Rugo, Hope S.

AbstractThe many improvements in breast cancer therapy in recent years have so lowered rates of recurrence that it is now difficult or impossible to conduct adequately powered adjuvant clinical trials. Given the many new drugs and potential synergistic combinations, the neoadjuvant approach has been used to test benefit of drug combinations in clinical trials of primary breast cancer. A recent FDA-led meta-analysis showed that pathologic complete response (pCR) predicts disease-free survival (DFS) within patients who have specific breast cancer subtypes. This meta-analysis motivated the FDA's draft guidance for using pCR as a surrogate endpoint in accelerated drug approval. Using pCR as a registration endpoint was challenged at ASCO 2014 Annual Meeting with the presentation of ALTTO, an adjuvant trial in HER2-positive breast cancer that showed a nonsignificant reduction in DFS hazard rate for adding lapatinib, a HER-family tyrosine kinase inhibitor, to trastuzumab and chemotherapy. This conclusion seemed to be inconsistent with the results of NeoALTTO, a neoadjuvant trial that found a statistical improvement in pCR rate for the identical lapatinib-containing regimen. We address differences in the two trials that may account for discordant conclusions. However, we use the FDA meta-analysis to show that there is no discordance at all between the observed pCR difference in NeoALTTO and the observed HR in ALTTO. This underscores the importance of appropriately modeling the two endpoints when designing clinical trials. The I-SPY 2/3 neoadjuvant trials exemplify this approach. Clin Cancer Res; 21(13); 2911–5. ©2015 AACR.

Abstract Background: Our group and others have identified a subset of ER/PR(−) breast cancers characterized by expression of the androgen receptor (AR) and androgen-dependent growth (Doane 2006). We conducted a proof-of-concept multicenter phase II study to test the efficacy of the AR-antagonist, bicalutamide for the treatment of AR(+) ER/PR(−) MBC (NCT00468715). Results of the primary endpoint, clinical benefit rate (CBR), were presented at ASCO (Gucalp 2012). Data for the impact of bicalutamide on circulating hormone levels in women are limited. Elevations in serum testosterone (T) and estradiol (E) have been observed for men treated with bicalutamide. We hypothesized comparable patterns of change in circulating endocrine markers in response to bicalutamide for women with MBC. Methods: Patients (pts) with AR(+) (IHC ≥10%), ER/PR(−) (IHC <10%) MBC were eligible for treatment (tx) if ECOG performance status ≤2 and normal organ function regardless of menopausal status. There was no limit to prior tx except prior trastuzumab required if HER2(+). Tx consisted of bicalutamide 150mg orally daily in 28-day cycles (C). Toxicity assessed q4 weeks, response q12wks. Primary endpoint was CBR. Peripheral blood was collected for total and free T, E and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) at baseline, start of C2 (C2) and at end of study (EOS). Standard institutional assays were used. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was done to compare baseline to C2 and EOS values. Results: 26 patients with AR(+) ER/PR(−) MBC were treated on study. Evaluable number (n) of pts at baseline, C2 and EOS are 26, 26 and 19 respectively. Two pts remain on study. Menopausal status: pre=2, post=24. Baseline median total and free T and estradiol were consistent with expected norms, however a wide range was observed (Table). There were no significant differences observed for median free T, total T, E or SHBG between baseline and C2 or baseline and EOS. Changes in hormone levels could not be stratified by menopausal status or response to bicalutamide given small sample size. Given the wide range of baseline values, we examined the percent change for each endocrine biomarker from baseline to C2 and EOS. As shown in the Table, there was no difference in median percent change observed across time points for each biomarker. Conclusions: No discernible patterns of change in T, E or SHBG were observed in response to bicalutamide therapy when given to women for the treatment of AR(+), ER/PR(−) MBC. These circulating hormones require further evaluation for use as a pharmacodynamic marker. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-05-02.

Abstract Purpose: Patients with hormone receptor–negative breast cancer generally do not benefit from endocrine-targeted therapies. However, a subset with androgen receptor (AR) expression is predicted to respond to antiandrogen therapies. This phase II study explored bicalutamide in AR-positive, estrogen receptor (ER), and progesterone receptor (PgR)-negative metastatic breast cancer. Experimental Design: Tumors from patients with ER/PgR-negative advanced breast cancer were tested centrally for AR [immunohistochemistry (IHC) > 10% nuclear staining considered positive]. If either the primary or a metastatic site was positive, patients were eligible to receive the AR antagonist bicalutamide at a dose of 150 mg daily. Clinical benefit rate (CBR), the primary endpoint, was defined as the total number of patients who show a complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) > 6 months; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity. Correlative studies included measurement of circulating endocrine markers and IHC surrogates for basal-like breast cancer. Results: Of 424 patients with ER/PgR-negative breast cancer, 12% tested AR-positive. The 6-month CBR was 19% [95% confidence interval (CI), 7%–39%] for bicalutamide. The median PFS was 12 weeks (95% CI, 11–22 weeks). Bicalutamide was well-tolerated with no grade 4/5 treatment-related adverse events observed. Conclusion: AR was expressed in 12% of patients with ER/PgR-negative breast cancer screened for this trial. The CBR of 19% observed with bicalutamide shows proof of principle for the efficacy of minimally toxic androgen blockade in a select group of patients with ER/PgR-negative, AR-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 19(19); 5505–12. ©2013 AACR.

Abstract New approaches to drug development are critically needed to lessen the time, cost, and resources necessary to identify and optimize active agents. Strategies to accelerate drug development include testing drugs earlier in the disease process, such as the neoadjuvant setting. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued guidance designed to accelerate drug approval through the use of neoadjuvant studies in which the surrogate short-term endpoint, pathologic response, can be used to identify active agents and shorten the time to approval of both efficacious drugs and biomarkers identifying patients most likely to respond. However, this approach has unique challenges. In particular, issues of patient safety are paramount, given the exposure of potentially curable patients to investigational agents with limited safety experience. Key components to safe drug development in the neoadjuvant setting include defining a study population at sufficiently poor prognosis with standard therapy to justify exposure to investigational agents, defining the extent and adequacy of safety data from phase I, detecting potentially harmful interactions between investigational and standard therapies, improving study designs, such as adaptive strategies, that limit patient exposure to ineffective agents, and intensifying safety monitoring in the course of the trial. The I-SPY2 trial is an example of a phase II neoadjuvant trial of novel agents for breast cancer in which these issues have been addressed, both in the design and conduct of the trial. These adaptations of phase II design enable acceleration of drug development by reducing time and cost to screen novel therapies for activity without compromising safety. Clin Cancer Res; 19(11); 2817–23. ©2013 AACR.

Purpose This phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab combined with standard chemotherapy regimens versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) –negative metastatic breast cancer. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to chemotherapy + bevacizumab or to chemotherapy + placebo. Before random assignment, investigators chose capecitabine, a taxane (paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel, or docetaxel), gemcitabine, or vinorelbine. Dosing for bevacizumab or placebo was 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, depending on chemotherapy regimen. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, PFS by chemotherapy cohort, objective response rate (ORR), duration of objective response, 1-year survival rate, and safety. Results RIBBON-2 enrolled 684 patients (225, chemotherapy + placebo; 459, chemotherapy + bevacizumab). The combination of bevacizumab with chemotherapy demonstrated a statistically significant benefit. Median PFS increased from 5.1 to 7.2 months (stratified hazard ratio for PFS, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.93; P = .0072). The 10% improvement in ORR between the placebo- and bevacizumab-containing arms (39.5% v 29.6%; P = .0193), although not statistically significant, was consistent with previous trials. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) related to bevacizumab treatment were hypertension (9.0%) and proteinuria (3.1%). There was an increased number of AEs leading to study discontinuation in the chemotherapy + bevacizumab arm compared with the chemotherapy + placebo arm (13.3% v 7.2%). Conclusion The combination of bevacizumab with commonly used chemotherapies improved PFS in the second-line treatment of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, with a safety profile comparable with that in prior phase III studies.