13.6 mos). Eligibility included no prior CTX for MBC, >12 mos from adjuvant P and measurable disease. Results: 799 pts were enrolled between 11/08-11/11 (283 to P, 271 to NP, 245 to Ix); 98% received B. 72% had ER+ disease, 44% received adjuvant P. At the 1st interim analysis (165 events) the comparison of Ix to P crossed the futility boundary (FB) and accrual to Ix was closed. At the 2nd interim analysis (236 events), NP to P crossed the FB and the study was closed on 11/30/11. Median PFS was 10.4, 9.6 and 7.6 mos for P, NP and Ix, with HRs (95% CIs) of 0.94 (0.73-1.22) and 0.66 (0.51-0.84) for P to NP and Ix respectively. Grade 2+ SN was 48% for NP, 44% for Ix and 37% for P; Grade 3+ hematologic toxicity was 49% for NP, 20% for Ix, and 12% for P. Conclusions: In pts with CTX naive MBC, both NP and Ix are highly unlikely to be superior to P for PFS (when all are combined with B), and in combination with B, weekly P is the better tolerated drug. Toxicity including SN was greater in each experimental arm compared to P. Updated data will be presented, and correlative studies will be reported at a future date.

PurposeWe compared nab-paclitaxel or ixabepilone once per week to paclitaxel with bevacizumab as first-line therapy for patients with advanced breast cancer (BC) to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) for nab-paclitaxel or ixabepilone versus paclitaxel.Patients and MethodsEligible patients were age ≥ 18 years with chemotherapy-naive advanced BC. Patients were randomly assigned to bevacizumab with paclitaxel 90 mg/m2(arm A), nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m2(arm B), or ixabepilone 16 mg/m2(arm C), once per week for 3 of 4 weeks. Planned enrollment was 900 patients, which would give 88% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.73.ResultsIn all, 799 patients were enrolled, and 783 received treatment (97% received bevacizumab). Arm C was closed for futility at the first interim analysis (n = 241), and arm A (n = 267) and arm B (n = 275) were closed for futility at the second interim analysis. Median PFS for paclitaxel was 11 months, ixabepilone was inferior to paclitaxel (PFS, 7.4 months; hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.93; P < .001), and nab-paclitaxel was not superior to paclitaxel (PFS, 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45; P = .054). Results were concordant with overall survival; time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in both experimental arms v paclitaxel. Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity, including peripheral neuropathy, was increased with nab-paclitaxel, with more frequent and earlier dose reductions.ConclusionIn patients with chemotherapy-naive advanced BC, ixabepilone once per week was inferior to paclitaxel, and nab-paclitaxel was not superior with a trend toward inferiority. Toxicity was increased in the experimental arms, particularly for nab-paclitaxel. Paclitaxel once per week remains the preferred palliative chemotherapy in this setting.

PurposeThe ideal duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with lower risk primary breast cancer is not known. Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 40101 was conducted using a phase III factorial design to define whether six cycles of a chemotherapy regimen are superior to four cycles. We also sought to determine whether paclitaxel (T) is as efficacious as doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC), but with reduced toxicity.Patients and MethodsBetween 2002 and 2008, the study enrolled women with operable breast cancer and zero to three positive nodes. Patients were randomly assigned to either four or six cycles of either AC or T. Study stratifiers were estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER/PgR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and menopausal status. After 2003, all treatment was administered in dose-dense fashion. The primary efficacy end point was relapse-free survival (RFS).ResultsA total of 3,171 patients were enrolled; 94% were node-negative and 6% had one to three positive nodes. At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, the 4-year RFS was 90.9% and 91.8% for six and four cycles, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of six to four cycles regarding RFS was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.28; P = .77). The 4-year OS was 95.3% and 96.3% for six and four cycles, respectively, with an HR of six to four cycles of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.49; P = .44). There was no interaction between treatment duration and chemotherapy regimen, ER/PgR, or HER2 status on RFS or OS.ConclusionFor women with resected primary breast cancer and zero to three positive nodes, we found no evidence that extending chemotherapy regimens of AC or single-agent T from four to six cycles improves clinical outcome.