Cortés, Javier

Abstract Background A Phase III trial (Study 301; NCT00337103) in MBC comparing eribulin (E) with capecitabine (C) showed a trend for improved overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88; 95% CI 0.77, 1.00; P = 0.056) but not progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.93, 1.25; P = 0.30) with E. In order to investigate this apparent discordance, post-hoc analyses assessed the effect of PPT and events defining disease progression on OS. Methods Pts with locally advanced or MBC who had received an anthracycline and a taxane (≤2 prior chemotherapy regimens for advanced disease), were randomized to E (554) or C (548). Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS. The impact of PPT on OS was assessed by analysis of exploratory PPT subgroups. Analyses of OS sensitivity censoring at time of PPT, and OS adjusted by PPT as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox regression model, were performed. The relationship between OS and progression events (appearance of a “new” lesion or metastasis [NM]; increase in size of pre-existing lesions [IPEL]; or other [death, clinical progression, or censored]) was investigated using Cox regression. Results PPT was received by 70% and 62% of E and C pts, respectively. For E pts, there were no significant OS differences by PPT (Table 1). Excluding 56 pts (22 E, 34 C) who received anti-HER2 therapy as PPT from the intent-to-treat OS analysis, OS was longer with E (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.76, 0.99; nominal P = 0.03). OS sensitivity analysis censoring at time of PPT was consistent with the overall study results (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.65, 1.03). Assessment of the overall effect of PPT, adjusting by PPT as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox regression model, showed that OS was longer with E (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.75, 0.97; nominal P = 0.02). Progression due to NM or IPEL occurred in 271 and 147 of E pts, and 285 and 129 of C pts, respectively. Median OS was similar between arms in pts with IPEL and longer with E vs C in pts with NM (Table 2). Pts who progressed due to NM were at higher risk of death (HR 2.12; 95% CI 1.84, 2.43; nominal P<0.01). Conclusions Treatment with C or any other PPT after progression on E did not account for the trend in OS benefit with E observed in the primary analysis. Pts who progressed with NM had a worse prognosis than those with IPEL. The appearance of NM was highly correlated with OS, and the apparent discordance between PFS and OS seems to be related to these different progression events. Tab 1: OS by PPT after EPPTAll ptsC as 1stOther than C as 1stC at any timeOther than C at any timeNoneN554221169275115164Median OS, months (95% CI)15.9 (15.2, 17.6)18.3 (15.8, 20.9)19.9 (17.6, 24.0)19.6 (17.6, 21.5)18.0 (15.4, 22.7)7.4 (6.2, 9.1) Tab 2: OS by progression event Progression event NMIPELOther ECECECN271285147129136134Median OS, months (95% CI)15.5 (14.2, 17.5)12.9 (11.3, 14.5)17.4 (14.4, 19.7)17.4 (15.3, 20.9)16.7 (14.8, 24.2)15.5 (11.7, 18.3)HR (95% CI)0.81 (0.68, 0.97)1.13 (0.87, 1.46)0.78 (0.59, 1.03)Nominal P -value0.020.350.08Time to NM or death, months (95% CI)5.8 (5.2, 6.5)5.2 (4.3, 5.9)NANAHR (95% CI)0.90 (0.77, 1.05)NANANominal P-value0.17NANA Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P3-13-03.

Abstract Background: Hsp90 is a molecular chaperone protein required for the stabilization and activation of many proteins, referred to as Hsp90 ‘clients’, such as HER2, HIF1-a, EGFR, ER, PI3K, AKT, P53 and VEGFR. The drug candidate, ganetespib is a novel triazolone inhibitor of Hsp90, with over 700 patients treated to date. Ganetespib has shown activity in preclinical models of HER2+, ER+/PR+ and TNBC. Early clinical trials documented ganetespib single agent activity in heavily pretreated HER2+ and TNBC patients. Ganetespib has been well tolerated in clinical trials with a favorable safety profile. This efficacy-screening study is designed to provide further evidence of ganetespib activity and identify potentially predictive biomarkers in metastatic breast cancer (BC). Methods: The ENCHANT-1 Trial is an international, first-line 2-cohort Phase 2 study in BC patients: Cohort A, HER2 amplified (n = 35), and Cohort B, TNBC (n = 35). Patients who present with previously untreated metastatic disease are eligible for treatment with ganetespib at 150 mg/m2 twice weekly on 3 out of 4 wks, for a total of up to 12 wks. Primary endpoint: ORR assessed using RECIST1.1 criteria. Key secondary endpoints include metabolic response as assessed by PET/CT at wk 3 utilizing modified EORTC criteria. Disease progression (PD) at wk 3 by PET imaging indicates discontinuation of study therapy, and is performed to quickly offer patients with metabolic PD a standard of care treatment. The study is designed as Simon 2-stage requiring at least one OR in 15 patients for the respective cohort to expand to 35 patients. A Steering Committee is established to oversee the overall study and review the interim results. Results: The study was initiated in 23 centers globally. At the time of submission, a total of 17 patients had been enrolled; TNBC (n = 15) and HER2 (n = 2). Here we report the interim analysis in the TNBC cohort. The median age was 54 years (range 30 -77) with ECOG PS 0 (n = 7/15). Most patients (n = 9) presented with de novo metastatic disease. 5 patients were not evaluable for PET assessment (3 had not yet reached wk 3 and 2 withdrawn before wk 3 for clinical progression), and 9 patients were not evaluable for objective response at wk 6 (3 withdrawn before or at wk 3 for clinical progression and 6 had not yet reached wk 6 evaluation). In the 10 patients with evaluable PET imaging, 9 patients achieved metabolic (m) response (2 mPR, 4 mSD with dominant tumor shrinkage and 3 SD) and one patient with mPD. In the 6 patients evaluable for OR at wk 6, one patient achieved PR, 2 SD and 3 PD. Treatment with ganetespib was well tolerated; the most common AEs were mild or moderate diarrhea (8/15, 53%), fatigue (5/15, 33%), decreased appetite (4/15, 27%), insomnia (4/15, 27%), and nausea (4/15, 27%). Conclusion: Ganetespib single agent was generally well tolerated and showed anti-tumor activity TNBC patients as early as 3 weeks following treatment. PET seems to be a good tool to screen antitumor activity of new agents in early settings rather that in heavily pretreated patients. The TNBC cohort has met the protocol criteria for proceeding to stage 2. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P2-16-23.