Citations 156

TBCRC 019: A Phase II Trial of Nanoparticle Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel with or without the Anti-Death Receptor 5 Monoclonal Antibody Tigatuzumab in Patients with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Clinical Cancer Research | March 16, 2015 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 2722-2729

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-2780 | PMID 25779953

Abstract Purpose: Tigatuzumab (TIG), an agonistic anti-DR5 antibody, triggers apoptosis in DR5+ human tumor cells without crosslinking. TIG has strong in vitro/in vivo activity against basal-like breast cancer cells enhanced by chemotherapy agents. This study evaluates activity of TIG and chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Experimental Design: Randomized 2:1 phase II trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PAC) ± TIG in patients with TNBC stratified by prior chemotherapy. Patients received nab-PAC weekly × 3 ± TIG every other week, every 28 days. Primary objective was within-arm objective response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives were safety, progression-free survival (PFS), clinical benefit, and TIG immunogenicity. Metastatic research biopsies were required. Results: Among 64 patients (60 treated; TIG/nab-PAC n = 39 and nab-PAC n = 21), there were 3 complete remissions (CR), 8 partial remissions (PR; 1 almost CR), 11 stable diseases (SD), and 17 progressive diseases (PD) in the TIG/nab-PAC arm (ORR, 28%), and no CRs, 8 PRs, 4 SDs, and 9 PDs in the nab-PAC arm (ORR, 38%). There was a numerical increase in CRs and several patients had prolonged PFS (1,025+, 781, 672, 460, 334) in the TIG/nab-PAC arm. Grade 3 toxicities were 28% and 29%, respectively, with no grade 4–5. Exploratory analysis suggests an association of ROCK1 gene pathway activation with efficacy in the TIG/nab-PAC arm. Conclusions: ORR and PFS were similar in both. Preclinical activity of TIG in basal-like breast cancer and prolonged PFS in few patients in the combination arm support further investigation of anti-DR5 agents. ROCK pathway activation merits further evaluation. Clin Cancer Res; 21(12); 2722–9. ©2015 AACR. See related article by Paoletti et al., p. 2771
The Neoadjuvant Model Is Still the Future for Drug Development in Breast Cancer

Clinical Cancer Research | February 26, 2015 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 13 | Pages: 2911-2915

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-1760 | PMID 25712686

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.
By the Numbers: Does Circulating Tumor Cell Enumeration Have a Role in Metastatic Breast Cancer?

Journal of Clinical Oncology | September 23, 2014 | Volume: 32 | Issue: 31 | Pages: 3479-3482

10.1200/jco.2014.56.6851 | PMID 25245442

Phase II Trial of Bicalutamide in Patients with Androgen Receptor–Positive, Estrogen Receptor–Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer

Clinical Cancer Research | August 22, 2013 | Volume: 19 | Issue: 19 | Pages: 5505-5512

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-3327 | PMID 23965901

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.
Developing Safety Criteria for Introducing New Agents into Neoadjuvant Trials

Clinical Cancer Research | March 8, 2013 | Volume: 19 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 2817-2823

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-2620 | PMID 23470967

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.
Adaptive Trials in the Neoadjuvant Setting: A Model to Safely Tailor Care While Accelerating Drug Development

Journal of Clinical Oncology | November 20, 2012 | Volume: 30 | Issue: 36 | Pages: 4584-4586

10.1200/jco.2012.44.1022 | PMID 23169510