Kaufman, PA

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 >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 >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 >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 >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 >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.

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.