Joyce O'Shaughnessy M.D.

Tan, A. R., G. S. Wright, A. R. Thummala, M. A. Danso, L. Popovic, T. J. Pluard, H. S. Han, Z. Vojnovic, N. Vasev, L. Ma, D. A. Richards, S. T. Wilks, D. Milenkovic, Z. Yang, J. M. Antal, S. R. Morris and J. O’Shaughnessy (2019). “Trilaciclib plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.” Lancet Oncology Sep 27. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Trilaciclib is an intravenous cell-cycle inhibitor that transiently maintains immune cells and haemopoietic stem and progenitor cells in G1 arrest. By protecting the immune cells and bone marrow from chemotherapy-induced damage, trilaciclib has the potential to optimise antitumour activity while minimising myelotoxicity. We report safety and activity data for trilaciclib plus gemcitabine and carboplatin chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study, adult patients (aged >/=18 years) with evaluable, biopsy-confirmed, locally recurrent or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who had no more than two previous lines of chemotherapy were recruited from 26 sites in the USA, three in Serbia, two in North Macedonia, one in Croatia, and one in Bulgaria; sites were academic and community hospitals. Availability of diagnostic samples of tumour tissue confirming triple-negative breast cancer was a prerequisite for enrolment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by an interactive web-response system, stratified by number of previous lines of systemic therapy and the presence of liver metastases, to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) and intravenous carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve 2 mug x h/mL) on days 1 and 8 (group 1), gemcitabine and carboplatin plus intravenous trilaciclib 240 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (group 2), or gemcitabine and carboplatin on days 2 and 9 plus trilaciclib on days 1, 2, 8, and 9 (group 3) of 21-day cycles. Patients continued treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or discontinuation by the investigator. The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of combining trilaciclib with gemcitabine and carboplatin chemotherapy. The primary endpoints were duration of severe neutropenia during cycle 1 and the occurrence of severe neutropenia during the treatment period. Overall survival was included as a key secondary endpoint. Analyses were in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with EudraCT, 2016-004466-26, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02978716, and is ongoing but closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2017, and May 15, 2018, 142 patients were assessed for eligibility and 102 were randomly assigned to group 1 (n=34), group 2 (n=33), or group 3 (n=35). Of all patients, 38 (37%) had received one or two lines of previous chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Median follow-up was 8.4 months (IQR 3.8-13.6) for group 1, 12.7 months (5.5-17.4) for group 2, and 12.9 months (6.7-16.8) for group 3. Data cutoff for myelosuppression endpoints was July 30, 2018, and for antitumour activity endpoints was May 17, 2019. During cycle 1, mean duration of severe neutropenia was 0.8 day (SD 2.4) in group 1, 1.5 days (3.5) in group 2, and 1.0 day (2.6) in group 3 (group 3 vs group 1 one-sided adjusted p=0.70). Severe neutropenia occurred in nine (26%) of 34 patients in group 1, 12 (36%) of 33 patients in group 2, and eight (23%) of 35 patients in group 3 (p=0.70). Overall survival was 12.6 months (IQR 5.8-15.6) in group 1, 20.1 months (9.4-not reached) in group 2, and 17.8 months (8.8-not reached) in group 3 (group 3 vs group 1 two-sided p=0.0023). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (22 [73%] of 34), neutropenia (21 [70%]), and thrombocytopenia (18 [60%]) in group 1; neutropenia (27 [82%] of 33), thrombocytopenia (18 [55%]) and anaemia (17 [52%]) in group 2; and neutropenia (23 [66%] of 35), thrombocytopenia (22 [63%]), and nausea (17 [49%]) in group 3. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: No significant differences were observed in myelosuppression endpoints with trilaciclib plus gemcitabine and carboplatin in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer; however, the regimen was generally well tolerated and overall survival results were encouraging. Further studies of trilaciclib in this setting are warranted. FUNDING: G1 Therapeutics.

Jones, V. E., K. J. McIntyre, D. Paul, S. T. Wilks, S. M. Ondreyco, S. Sedlacek, A. Melnyk, S. P. Oommen, Y. Wang, S. R. Peck and J. A. O’Shaughnessy (2019). “Evaluation of Miracle Mouthwash plus Hydrocortisone Versus Prednisolone Mouth Rinses as Prophylaxis for Everolimus-Associated Stomatitis: A Randomized Phase II Study.” Oncologist 24(9): 1153-1158.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor-associated stomatitis (mIAS) is a frequent adverse event (AE) associated with mTOR inhibitor therapy and can impact treatment adherence. The objectives are to evaluate two steroid-based mouthrinses for preventing/ameliorating mIAS in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treated with everolimus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, randomized phase II study enrolled 100 postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive MBC within the US Oncology Network who were initiating therapy with an aromatase inhibitor + everolimus (AIE; 10 mg/day). Patients were randomized to prophylactic therapy with one of two oral rinses (Arm 1: Miracle Mouthwash [MMW] 480 mL recipe: 320 mL oral Benadryl [diphenhydramine; Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA], 2 g tetracycline, 80 mg hydrocortisone, 40 mL nystatin suspension, water; or Arm 2: prednisolone [P] 15 mg/5 mL oral solution, 1.8% alcohol). Patients were instructed to swish/expectorate 10 mL of the assigned rinse for 1-2 minutes four times daily starting with day 1 of AIE treatment, for the first 12 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients received treatment (49 MMW; 51 P). The incidence of stomatitis/oral AEs during the first 12 weeks was 35% (n = 17/49) and 37% (19/51) in the MMW and P arms, respectively. The incidence of grade 2 oral AEs was 14% (7/49) and 12% (6/51) with MMW or P, respectively. There were two grade 3 oral AEs (MMW arm) and no grade 4 events. There was one everolimus dose reduction (MMW) and six dose delays (four MMW, two P) and one dose reduction + delay (MMW) during the first 12 weeks of treatment. No patients stopped steroid mouthwash therapy because of rinse-related toxicity. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic use of steroid-containing oral rinses can prevent/ameliorate mIAS in patients with MBC treated with AIE. MMW + hydrocortisone is an affordable option, as is dexamethasone oral rinse. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This prospective phase-II study showed that two steroid-containing mouthrinses substantially reduced incidences of all-grade and grade >/=2 stomatitis and related oral adverse events (AEs), and the number of everolimus dose-delays and/or dose-reduction in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients receiving everolimus treatment plus an aromatase inhibitor. Both oral rinses were well tolerated and demonstrated similar efficacy. Prophylactic use of steroid mouth rinse provides a cost-effective option that substantially decreases the incidence and severity of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor-associated stomatitis and related oral AEs as well as the need for dose modification in MBC patients undergoing treatment with an mTOR inhibitor.

Tew, B. Y., C. Legendre, M. A. Schroeder, T. Triche, G. C. Gooden, Y. Huang, L. Butry, D. J. Ma, K. Johnson, R. A. Martinez, M. Pierobon, E. F. Petricoin, J. O’Shaughnessy, C. Osborne, C. Tapia, D. N. Buckley, J. Glen, M. Bernstein, J. N. Sarkaria, S. A. Toms and B. Salhia (2019). “Patient-derived xenografts of central nervous system metastasis reveal expansion of aggressive minor clones.” Neuro Oncol Aug 21. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: The dearth of relevant tumor models reflecting the heterogeneity of human central nervous system metastasis (CM) has hindered development of novel therapies. METHODS: We established 39 CM patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models representing the histological spectrum, and performed phenotypic and multi-omic characterization of PDXs and their original patient tumors. PDX clonal evolution was also reconstructed using allele-specific copy number and somatic variants. RESULTS: PDXs retained their metastatic potential, with flank-implanted PDXs forming spontaneous metastases in multiple organs, including brain, and CM subsequent to intra-cardiac injection. PDXs also retained the histological and molecular profiles of the original patient tumors, including retention of genomic aberrations and signaling pathways. Novel modes of clonal evolution involving rapid expansion by a minor clone were identified in two PDXs, including CM13, which was highly aggressive in vivo forming multiple spontaneous metastases, including to brain. These PDXs had little molecular resemblance to the patient donor tumor, including reversion to a copy number neutral genome, no shared non-synonymous mutations, and no correlation by gene expression. CONCLUSIONS: We generated a diverse and novel repertoire of PDXs that provides a new set of tools to enhance our knowledge of CM biology and improve preclinical testing. Furthermore, our study suggests that minor clone succession may confer tumor aggressiveness and potentiate brain metastasis.

Patterson-Lomba, O., A. A. Dalal, R. Ayyagari, O. Liu, E. Dervishi, E. Platt, D. Chandiwana and J. A. O’Shaughnessy (2019). “Systematic literature review of clinical trials of endocrine therapies for premenopausal women with metastatic HR+ HER2- breast cancer.” Breast J Jul 9. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

Several endocrine-based therapies have recently been evaluated as treatments for premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive/human-epidermal-growth-factor-receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We conducted a systematic review and assessed the feasibility of an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) to characterize the comparative efficacy of endocrine-based therapies in this setting. A systematic literature review (SLR) of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and key conferences was performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) satisfying the following criteria: (a) included pre/perimenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC, (b) included endocrine-based therapies, (c) reported efficacy, safety, or quality of life outcomes, and (d) was published in 2007 or later (when HER2 testing was standardized). The clinical and methodological similarities across trials were assessed to evaluate the feasibility of an ITC. Four RCTs (PALOMA-3, MONARCH-2, KCSG BR10-04 and MONALEESA-7) and eight regimens (palbociclib + fulvestrant + goserelin, fulvestrant + goserelin, abemaciclib + fulvestrant + gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist [GnRHa], fulvestrant + GnRHa, anastrozole + goserelin, goserelin, ribociclib + NSAI/tamoxifen + goserelin and NSAI/tamoxifen + goserelin) were selected. MONALEESA-7 was the only phase 3 trial investigating endocrine-based therapies as first-line in only pre/perimenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC; the other three trials focused on the ET-failure setting and their pre/perimenopausal populations were relatively small. ITCs were methodologically unfeasible due to critical differences in treatment settings and lack of common comparators across trials. Therefore, we were not able to characterize the relative efficacy of the different endocrine-based therapies available in the premenopausal HR+/HER2- mBC setting. This systematic review provides a comprehensive assessment of the available trial evidence on the efficacy and safety of endocrine-based therapies for premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC. Only four trials have reported relevant data in this setting, and MONALEESA-7 is currently the only trial focused on premenopausal HR+ HER2- mBC in the first-line setting.

Schwartzberg, L., K. McIntyre, S. Wilks, S. Puhalla, J. O’Shaughnessy, E. Berrak, Y. He and L. Vahdat (2019). “Health-related quality of life in patients receiving first-line eribulin mesylate with or without trastuzumab for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.” BMC Cancer 19(1): 578.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Eribulin mesylate is a nontaxane microtubule dynamics inhibitor approved for second-line (European Union) or third-line (United States) treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Two phase 2 single trials, evaluating first-line eribulin as monotherapy (Study 206; NCT01268150) or in combination with trastuzumab (Study 208; NCT01269346) in locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, demonstrated objective response rates of 28.6 and 71.2%, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 6.8 and 11.6 months, respectively. Tolerability profiles were similar to those from previous studies. This secondary analysis was conducted to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in both phase 2 trials. METHODS: Patients received eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle. Patients in Study 208 also received intravenous trastuzumab on day 1 of each cycle (8 mg/kg in cycle 1, then 6 mg/kg). HRQoL was assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life (QLQ-C30) assessment tool and the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire for Breast Cancer (QLQ-BR23) at baseline and cycles 2, 4, and 6. Results for clinically meaningful changes were based on previously published minimum important differences. RESULTS: Of the 108 patients (56 in Study 206 and 52 in Study 208) treated, 57 and 87%, respectively, completed 6 cycles. Completion rates for both questionnaires were 94 and 98%, respectively, at cycle 6. Most patients had stable/improved HRQoL scores with some exceptions; for example, more patients experienced a worsening in cognitive functioning and systemic therapy side effects than experienced improvement. Mean QLQ-C30 symptom scores correlated with corresponding adverse event rates for nausea/vomiting, dyspnea, appetite loss, constipation, and diarrhea in Study 206 and for fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, constipation, and diarrhea in Study 208. CONCLUSIONS: First-line eribulin +/- trastuzumab therapy did not lead to deterioration of overall HRQoL in most patients, with more than 60% of patients having stable/improved global health status/quality-of-life scores. Eribulin has been demonstrated to be comparable with other chemotherapy agents with an acceptable safety profile. Therefore, further evaluation is warranted to determine whether eribulin +/- trastuzumab therapy may be a potential option for first-line treatment in some patients with metastatic breast cancer who were recently treated in the neoadjuvant setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01268150 (December 29, 2010), NCT01269346 (January 4, 2011).