Duncan Wheatley

Fulvestrant plus anastrozole or placebo versus exemestane alone after progression on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (SoFEA): a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised trial

BACKGROUND The optimum endocrine treatment for postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer that has progressed on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) is unclear. The aim of the SoFEA trial was to assess a maximum double endocrine targeting approach with the steroidal anti-oestrogen fulvestrant in combination with continued oestrogen deprivation. METHODS In a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial done in the UK and South Korea, postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer (oestrogen receptor [ER] positive, progesterone receptor [PR] positive, or both) were eligible if they had relapsed or progressed with locally advanced or metastatic disease on an NSAI (given as adjuvant for at least 12 months or as first-line treatment for at least 6 months). Additionally, patients had to have adequate organ function and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection on day 1, followed by 250 mg doses on days 15 and 29, and then every 28 days) plus daily oral anastrozole (1 mg); fulvestrant plus anastrozole-matched placebo; or daily oral exemestane (25 mg). Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted blocks, and stratification was by centre and previous use of an NSAI as adjuvant treatment or for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Participants and investigators were aware of assignment to fulvestrant or exemestane, but not of assignment to anastrozole or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00253422 (UK) and NCT00944918 (South Korea). FINDINGS Between March 26, 2004, and Aug 6, 2010, 723 patients underwent randomisation: 243 were assigned to receive fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 231 to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 249 to exemestane. Median PFS was 4·4 months (95% CI 3·4-5·4) in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 4·8 months (3·6-5·5) in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 3·4 months (3·0-4·6) in those assigned to exemestane. No difference was recorded between the patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole and fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·83-1·21; log-rank p=0·98), or between those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo and exemestane (0·95, 0·79-1·14; log-rank p=0·56). 87 serious adverse events were reported: 36 in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 22 in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 29 in those assigned to exemestane. Grade 3-4 adverse events were rare; the most frequent were arthralgia (three in the group assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole; seven in that assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo; eight in that assigned to exemestane), lethargy (three; 11; 11), and nausea or vomiting (five; two; eight). INTERPRETATION After loss of response to NSAIs in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, maximum double endocrine treatment with 250 mg fulvestrant combined with oestrogen deprivation is no better than either fulvestrant alone or exemestane.

First results of the randomised UK FAST Trial of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer (CRUKE/04/015).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Randomised trials testing 15- or 16-fraction regimens of adjuvant radiotherapy in women with early breast cancer have reported favourable outcomes compared with standard fractionation. To evaluate hypofractionation further, two 5-fraction schedules delivering 1 fraction per week have been tested against a 25-fraction regimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS Women aged ⩾50years with node negative early breast cancer were randomly assigned after microscopic complete tumour resection to 50Gy in 25 fractions versus 28.5 or 30Gy in 5 once-weekly fractions of 5.7 or 6.0Gy, respectively, to the whole breast. The primary endpoint was 2-year change in photographic breast appearance. RESULTS Nine hundred and fifteen women were recruited from 2004 to 2007. Seven hundred and twenty-nine patients had 2-year photographic assessments. Risk ratios for mild/marked change were 1.70 (95% CI 1.26-2.29, p<0.001) for 30Gy and 1.15 (0.82-1.60, p=0.489) for 28.5Gy versus 50Gy. Three-year rates of physician-assessed moderate/marked adverse effects in the breast were 17.3% (13.3-22.3%, p<0.001) for 30Gy and 11.1% (7.9-15.6%, p=0.18) for 28.5Gy compared with 9.5% (6.5-13.7%) after 50Gy. With a median follow-up in survivors of 37.3months, 2 local tumour relapses and 23 deaths have occurred. CONCLUSIONS At 3years median follow-up, 28.5Gy in 5 fractions is comparable to 50Gy in 25 fractions, and significantly milder than 30Gy in 5 fractions, in terms of adverse effects in the breast.

Oral ibandronic acid versus intravenous zoledronic acid in treatment of bone metastases from breast cancer: a randomised, open label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND Bisphosphonates are routinely used in the treatment of metastatic bone disease from breast cancer to reduce pain and bone destruction. Zoledronic acid given by intravenous infusion has been widely used, but places a substantial logistical burden on both patient and hospital. As a result, the use of oral ibandronic acid has increased, despite the absence of comparative data. In the ZICE trial, we compared oral ibandronic acid with intravenous zoledronic acid for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer to bone. METHODS This phase 3, open-label, parallel group active-controlled, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 study was done in 99 UK hospitals. Eligibility criteria included at least one radiologically confirmed bone metastasis from a histologically confirmed breast cancer. Patients with ECOG performance status 0 to 2 and clinical decision to treat with bisphosphonates within 3 months of randomisation were randomly assigned to receive 96 weeks of treatment with either intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg every 3-4 weeks or oral ibandronic acid 50 mg daily. Randomisation (1:1) was done via a central computerised system within stratified block sizes of four. Randomisation was stratified on whether patients had current or planned treatment with chemotherapy; current or planned treatment with hormone therapy; and whether they had a previous skeletal-related event within the last 3 months or had planned radiotherapy treatment to the bone or planned orthopaedic surgery due to bone metastases. The primary non-inferiority endpoint was the frequency and timing of skeletal-related events over 96 weeks, analysed using a per-protocol analysis. All active (non-withdrawn) patients have now reached the 96-week timepoint and the trial is now in long-term follow-up. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00326820. FINDINGS Between Jan 13, 2006, and Oct 4, 2010, 705 patients were randomly assigned to receive ibandronic acid and 699 to receive zoledronic acid; three patients withdrew immediately after randomisation. The per-protocol analysis included 654 patients in the ibandronic acid group and 672 in the zoledronic acid group. Annual rates of skeletal-related events were 0·499 (95% CI 0·454-0·549) with ibandronic acid and 0·435 (0·393-0·480) with zoledronic acid; the rate ratio for skeletal-related events was 1·148 (95% CI 0·967-1·362). The upper CI was greater than the margin of non-inferiority of 1·08; therefore, we could not reject the null hypothesis that ibandronic acid was inferior to zoledronic acid. More patients in the zoledronic acid group had renal toxic effects than in the ibandronic acid group (226 [32%] of 697 vs 172 [24%] of 704) but rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw were low in both groups (nine [1%] of 697 vs five [<1%] of 704). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were fatigue (97 [14%] of 697 patients allocated zoledronic acid vs 98 [14%] of 704 allocated ibandronic acid), increased bone pain (91 [corrected] [13%] vs 85 [corrected] [12%]), joint pain (41 [corrected] [6%] vs 38 [5%]), infection (31 [5%] vs 23 [corrected] [3%]), and nausea or vomiting (38 [5%] vs 41 [6%]). INTERPRETATION Our results suggest that zoledronic acid is preferable to ibandronic acid in preventing skeletal-related events caused by bone metastases. However, both drugs have acceptable side-effect profiles and the oral formulation is more convenient, and could still be considered if the patient has a strong preference or if difficulties occur with intravenous infusions. FUNDING Roche Products Ltd (educational grant), supported by National Institute for Health Research Cancer Network, following endorsement by Cancer Research UK (CRUKE/04/022).

Partial-breast radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery for patients with early breast cancer (UK IMPORT LOW trial): 5-year results from a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Summary Background Local cancer relapse risk after breast conservation surgery followed by radiotherapy has fallen sharply in many countries, and is influenced by patient age and clinicopathological factors. We hypothesise that partial-breast radiotherapy restricted to the vicinity of the original tumour in women at lower than average risk of local relapse will improve the balance of beneficial versus adverse effects compared with whole-breast radiotherapy. Methods IMPORT LOW is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done in 30 radiotherapy centres in the UK. Women aged 50 years or older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for unifocal invasive ductal adenocarcinoma of grade 1–3, with a tumour size of 3 cm or less (pT1–2), none to three positive axillary nodes (pN0–1), and minimum microscopic margins of non-cancerous tissue of 2 mm or more, were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 40 Gy whole-breast radiotherapy (control), 36 Gy whole-breast radiotherapy and 40 Gy to the partial breast (reduced-dose group), or 40 Gy to the partial breast only (partial-breast group) in 15 daily treatment fractions. Computer-generated random permuted blocks (mixed sizes of six and nine) were used to assign patients to groups, stratifying patients by radiotherapy treatment centre. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. Field-in-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy was delivered using standard tangential beams that were simply reduced in length for the partial-breast group. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral local relapse (80% power to exclude a 2·5% increase [non-inferiority margin] at 5 years for each experimental group; non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the local relapse hazard ratio [HR] was less than 2·03), analysed by intention to treat. Safety analyses were done in all patients for whom data was available (ie, a modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered in the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN12852634. Findings Between May 3, 2007, and Oct 5, 2010, 2018 women were recruited. Two women withdrew consent for use of their data in the analysis. 674 patients were analysed in the whole-breast radiotherapy (control) group, 673 in the reduced-dose group, and 669 in the partial-breast group. Median follow-up was 72·2 months (IQR 61·7–83·2), and 5-year estimates of local relapse cumulative incidence were 1·1% (95% CI 0·5–2·3) of patients in the control group, 0·2% (0·02–1·2) in the reduced-dose group, and 0·5% (0·2–1·4) in the partial-breast group. Estimated 5-year absolute differences in local relapse compared with the control group were −0·73% (−0·99 to 0·22) for the reduced-dose and −0·38% (−0·84 to 0·90) for the partial-breast groups. Non-inferiority can be claimed for both reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy, and was confirmed by the test against the critical HR being more than 2·03 (p=0·003 for the reduced-dose group and p=0·016 for the partial-breast group, compared with the whole-breast radiotherapy group). Photographic, patient, and clinical assessments recorded similar adverse effects after reduced-dose or partial-breast radiotherapy, including two patient domains achieving statistically significantly lower adverse effects (change in breast appearance [p=0·007 for partial-breast] and breast harder or firmer [p=0·002 for reduced-dose and p<0·0001 for partial-breast]) compared with whole-breast radiotherapy. Interpretation We showed non-inferiority of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy compared with the standard whole-breast radiotherapy in terms of local relapse in a cohort of patients with early breast cancer, and equivalent or fewer late normal-tissue adverse effects were seen. This simple radiotherapy technique is implementable in radiotherapy centres worldwide. Funding Cancer Research UK.

Use of BIBW 2992, a Novel Irreversible EGFR/HER1 and HER2 Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor To Treat Patients with HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer after Failure of Treatment with Trastuzumab.

Background: BIBW 2992 (Tovok™*) is a novel, oral, irreversible inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)/human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)1 and HER2 inhibitor, with preclinical activity in trastuzumab-resistant cell lines overexpressing HER2 and Phase I clinical activity. A Phase II study of BIBW 2992 in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who have progressed following treatment with trastuzumab was conducted in the US and the UK.Methods: A multi-institutional, open-label, single-arm Phase II study was conducted. Eligible patients had stage IIIB or IV HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, with progression following trastuzumab treatment or intolerance of trastuzumab, received no prior EGFR-targeted therapy, had measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 and adequate organ function. Patients received 50 mg BIBW 2992 once-daily until disease progression. Tumor assessments were performed every two treatment courses (one course is 28 days). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors). Safety data were also collected.Results: A total of 41 patients started treatment on the trial. Patients had received a median of three lines of prior therapy (range, 0–15). Thirty-four patients are evaluable for response. Of these, four patients had a partial response (PR) and eight patients had stable disease maintained for at least four cycles. One patient with confirmed PR remained on treatment until progression at 63 weeks. The most frequently observed side-effects to date are rash (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] Grade 3 in four patients [9.8%]) and diarrhea (CTCAE Grade 3) in nine patients. There have been 21 dose reductions in 18 patients.Conclusion: BIBW 2992 was safe and induced promising early clinical responses in HER2-positive breast cancer patients who have progressed following treatment with trastuzumab. Manageable cutaneous adverse events and diarrhea were the main side-effects.*Trade name not FDA approved. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 5060.

Phase II Randomized Preoperative Window-of-Opportunity Study of the PI3K Inhibitor Pictilisib Plus Anastrozole Compared With Anastrozole Alone in Patients With Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer

PURPOSE Preclinical data support a key role for the PI3K pathway in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer and suggest that combining PI3K inhibitors with endocrine therapy may overcome resistance. This preoperative window study assessed whether adding the PI3K inhibitor pictilisib (GDC-0941) can increase the antitumor effects of anastrozole in primary breast cancer and aimed to identify the most appropriate patient population for combination therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this randomized, open-label phase II trial, postmenopausal women with newly diagnosed operable estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancers were recruited. Participants were randomly allocated (2:1, favoring the combination) to 2 weeks of preoperative treatment with anastrozole 1 mg once per day (n = 26) or the combination of anastrozole 1 mg with pictilisib 260 mg once per day (n = 49). The primary end point was inhibition of tumor cell proliferation as measured by change in Ki-67 protein expression between tumor samples taken before and at the end of treatment. RESULTS There was significantly greater geometric mean Ki-67 suppression of 83.8% (one-sided 95% CI, ≥ 79.0%) for the combination and 66.0% (95% CI, ≤ 75.4%) for anastrozole (geometric mean ratio [combination:anastrozole], 0.48; 95% CI, ≤ 0.72; P = .004). PIK3CA mutations were not predictive of response to pictilisib, but there was significant interaction between response to treatment and molecular subtype (P = .03); for patients with luminal B tumors, the combination:anastrozole geometric mean ratio of Ki-67 suppression was 0.37 (95% CI, ≤ 0.67; P = .008), whereas no significant Ki-67 response was observed for pictilisib in luminal A tumors (1.01; P = .98). Multivariable analysis confirmed Ki-67 response to the combination treatment of patients with luminal B tumors irrespective of progesterone receptor status or baseline Ki-67 expression. CONCLUSION Adding pictilisib to anastrozole significantly increases suppression of tumor cell proliferation in luminal B primary breast cancer.

Breast radiotherapy: less is more?

A 3 week schedule of whole breast radiotherapy is firmly established in the UK and is becoming more accepted internationally, especially as accelerated partial breast radiotherapy regimens become more common. It seems that a 3 week schedule is unlikely to be the lower limit of whole breast hypofractionation and the partial breast may even be adequately treated with just a single treatment. It is, however, essential that these hypotheses are rigorously tested within well-designed trials to ensure the highest quality of radiotherapy. This overview will address the rationale for hypofractionation in breast cancer, discuss past trials and outline the design of current studies.

Acute skin toxicity associated with a 1-week schedule of whole breast radiotherapy compared with a standard 3-week regimen delivered in the UK FAST-Forward Trial

Background and purpose FAST-Forward is a phase 3 clinical trial testing a 1-week course of whole breast radiotherapy against the UK standard 3-week regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Two acute skin toxicity substudies were undertaken to test the safety of the test schedules with respect to early skin reactions. Material and methods Patients were randomly allocated to 40 Gy/15 fractions (F)/3-weeks, 27 Gy/5F/1-week or 26 Gy/5F/1-week. Acute breast skin reactions were graded using RTOG (first substudy) and CTCAE criteria v4.03 (second substudy) weekly during treatment and for 4 weeks after treatment ended. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients within each treatment group with grade ⩾3 toxicity (RTOG and CTCAE, respectively) at any time from the start of radiotherapy to 4 weeks after completion. Results 190 and 162 patients were recruited. In the first substudy, evaluable patients with grade 3 RTOG toxicity were: 40 Gy/15F 6/44 (13.6%); 27 Gy/5F 5/51 (9.8%); 26 Gy/5F 3/52 (5.8%). In the second substudy, evaluable patients with grade 3 CTCAE toxicity were: 40 Gy/15F 0/43; 27 Gy/5F 1/41 (2.4%); 26 Gy/5F 0/53. Conclusions Acute breast skin reactions with two 1-week schedules of whole breast radiotherapy under test in FAST-Forward were mild.

Phase I Study to Assess the Combination of Afatinib with Trastuzumab in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer

Purpose: The HER2 mAb, trastuzumab, is a standard therapy for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer before acquired resistance. Afatinib, an irreversible, oral, small-molecule ErbB family blocker, shows clinical activity in trastuzumab-refractory HER2-positive breast cancer. Experimental Design: This phase I study used a 3+3 dose escalation to determine the MTD of oral once-daily afatinib in combination with the recommended dose of intravenous trastuzumab (4 mg/kg week 1; 2 mg/kg/wk thereafter). Adult women with confirmed advanced/metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer were eligible. Results: Of 18 patients treated, 16 received daily afatinib 20 mg and two 30 mg. Overall, 4 of 13 and 2 of 2 patients receiving afatinib 20 mg and 30 mg, respectively, experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT; all CTCAE grade 3 diarrhea). Most frequent treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea (94%), rash (56%), and fatigue (56%). Overall, pharmacokinetic profiles of afatinib and trastuzumab in combination were consistent with the known characteristics of each alone. Overall, objective response and disease control rates were 11% and 39%, respectively, with median progression-free survival 111.0 days (95% confidence interval, 56.0–274.0). Conclusions: The MTD of afatinib was 20 mg daily combined with the recommended weekly dose of trastuzumab, with 1 of 6 patients showing DLTs in the dose escalation. However, additional DLTs occurred in the dose-expansion phase meaning that this MTD cannot be recommended for phase II development without strict diarrhea management. There was no evidence suggesting relevant pharmacokinetic drug–drug interactions. Signs of clinical activity were seen in trastuzumab-resistant HER2-positive breast cancer, suggesting further investigation with optimal diarrhea management is warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 21(12); 2737–44. ©2014 AACR. See related commentary by Sledge and Pegram, p. 2663

Randomized Phase II trial of nintedanib, afatinib and sequential combination in castration-resistant prostate cancer

AIMS The aim of this article was to evaluate afatinib (BIBW 2992), an ErbB family blocker, and nintedanib (BIBF 1120), a triple angiokinase inhibitor, in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. PATIENTS & METHODS Patients were randomized to receive nintedanib (250 mg twice daily), afatinib (40 mg once daily [q.d.]), or alternating sequential 7-day nintedanib (250 mg twice daily) and afatinib (70 mg q.d. [Combi70]), which was reduced to 40 mg q.d. (Combi40) due to adverse events. The primary end point was progression-free rate at 12 weeks. RESULTS Of the 85 patients treated 46, 20, 16 and three received nintedanib, afatinib, Combi40 and Combi70, respectively. At 12 weeks, the progression-free rate was 26% (seven out of 27 patients) for nintedanib, and 0% for afatinib and Combi40 groups. Two patients had a ≥50% decline in PSA (nintedanib and the Combi40 groups). The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and lethargy. CONCLUSION Nintedanib and/or afatinib demonstrated limited anti-tumor activity in unselected advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.