Cortés, Javier

1050^ Background: In a phase III trial comparing eribulin (E) vs. capecitabine (C) in pts with locally advanced or MBC, a trend for improved OS was observed but a statistically significant superiority was not demonstrated with E vs. C for OS or PFS. The AE profiles were consistent with known side effects. We now report QoL results from this trial. Methods: Pts received eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8, or C 1.25 g/m2 BID orally on Days 1-14, of a 21-day cycle. Eligible pts had received prior therapy including an anthracycline and taxane, and were receiving study drug as 1st-, 2nd-, or 3rd-line therapy for advanced disease. QoL, a secondary objective, was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires at baseline, 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after starting treatment (or until progressive disease or treatment change), and at unscheduled visits. Longitudinal analyses were carried out using weighted generalized estimating equations adjusted for non-random attrition due to death within 12 months. Model covariates were time (visit), region, and baseline QoL. The primary endpoint was change from baseline for Global Health Status (GHS)/overall QoL; exploratory endpoints were change from baseline for each functional domain, and signs/symptoms. Results: 1,102 pts were randomized (E 554; C 548). GHS/QoL scores were low at baseline for E (56.3) and C (54.7) on a scale of 0 (worse) to 100 (best). GHS/QoL and cognitive functioning improved significantly more in pts receiving E vs. C, (6.5 [p=0.048] and 15.3 [p<0.001], respectively). Emotional functioning improved significantly for pts receiving C vs. E (3.3; p=0.033). Pain was comparable at baseline, and was lower at subsequent visits with both treatments. Patient-reported signs/symptoms in favor of E included nausea and vomiting (E1.9; p=0.043) and diarrhea (-3.7; p=0.001); systemic side effects (5.2; p<0.001) and upset by hair loss (9.3; p=0.023) favored C. Conclusions: GHS/QoL scores improved more in pts receiving E than C. E showed advantages in terms of gastrointestinal effects while C had advantages in relation to hair loss. Clinical trial information: NCT00337103.

1049^ Background: This phase III study, comparing eribulin versus capecitabine, showed a non-significant trend for superior overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR] 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77, 1.00]; p = 0.056) but not progression-free survival (PFS; HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.93, 1.25]; p = 0.31). Pre-specified exploratory subgroup analyses previously presented showed that patients with triple-negative, ER-negative or HER2-negative disease may have a greater benefit in OS with eribulin compared with capecitabine. Here we present further pre-specified exploratory analyses of OS and PFS. Methods: Patients (eribulin n=554; capecitabine n=548) with locally advanced or MBC had received ≤3 prior chemotherapy regimens (≤2 for advanced disease), including an anthracycline and a taxane. Patients were randomized (stratified for geographic region and HER2 status) 1:1 to 21-day cycles of eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 and 8 or capecitabine 1.25 g/m2BID orally on days 1-14. Further pre-specified exploratory subgroups included: age; receptor status; number and setting of prior chemotherapy regimen(s); sites of disease; number of organs involved; and time to progression after last chemotherapy. Results: From analyses for OS, patients with only non-visceral disease (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33, 0.80), with >2 organs involved (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62, 0.90), who had progressed >6 months after last chemotherapy (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52, 0.95), or who had received an anthracycline and/or a taxane in the metastatic setting (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72, 0.98), appeared to benefit more from treatment with eribulin compared with capecitabine. For OS, in no subgroup was a trend favoring capecitabine seen. Data for other pre-specified subgroups for both OS and PFS will be presented. Conclusions: In addition to patients with triple-, ER-, or HER2-negative disease, further pre-specified exploratory analyses suggest that other patient subgroups may particularly benefit from treatment with eribulin; further studies are warranted to address these hypotheses. Clinical trial information: NCT00337103.

Abstract Purpose: Preplanned exploratory analyses were performed to identify biomarkers in circulating tumor cells (CTC) predictive of response to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor etirinotecan pegol (EP). Experimental Design: The BEACON trial treated patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with EP or treatment of physician's choice (TPC). Blood from 656 of 852 patients (77%) was processed with ApoStream to enrich for CTCs. A multiplex immunofluorescence assay measured expression of candidate response biomarkers [topoisomerase 1 (Top1), topoisomerase 2 (Top2), Ki67, RAD51, ABCG2, γH2AX, and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase–mediated dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL)] in CTCs. Patients were classified as Top1 low (Top1Lo) or Top1 high (Top1Hi) based on median CTC Top1 expression. Correlation of CTC biomarker expression at baseline, cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1), and cycle 4 day 1 with overall survival (OS) was investigated using Cox regression and Kaplan–Meier analyses. Results: Overall, 98% of samples were successfully processed, of which 97% had detectable CTCs (median, 47–63 CTCs/mL; range, 0–2,020 CTCs/mL). Top1, Top2, and TUNEL expression was detected in 52% to 90% of samples; no significant associations with OS were observed in pretreatment samples for either group. EP-treated patients with low C2D1Top1+ CTCs had improved OS compared with those with higher positivity (14.1 months vs. 11.0 months, respectively; HR, 0.7; P = 0.02); this difference was not seen in TPC-treated patients (HR, 1.12; P = 0.48). Patients whose CTCs decreased from Top1Hi to Top1Lo at C2D1 had the greatest OS benefit from EP (HR, 0.57; P = 0.01). Conclusions: CTC Top1 expression following EP treatment may identify patients with MBC most likely to have an OS benefit. Clin Cancer Res; 24(14); 3348–57. ©2018 AACR.

Abstract Background: The need remains for novel agents that prolong survival and/or improve QOL in women with aBC. EP is a long-acting topoisomerase 1 inhibitor engineered to produce sustained exposure to irinotecan and its active metabolite SN38. Given previous efficacy seen in an earlier phase II trial in MBC, EP 145 mg/m2 every 3 weeks was compared to TPC (one of 7 single-agent regimens) in the randomized phase 3 BEACON study (NCT01492101). As reported at ASCO 2015 (abstract 1001), EP prolonged median overall survival by 2.1 months, although this did not reach statistical significance (12.4 vs 10.3 months; HR 0.87, p=0.08). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were significantly less common with EP (48% vs 63% with TPC, p&lt;0.001). We now present results of the QOL analyses. Methods: Patients completed validated health-related QoL (HRQoL) questionnaires, EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) and breast cancer-specific QLQ-BR23, pretreatment and every 8 weeks until progression, death or withdrawal of consent. Questionnaires were scored according to the EORTC manual. For each scale, raw scores were standardized via a linear transformation to a range from 0 to 100. Absolute scores and changes from baseline were analyzed longitudinally and categorically using a 5-point difference calculated by treatment group. Comparisons between treatment groups were conducted to evaluate the differences in global health status, functional scores and symptoms over time. Results: The majority of patients who were randomized (total: 733/852 [86%], EP: 378/429 [88%], TPC: 355/423 [84%]) completed at least one post-baseline HRQoL questionnaire. In the EORTC QLQ-C30, grade ≥ 3 AEs significantly impacted HRQoL measured by global health status and 5 additional functional domains. Of the six domains, compared to TPC in a longitudinal analysis, EP was statistically superior in the mean treatment effect through Week 32 in global health status p=0.02 and physical functioning scale p=0.01. EP was also numerically superior in all other scales. In EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR-23, a total of 13 symptoms were measured and categorically analyzed. There were no treatment differences in 7 of 13 symptom scales. EP was associated with worsening of 3 symptom scales: appetite loss, nausea/vomiting, and diarrhea. TPC was associated with worsening of 2 symptom scales: dyspnea and systemic side effects. Conclusions: In the phase 3 BEACON trial comparing EP to TPC, the more favorable toxicity profile of EP resulted in an improvement in global health status and physical function (results of the symptom scales confirmed the different toxicities of the two arms). EP remains a promising investigational therapy for aBC. Citation Format: Cortes J, Awada A, Perez EA, Rugo HS, Twelves C, Im S-A, Zhao C, Hoch U, Ney J, Hannah AL, O'Shaughnessy J. Impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL) in the BEACON study, a randomized phase III trial of etirinotecan pegol (EP) versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients (pts) with advanced breast cancer (aBC) whose disease has progressed following anthracycline (A), taxane (T) and capecitabine (C). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-11-08.

Abstract Background: Etirinotecan pegol (EP) is a long-acting Top1 inhibitor providing sustained levels of active metabolite throughout the entire chemotherapy cycle. The phase 3 BEACON trial compared EP to treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with advanced breast cancer, demonstrating a non-statistically significant 2.1 month difference in survival favoring EP in the intent to treat population. A novel aspect of the BEACON trial is to explore the utility of biomarkers measured in CTCs for predicting efficacy with EP. Pre- and post-treatment CTCs were isolated from blood of 77% of the 852 BEACON patients. Target-specific pharmacodynamic biomarkers for EP measured in CTCs were analyzed to identify patients most responsive to treatment with EP. Methods: Donation of blood samples for CTC analysis was voluntary. Participating BEACON patients had serial (baseline, Cycle 2 Day 1 [C2D1], Cycle 4 Day 1 [C4D1], End of Treatment) 7.5-mL whole blood samples drawn in EDTA tubes and shipped within 96 hours ambient to ApoCell (Houston, TX) for processing. PBMCs were separated by Ficoll® gradient, and CTCs were isolated using ApoStream® technology. Isolated cells were deposited on three slides and stained for DAPI, CD45, cytokeratin markers, as well as Top1, Top2, Ki67, γH2AX, Rad51, ABCG2, and TUNEL. Biomarkers were quantified by iCys® laser scanning cytometer equipped with image analysis software, and correlated with OS using Cox multiple regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses. Results: The CTC substudy yielded 611 pre-treatment, 519 C2D1, 268 C4D1, and 431 End of Treatment samples. Among the successfully processed blood samples, 98% had detectable CTCs, with a median of 63, 46, 51, and 57 CTCs/mL at baseline, C2D1, C4D1, and End of Treatment, respectively. Cox regression analyses of CTC number and percentage of Top1, Top2, Ki67, or TUNEL positive CTCs identified a correlation for post-treatment number of Top1-positive CTCs with OS in patients receiving EP. To assess the impact of Top1-positive CTCs, patients were classified as Top1-High (&gt; median) or Top1-Low (≤ median) based on the percent of Top1-positive CTCs at baseline. Among the Top1-High patients at baseline, significantly improved OS (HR 0.54, p=0.007) was observed for those who converted to Top1-Low after their first treatment with EP (C2D1), but not TPC (HR 1.12, p=0.613). These results suggest that decreased number of Top1-positive CTCs may reflect EP target engagement with Top1, as these patients derived the most benefit from treatment. Conclusions: CTC collection and analysis was successfully incorporated into the phase 3 BEACON study, with 77% patient participation. CTC detection rate using ApoStream® was high, permitting evaluation of biomarkers at baseline and post-treatment. Significantly improved OS was observed in patients who had a decreased number of Top1-positive CTCs following cycle 1 of EP. Citation Format: Rugo HS, Cortes J, Awada A, O'Shaughnessy J, Twelves C, Im S-A, Hannah AL, Lu L, Sy S, Caygill K, Zajchowski D, Davis DW, Hoch U, Perez EA. Early change in topoisomerase 1 (Top1) positive circulating tumor cells (CTCs) is associated with overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced breast cancer after treatment with etirinotecan pegol. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-13-02.

Abstract Background: Etirinotecan pegol (EP) is the first long-acting topoisomerase 1-inhibitor providing sustained level of active metabolite that concentrate in the tumor for an entire chemotherapy cycle. In a Phase 2 study (Lancet Oncology 2013), EP demonstrated a 29% overall response rate in patients with metastatic breast cancer, leading to the Phase 3 global BEACON study in this population. Detection of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) using immunomagnetic EpCAM-based methods have been conceptually accepted as a "liquid tumor biopsy". To circumvent the limited recovery of CTCs these methods provide for molecular profiling applications, we isolated CTCs based on an antibody-independent, continuous flow dielectrophoresis (DEP) technology (ApoStream®). We developed quantitative multiplex immunofluorescent assays for target-specific pharmacodynamics (PD) biomarkers for EP in CTCs isolated pre- and post-treatment. Here we present the distribution of the PD biomarkers in CTC samples collected from BEACON patients. Methods: Donation of blood samples for CTC analysis was voluntary. BEACON patients participating in the substudy had serial (pre-dose, Cycle 2 Day 1, Cycle 4 Day 1, End of Treatment) 7.5-mL whole blood samples drawn in EDTA tubes and shipped ambient to ApoCell (Houston, TX) within 96 hrs for processing. PBMCs were separated by Ficoll® gradient, and CTCs were isolated using ApoStream® technology. Isolated cells were deposited on three slides and stained for DAPI, CD45, and cytokeratin markers, as well as 2-3 of the seven PD markers, and analyzed by iCys® laser scanning cytometer equipped with image analysis software. CTC count, mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of PD biomarkers, and % marker-positive cells were analyzed for their distribution. Results: 75% of the 852 BEACON patients participated in the CTC substudy, yielding 649 pre-treatment CTC samples. As of Mar14, 538 Cycle 2 Day 1, 281 Cycle 4 Day 1, and 394 End of Treatment samples were collected. 98% of pre-treatment blood samples were successfully processed. 97% had detectable CTCs, with a median of 504 CTCs (interquartile range: 128-1432). PD markers could be analyzed in 83-92% of samples after implementing a minimum requirement of 10 CTCs analyzed. Staining was positive for Top1, Top2, μH2Ax, Rad51, ABCG2, Ki67, and TUNEL in 82%, 71%, 14%, 30%, 20%, 56%, and 94% of samples, respectively. Percent of marker-positive cells varied from 0.2-69%, with 6- to 37-fold interquartile ranges. Median MFI in these cells varied between 25x103 and 100x103, with 1.2- to 1.6-fold interquartile ranges. Conclusions: CTC collection was successfully incorporated into the BEACON study, with 75% patient participation. CTC detection rate using ApoStream® was high, permitting evaluation of biomarkers at baseline and over time. EP target-specific PD biomarkers can be measured in CTCs isolated from patients participating in BEACON and will be assessed for their potential to predict clinical response. Final BEACON efficacy and safety results are expected in early 2015, which will allow further analysis of CTCs with patient outcome (response, PFS, OS) and change in CTCs at time of progression. Citation Format: Edith A Perez, Katie Caygill, Alison L Hannah, Javier Cortes, Ahmad Awada, Joyce O'Shaughnessy, Christopher Twelves, Hope Rugo, Seock-Ah Im, Kenna Anderes, Darren W Davis, Ute Hoch. Etirinotecan pegol target-specific pharmacodynamic biomarkers in circulating tumor cells from patients with metastatic breast cancer in the phase 3 BEACON study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-10-03.

Purpose This phase III randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00337103) compared eribulin with capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and Methods Women with MBC who had received prior anthracycline- and taxane-based therapy were randomly assigned to receive eribulin or capecitabine as their first-, second-, or third-line chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic disease. Stratification factors were human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status and geographic region. Coprimary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results Median OS times for eribulin (n = 554) and capecitabine (n = 548) were 15.9 and 14.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.00; P = .056). Median PFS times for eribulin and capecitabine were 4.1 and 4.2 months, respectively (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.25; P = .30). Objective response rates were 11.0% for eribulin and 11.5% for capecitabine. Global health status and overall quality-of-life scores over time were similar in the treatment arms. Both treatments had manageable safety profiles consistent with their known adverse effects; most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. Conclusion In this phase III study, eribulin was not shown to be superior to capecitabine with regard to OS or PFS.

Abstract Background: The Phase III trial (NCT00337103) compared eribulin (E) with capecitabine (C) in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in the 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-line setting. Median overall survival (OS) was 15.9 and 14.5 months (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.77, 1.00; P = 0.056) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.1 and 4.2 months (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.93, 1.25; P = 0.30) for E and C, respectively. This analysis compares toxicity and efficacy of E and C in relation to age. Material and methods: In this post-hoc exploratory analysis, the effect of age on the incidence of adverse events (AEs), OS, PFS, and objective response rate (ORR) with E and C were analyzed for two age groups: ≤65 years (E, n = 468; C, n = 491) and &gt;65 years (E, n = 86; C, n = 57). For OS and PFS, analyses were stratified by HER2 and geographic region. Results: With increasing age, the proportion of pts with worse performance status (PS ≥1: 54.5% vs 69.2% for ≤65 and &gt;65 years, respectively), ER+ (47.4% vs 57.3%), and PgR+ MBC (41.3% vs 45.5%) increased, and the proportion with triple-negative MBC decreased (26.6% vs 20.3%). With both treatments, AEs were reported in a higher proportion of pts in the older age group, this becoming more apparent for grade 3+ AEs (E: 64.6% vs 70.2%, and C: 45.0% vs 54.4% for ≤65 and &gt;65 respectively). With E, there was a trend for increased incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia (45.0% vs 50.0%) and leukopenia (13.7% vs 22.6%) but, in contrast, decreased peripheral sensory neuropathy (3.9% vs 1.2%) with increasing age. For C, there was a trend for increased palmar-plantar erythrodysethesia syndrome (total: 44.4% vs 50.9%; grade 3/4: 14.1% vs 17.5%), and grade 3/4 fatigue (1.8% vs 7.0%) and diarrhea (4.7% vs 10.5%) with increasing age; emesis and nausea were similar for both age groups. Dose adjustments due to AEs with E were slightly higher in the older age group: withdrawals 7.4% vs 10.7%; dose reductions 31.1% vs 36.9%; and dose delays 30.9% vs 36.9%. With C, there was a trend for an increased incidence of withdrawals (9.2% vs 21.1%) and dose delays (34.2% vs 49.1%) due to AEs with increasing age: the incidence of dose reductions was slightly higher in the older age group (31.3% vs 36.8%). In an unadjusted analysis, a trend for improved OS with E vs C was observed in both subgroups (≤65 years: median 15.8 vs 14.5 months; HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.78, 1.04; P = 0.16, and &gt;65 years: median 18.4 vs 14.1 months; HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.50, 1.12; P = 0.16). PFS and ORR for E and C were: median PFS: E, 4.0 and 5.4 months; C, 4.2 and 5.9 months; ORR: E, 10.9% and 11.6%; C, 11.6% and 10.5%, in the ≤65 and &gt;65 groups respectively. Conclusions: This exploratory and unadjusted analysis suggests a trend for improved OS with E in both younger and older pts with MBC. With both treatments there was a suggestion that AEs were reported in a higher proportion of pts in the older age group, this becoming more apparent for grade 3+ events. Specifically, these data suggest an increased incidence of grade 3/4 diarrhea, dose delays, and study withdrawal due to AEs in pts treated with C, and potentially suggest that with E there may be less difference between the AE profile in younger vs older pts than with C. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P3-13-04.