Joyce O'Shaughnessy M.D.

Smith, I., D. Yardley, H. Burris, R. De Boer, D. Amadori, K. McIntyre, B. Ejlertsen, M. Gnant, W. Jonat, K. I. Pritchard, M. Dowsett, L. Hart, S. Poggio, L. Comarella, H. Salomon, B. Wamil and J. O’Shaughnessy (2017). “Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Adjuvant Letrozole Versus Anastrozole in Postmenopausal Patients With Hormone Receptor-Positive, Node-Positive Early Breast Cancer: Final Results of the Randomized Phase III Femara Versus Anastrozole Clinical Evaluation (FACE) Trial.” J Clin Oncol 35(10): 1041-1048.

Full text of this article.

Purpose The Letrozole (Femara) Versus Anastrozole Clinical Evaluation (FACE) study compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant letrozole versus anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR) -positive and node-positive early breast cancer (eBC). Methods Postmenopausal women with HR-positive and node-positive eBC were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant therapy with either letrozole (2.5 mg) or anastrozole (1 mg) once per day for 5 years or until recurrence of disease. Patients were stratified on the basis of the number of lymph nodes and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. The primary end point was 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), and the key secondary end points were overall survival and safety. Results A total of 4,136 patients were randomly assigned to receive either letrozole (n = 2,061) or anastrozole (n = 2,075). The final analysis was done at 709 DFS events (letrozole, 341 [16.5%]; anastrozole, 368 [17.7%]). The 5-year estimated DFS rate was 84.9% for letrozole versus 82.9% for anastrozole arm (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.07; P = .3150). Exploratory analysis showed similar DFS with letrozole and anastrozole in all evaluated subgroups. The 5-year estimated overall survival rate was 89.9% for letrozole versus 89.2% for anastrozole arm (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.17; P = .7916). Most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events (> 5% of patients) reported for letrozole versus anastrozole were arthralgia (3.9% v 3.3%, and 48.2% v 47.9% for all adverse events), hypertension (1.2% v 1.0%), hot flushes (0.8% v 0.4%), myalgia (0.8% v 0.7%), dyspnea (0.8% v 0.5%), and depression (0.8% v 0.6%). Conclusion Letrozole did not demonstrate significantly superior efficacy or safety compared with anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with HR-positive, node-positive eBC.

Smith, I., D. Yardley, H. Burris, R. De Boer, D. Amadori, K. McIntyre, B. Ejlertsen, M. Gnant, W. Jonat, K. I. Pritchard, M. Dowsett, L. Hart, S. Poggio, L. Comarella, H. Salomon, B. Wamil and J. O’Shaughnessy (2017). “Comparative efficacy and safety of adjuvant letrozole versus anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, node-positive early breast cancer: Final results of the randomized phase iii femara versus anastrozole clinical evaluation (face) trial.” J Clin Oncol: 2017 Jan [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

Purpose The Letrozole (Femara) Versus Anastrozole Clinical Evaluation (FACE) study compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant letrozole versus anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR) -positive and node-positive early breast cancer (eBC). Methods Postmenopausal women with HR-positive and node-positive eBC were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant therapy with either letrozole (2.5 mg) or anastrozole (1 mg) once per day for 5 years or until recurrence of disease. Patients were stratified on the basis of the number of lymph nodes and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. The primary end point was 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), and the key secondary end points were overall survival and safety. Results A total of 4,136 patients were randomly assigned to receive either letrozole (n = 2,061) or anastrozole (n = 2,075). The final analysis was done at 709 DFS events (letrozole, 341 [16.5%]; anastrozole, 368 [17.7%]). The 5-year estimated DFS rate was 84.9% for letrozole versus 82.9% for anastrozole arm (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.07; P = .3150). Exploratory analysis showed similar DFS with letrozole and anastrozole in all evaluated subgroups. The 5-year estimated overall survival rate was 89.9% for letrozole versus 89.2% for anastrozole arm (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.17; P = .7916). Most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events (> 5% of patients) reported for letrozole versus anastrozole were arthralgia (3.9% v 3.3%, and 48.2% v 47.9% for all adverse events), hypertension (1.2% v 1.0%), hot flushes (0.8% v 0.4%), myalgia (0.8% v 0.7%), dyspnea (0.8% v 0.5%), and depression (0.8% v 0.6%). Conclusion Letrozole did not demonstrate significantly superior efficacy or safety compared with anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with HR-positive, node-positive eBC.

Miles, D., D. Cameron, I. Bondarenko, L. Manzyuk, J. C. Alcedo, R. I. Lopez, S. A. Im, J. L. Canon, Y. Shparyk, D. A. Yardley, N. Masuda, J. Ro, N. Denduluri, S. Hubeaux, C. Quah, C. Bais and J. O’Shaughnessy (2017). “Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel as first-line therapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MERiDiAN): A double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial with prospective biomarker evaluation.” Eur J Cancer 70: 146-155.

Full text of this article.

AIM: MERiDiAN evaluated plasma vascular endothelial growth factor-A (pVEGF-A) prospectively as a predictive biomarker for bevacizumab efficacy in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). METHODS: In this double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial, eligible patients had HER2-negative mBC previously untreated with chemotherapy. pVEGF-A was measured before randomisation to paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 with either placebo or bevacizumab 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, repeated every 4 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or consent withdrawal. Stratification factors were baseline pVEGF-A, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status and geographic region. Co-primary end-points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat and pVEGF-Ahigh populations. RESULTS: Of 481 patients randomised (242 placebo-paclitaxel; 239 bevacizumab-paclitaxel), 471 received study treatment. The stratified PFS hazard ratio was 0.68 (99% confidence interval, 0.51-0.91; log-rank p = 0.0007) in the intent-to-treat population (median 8.8 months with placebo-paclitaxel versus 11.0 months with bevacizumab-paclitaxel) and 0.64 (96% confidence interval, 0.47-0.88; log-rank p = 0.0038) in the pVEGF-Ahigh subgroup. The PFS treatment-by-VEGF-A interaction p value (secondary end-point) was 0.4619. Bevacizumab was associated with increased incidences of bleeding (all grades: 45% versus 27% with placebo), neutropenia (all grades: 39% versus 29%; grade >/=3: 25% versus 13%) and hypertension (all grades: 31% versus 13%; grade >/=3: 11% versus 4%). CONCLUSION: The significant PFS improvement with bevacizumab is consistent with previous placebo-controlled first-line trials in mBC. Results do not support using baseline pVEGF-A to identify patients benefitting most from bevacizumab.

Puhalla, S., S. Wilks, A. M. Brufsky, J. O’Shaughnessy, L. S. Schwartzberg, E. Berrak, J. Song and L. Vahdat (2016). “Clinical effects of prior trastuzumab on combination eribulin mesylate plus trastuzumab as first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: Results from a phase ii, single-arm, multicenter study.” Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 8: 231-239.

Full text of this article.

Eribulin mesylate, a novel nontaxane microtubule dynamics inhibitor in the halichondrin class of antineoplastic drugs, is indicated for the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer who previously received >/=2 chemotherapy regimens in the metastatic setting. Primary data from a Phase II trial for the first-line combination of eribulin plus trastuzumab in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive patients showed a 71% objective response rate and tolerability consistent with the known profile of these agents. Here, we present prespecified analyses of efficacy of this combination based on prior trastuzumab use. Patients received eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 (equivalent to 1.23 mg/m2 eribulin [expressed as free base]) intravenously on days 1 and 8 plus trastuzumab (8 mg/kg intravenously/cycle 1, then 6 mg/kg) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Objective response rates, progression-free survival, and tolerability were assessed in patients who had and had not received prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant (neo/adjuvant) trastuzumab treatment. Fifty-two patients (median age: 59.5 years) received eribulin/trastuzumab for a median treatment duration of ~31 weeks; 40.4% (n=21) had been previously treated with neo/adjuvant trastuzumab prior to treatment with eribulin plus trastuzumab for metastatic disease (median time between neo/adjuvant and study treatment: 23 months). In trastuzumab-naive patients (n=31) compared with those who had received prior trastuzumab, objective response rate was 77.4% versus 61.9%, respectively; duration of response was 11.8 versus 9.5 months, respectively; clinical benefit rate was 87.1% versus 81.0%, respectively; and median progression-free survival was 12.2 versus 11.5 months, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (occuring in >/=5% of patients) in patients who received prior trastuzumab versus trastuzumab naive patients, respectively, were neutropenia (47.6% vs 32.3%), peripheral neuropathy (14.3% vs 25.8%), febrile neutropenia (14.3% vs 3.2%), fatigue (9.5% vs 6.5%), nausea (9.5% vs 0%), vomiting (9.5% vs 3.2%), and leukopenia (9.5% vs 3.2%). In patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive metastatic breast cancer, first-line eribulin/trastuzumab treatment demonstrated substantial antitumor activity and was well tolerated, regardless of prior neo/adjuvant trastuzumab treatment.

Hortobagyi, G. N., S. M. Stemmer, H. A. Burris, Y. S. Yap, G. S. Sonke, S. Paluch-Shimon, M. Campone, K. L. Blackwell, F. Andre, E. P. Winer, W. Janni, S. Verma, P. Conte, C. L. Arteaga, D. A. Cameron, K. Petrakova, L. L. Hart, C. Villanueva, A. Chan, E. Jakobsen, A. Nusch, O. Burdaeva, E. M. Grischke, E. Alba, E. Wist, N. Marschner, A. M. Favret, D. Yardley, T. Bachelot, L. M. Tseng, S. Blau, F. Xuan, F. Souami, M. Miller, C. Germa, S. Hirawat and J. O’Shaughnessy (2016). “Ribociclib as first-line therapy for hr-positive, advanced breast cancer.” N Engl J Med 375(18): 1738-1748.

Full text of this article.

Background The inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) could potentially overcome or delay resistance to endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer that is positive for hormone receptor (HR) and negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Methods In this randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the selective CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib combined with letrozole for first-line treatment in 668 postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced disease. We randomly assigned the patients to receive either ribociclib (600 mg per day on a 3-weeks-on, 1-week-off schedule) plus letrozole (2.5 mg per day) or placebo plus letrozole. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed on January 29, 2016, after 243 patients had disease progression or died. Prespecified criteria for superiority required a hazard ratio of 0.56 or less with P<1.29x10-5. Results The duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ribociclib group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.72; P=3.29x10-6 for superiority). The median duration of follow-up was 15.3 months. After 18 months, the progression-free survival rate was 63.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.6 to 70.3) in the ribociclib group and 42.2% (95% CI, 34.8 to 49.5) in the placebo group. In patients with measurable disease at baseline, the overall response rate was 52.7% and 37.1%, respectively (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in more than 10% of the patients in either group were neutropenia (59.3% in the ribociclib group vs. 0.9% in the placebo group) and leukopenia (21.0% vs. 0.6%); the rates of discontinuation because of adverse events were 7.5% and 2.1%, respectively. Conclusions Among patients receiving initial systemic treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, the duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving ribociclib plus letrozole than among those receiving placebo plus letrozole, with a higher rate of myelosuppression in the ribociclib group.