Neil Osterweil

SAN DIEGO – Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for transplant had a 44% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death when they were treated with the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab (Darzalex) added to lenalidomide (Revlimid) and dexamethasone, compared with lenalidomide-dexamethasone alone, an interim analysis from the MAIA trial showed.

Among 737 patients in a phase 3 trial, median progression-free survival – the primary endpoint – had not been reached after a median follow-up of 28 months for patients randomized to daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd), versus 31.9 months for patients randomized to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd).

The 30-month PFS rate in the DRd arm was 71%, compared with 56% for the Rd arm. This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression of 0.56 (P less than .0001), reported Thierry Facon, MD, of Hôpital Claude Huriez and the University of Lille, France.

“These results support DRd as a new standard of care for elderly patients with myeloma who are ineligible for transplant,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Dr. Facon and his colleagues had previously shown in the FIRST trial that in newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible patients, continuous treatment with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone was associated with significant overall survival and PFS benefits, compared with melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide.

In the POLLUX trial, investigators reported that in patients with multiple myeloma that was refractory or had relapsed after at least one prior line of therapy, the DRd combination was associated with a 63% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death, compared with Rd alone.
 

MAIA details

The MAIA trial is a pivotal, phase 3 study pitting DRd against Rd in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Patients with untreated disease who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status of 0-2 and creatinine clearance rates of at least 30 mL/min were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to either DRd, with intravenous daratumumab 16 mg/kg weekly for cycles 1 and 2, every other week for cycles 3 through 6, and every 4 weeks from cycle 7 until disease progression, plus lenalidomide 25 mg orally per day on days 1-21 until disease progression, and dexamethasone 40 mg orally or intravenously weekly until disease progression; or to the same regimen without daratumumab.

The median patient age was 73 years and 99% of all patients were aged 65 years or older. Demographic and clinical characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms.

The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was superior with DRd.

DRd also was associated with a significantly higher overall response rate (93% vs. 81%), complete response rate (48% vs. 25%), very good partial response or better rate (79% vs. 53%), and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (24% vs. 7%; P less than .0001 for all comparisons).

The DRd combination was associated with infusion-related reactions in 41% of patients, but only 3% were grade 3 or 4 in severity.

Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) grade 3 or greater that were more common with DRd included neutropenia (50% vs. 35%) and lymphopenia (15% vs. 11%). Conversely, thrombocytopenia (7% vs. 9%, grade 3 or 4) and anemia (12% vs. 20%) were more frequent with Rd.

Nonhematologic TEAEs that were more frequent with DRd included diarrhea, constipation, fatigue, peripheral edema, and pneumonia. Rates of asthenia, back pain, nausea, and deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism were similar between the study arms.

Janssen funded the study. Dr. Facon reported speakers bureau and advisory board participation for Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; and advisory board participation for Sanofi, Amgen, Karyopharm, and Oncopeptides.

SOURCE: Facon T et al. ASH 2018, Abstract LBA-2.

SAN DIEGO – Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for transplant had a 44% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death when they were treated with the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab (Darzalex) added to lenalidomide (Revlimid) and dexamethasone, compared with lenalidomide-dexamethasone alone, an interim analysis from the MAIA trial showed.

Among 737 patients in a phase 3 trial, median progression-free survival – the primary endpoint – had not been reached after a median follow-up of 28 months for patients randomized to daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd), versus 31.9 months for patients randomized to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd).

The 30-month PFS rate in the DRd arm was 71%, compared with 56% for the Rd arm. This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression of 0.56 (P less than .0001), reported Thierry Facon, MD, of Hôpital Claude Huriez and the University of Lille, France.

“These results support DRd as a new standard of care for elderly patients with myeloma who are ineligible for transplant,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Dr. Facon and his colleagues had previously shown in the FIRST trial that in newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible patients, continuous treatment with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone was associated with significant overall survival and PFS benefits, compared with melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide.

In the POLLUX trial, investigators reported that in patients with multiple myeloma that was refractory or had relapsed after at least one prior line of therapy, the DRd combination was associated with a 63% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death, compared with Rd alone.
 

MAIA details

The MAIA trial is a pivotal, phase 3 study pitting DRd against Rd in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Patients with untreated disease who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status of 0-2 and creatinine clearance rates of at least 30 mL/min were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to either DRd, with intravenous daratumumab 16 mg/kg weekly for cycles 1 and 2, every other week for cycles 3 through 6, and every 4 weeks from cycle 7 until disease progression, plus lenalidomide 25 mg orally per day on days 1-21 until disease progression, and dexamethasone 40 mg orally or intravenously weekly until disease progression; or to the same regimen without daratumumab.

The median patient age was 73 years and 99% of all patients were aged 65 years or older. Demographic and clinical characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms.

The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was superior with DRd.

DRd also was associated with a significantly higher overall response rate (93% vs. 81%), complete response rate (48% vs. 25%), very good partial response or better rate (79% vs. 53%), and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (24% vs. 7%; P less than .0001 for all comparisons).

The DRd combination was associated with infusion-related reactions in 41% of patients, but only 3% were grade 3 or 4 in severity.

Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) grade 3 or greater that were more common with DRd included neutropenia (50% vs. 35%) and lymphopenia (15% vs. 11%). Conversely, thrombocytopenia (7% vs. 9%, grade 3 or 4) and anemia (12% vs. 20%) were more frequent with Rd.

Nonhematologic TEAEs that were more frequent with DRd included diarrhea, constipation, fatigue, peripheral edema, and pneumonia. Rates of asthenia, back pain, nausea, and deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism were similar between the study arms.

Janssen funded the study. Dr. Facon reported speakers bureau and advisory board participation for Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; and advisory board participation for Sanofi, Amgen, Karyopharm, and Oncopeptides.

SOURCE: Facon T et al. ASH 2018, Abstract LBA-2.

SAN DIEGO – Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for transplant had a 44% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death when they were treated with the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab (Darzalex) added to lenalidomide (Revlimid) and dexamethasone, compared with lenalidomide-dexamethasone alone, an interim analysis from the MAIA trial showed.

Among 737 patients in a phase 3 trial, median progression-free survival – the primary endpoint – had not been reached after a median follow-up of 28 months for patients randomized to daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd), versus 31.9 months for patients randomized to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd).

The 30-month PFS rate in the DRd arm was 71%, compared with 56% for the Rd arm. This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression of 0.56 (P less than .0001), reported Thierry Facon, MD, of Hôpital Claude Huriez and the University of Lille, France.

“These results support DRd as a new standard of care for elderly patients with myeloma who are ineligible for transplant,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Dr. Facon and his colleagues had previously shown in the FIRST trial that in newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible patients, continuous treatment with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone was associated with significant overall survival and PFS benefits, compared with melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide.

In the POLLUX trial, investigators reported that in patients with multiple myeloma that was refractory or had relapsed after at least one prior line of therapy, the DRd combination was associated with a 63% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death, compared with Rd alone.
 

MAIA details

The MAIA trial is a pivotal, phase 3 study pitting DRd against Rd in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Patients with untreated disease who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status of 0-2 and creatinine clearance rates of at least 30 mL/min were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to either DRd, with intravenous daratumumab 16 mg/kg weekly for cycles 1 and 2, every other week for cycles 3 through 6, and every 4 weeks from cycle 7 until disease progression, plus lenalidomide 25 mg orally per day on days 1-21 until disease progression, and dexamethasone 40 mg orally or intravenously weekly until disease progression; or to the same regimen without daratumumab.

The median patient age was 73 years and 99% of all patients were aged 65 years or older. Demographic and clinical characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms.

The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was superior with DRd.

DRd also was associated with a significantly higher overall response rate (93% vs. 81%), complete response rate (48% vs. 25%), very good partial response or better rate (79% vs. 53%), and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (24% vs. 7%; P less than .0001 for all comparisons).

The DRd combination was associated with infusion-related reactions in 41% of patients, but only 3% were grade 3 or 4 in severity.

Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) grade 3 or greater that were more common with DRd included neutropenia (50% vs. 35%) and lymphopenia (15% vs. 11%). Conversely, thrombocytopenia (7% vs. 9%, grade 3 or 4) and anemia (12% vs. 20%) were more frequent with Rd.

Nonhematologic TEAEs that were more frequent with DRd included diarrhea, constipation, fatigue, peripheral edema, and pneumonia. Rates of asthenia, back pain, nausea, and deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism were similar between the study arms.

Janssen funded the study. Dr. Facon reported speakers bureau and advisory board participation for Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; and advisory board participation for Sanofi, Amgen, Karyopharm, and Oncopeptides.

SOURCE: Facon T et al. ASH 2018, Abstract LBA-2.

SAN ANTONIO – Circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts could serve as a standalone biomarker for determining which patients with newly diagnosed estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer are at high risk and should receive first-line chemotherapy and which are at low risk and could safely receive upfront hormonal therapy.

In the phase 3 STIC CTC trial, there were no significant differences in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) or a secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) between patients whose treatments were assigned according to the clinicians’ judgment and those whose treatments were chosen based on CTC count, reported Francois-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, from Institut Curie in St. Cloud, France.

“CTC count should or may be included in the decision algorithm for hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients,” he said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The CTC investigators sought to compare CTC-driven clinical decisions with the clinicians choice for first-line therapy in 778 patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Patients were stratified by performance status (0-3), treatment center, and disease-free interval and were randomly assigned to receive therapy based on either the clinician’s judgment of the best course of therapy for each patient or to CTC count, with a cutoff of less than 5 CTC/7.5 mL indicating hormonal therapy and 5 CTC/7.5 mL or above indicating higher-risk disease requiring chemotherapy. In the clinician’s choice arm, the CTC reading was recorded but not implemented, and in the CTC arm, the clinician’s choice was dismissed.

The trial protocol did not specify a chemotherapy regimen, and patients initially assigned to chemotherapy were allowed to have maintenance hormonal therapy.

At 42 months of follow-up, median PFS in the CTC arm was 15.6 months, compared with 14.0 months in the clinician choice arm. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.92 (90% confidence interval, 0.80-1.06), and the trial met its primary noninferiority endpoint with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.25.

The OS rate at 24 months in the CTC group was 82.1%, and in the clinician choice arm was 81.4% (nonsignificant).

Planned subgroup analyses in which the two decision methods were in agreement on whether a patient was at either low or high risk found no significant differences in either PFS or OS, showing that the CTC count complemented the prognostic estimate and isolated patients with either excellent or poor outcomes.


However, when the clinician rated the risk as low but the CTC count rated it as high (196 patients), PFS was significantly higher with CTC (HR, 0.62; P = .002). OS did not differ in this circumstance.

In an exploratory analysis combining all patients with discordant findings (clinician low/CTC high or vice versa), the investigators determined that chemotherapy would offer a significant advantage for both PFS (HR, 0.66; adjusted P = .001) and OS (HR, 0.65; adjusted P = .04).

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at the University of Texas, San Antonio, who moderated a briefing where Dr. Bidard discussed the findings prior to presentation in a general session, said that she is not fully convinced that CTC counts can substitute for the clinician’s discretion. “I would probably want to see another study or some more data.”

She noted that for the patient population in this study clinicians today often prescribe cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors in the first-line setting over conventional chemotherapy.

“But it is true that CDK 4/6 inhibitors, besides their cost, $10,000 a month, also are toxic to our patients. They cause neutropenias, increase infections, some diarrhea, so if there is a group I can potentially save from taking a CDK 4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting I’d love to do that. In the metastatic setting what we’re trying to do for years is deescalate therapy, so the idea of giving chemotherapy instead of endocrine therapy is a little foreign to us,” Dr. Kaklamani said.

The strength of the study, however, is that it’s the first to show a survival benefit using CTCs as a diagnostic aid, she added.

Lisa A. Carey, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the technology is promising, but not ready for prime time.

“To be honest, it didn’t appear to me that it helped very much, so that particular approach I don’t think is likely to have much benefit for patients. But the concept is an excellent one, and I do think that’s something we need to take home, that this is an area of an unmet need,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of France, Institut Curie, and Menarini. Dr. Bidard reported receiving research funding and travel grants from Menarini. Dr. Kaklamani and Dr. Carey reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bidard F-C et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS3-07.

SAN ANTONIO – Circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts could serve as a standalone biomarker for determining which patients with newly diagnosed estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer are at high risk and should receive first-line chemotherapy and which are at low risk and could safely receive upfront hormonal therapy.

In the phase 3 STIC CTC trial, there were no significant differences in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) or a secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) between patients whose treatments were assigned according to the clinicians’ judgment and those whose treatments were chosen based on CTC count, reported Francois-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, from Institut Curie in St. Cloud, France.

“CTC count should or may be included in the decision algorithm for hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients,” he said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The CTC investigators sought to compare CTC-driven clinical decisions with the clinicians choice for first-line therapy in 778 patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Patients were stratified by performance status (0-3), treatment center, and disease-free interval and were randomly assigned to receive therapy based on either the clinician’s judgment of the best course of therapy for each patient or to CTC count, with a cutoff of less than 5 CTC/7.5 mL indicating hormonal therapy and 5 CTC/7.5 mL or above indicating higher-risk disease requiring chemotherapy. In the clinician’s choice arm, the CTC reading was recorded but not implemented, and in the CTC arm, the clinician’s choice was dismissed.

The trial protocol did not specify a chemotherapy regimen, and patients initially assigned to chemotherapy were allowed to have maintenance hormonal therapy.

At 42 months of follow-up, median PFS in the CTC arm was 15.6 months, compared with 14.0 months in the clinician choice arm. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.92 (90% confidence interval, 0.80-1.06), and the trial met its primary noninferiority endpoint with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.25.

The OS rate at 24 months in the CTC group was 82.1%, and in the clinician choice arm was 81.4% (nonsignificant).

Planned subgroup analyses in which the two decision methods were in agreement on whether a patient was at either low or high risk found no significant differences in either PFS or OS, showing that the CTC count complemented the prognostic estimate and isolated patients with either excellent or poor outcomes.


However, when the clinician rated the risk as low but the CTC count rated it as high (196 patients), PFS was significantly higher with CTC (HR, 0.62; P = .002). OS did not differ in this circumstance.

In an exploratory analysis combining all patients with discordant findings (clinician low/CTC high or vice versa), the investigators determined that chemotherapy would offer a significant advantage for both PFS (HR, 0.66; adjusted P = .001) and OS (HR, 0.65; adjusted P = .04).

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at the University of Texas, San Antonio, who moderated a briefing where Dr. Bidard discussed the findings prior to presentation in a general session, said that she is not fully convinced that CTC counts can substitute for the clinician’s discretion. “I would probably want to see another study or some more data.”

She noted that for the patient population in this study clinicians today often prescribe cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors in the first-line setting over conventional chemotherapy.

“But it is true that CDK 4/6 inhibitors, besides their cost, $10,000 a month, also are toxic to our patients. They cause neutropenias, increase infections, some diarrhea, so if there is a group I can potentially save from taking a CDK 4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting I’d love to do that. In the metastatic setting what we’re trying to do for years is deescalate therapy, so the idea of giving chemotherapy instead of endocrine therapy is a little foreign to us,” Dr. Kaklamani said.

The strength of the study, however, is that it’s the first to show a survival benefit using CTCs as a diagnostic aid, she added.

Lisa A. Carey, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the technology is promising, but not ready for prime time.

“To be honest, it didn’t appear to me that it helped very much, so that particular approach I don’t think is likely to have much benefit for patients. But the concept is an excellent one, and I do think that’s something we need to take home, that this is an area of an unmet need,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of France, Institut Curie, and Menarini. Dr. Bidard reported receiving research funding and travel grants from Menarini. Dr. Kaklamani and Dr. Carey reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bidard F-C et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS3-07.

SAN ANTONIO – Circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts could serve as a standalone biomarker for determining which patients with newly diagnosed estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer are at high risk and should receive first-line chemotherapy and which are at low risk and could safely receive upfront hormonal therapy.

In the phase 3 STIC CTC trial, there were no significant differences in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) or a secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) between patients whose treatments were assigned according to the clinicians’ judgment and those whose treatments were chosen based on CTC count, reported Francois-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, from Institut Curie in St. Cloud, France.

“CTC count should or may be included in the decision algorithm for hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients,” he said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The CTC investigators sought to compare CTC-driven clinical decisions with the clinicians choice for first-line therapy in 778 patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Patients were stratified by performance status (0-3), treatment center, and disease-free interval and were randomly assigned to receive therapy based on either the clinician’s judgment of the best course of therapy for each patient or to CTC count, with a cutoff of less than 5 CTC/7.5 mL indicating hormonal therapy and 5 CTC/7.5 mL or above indicating higher-risk disease requiring chemotherapy. In the clinician’s choice arm, the CTC reading was recorded but not implemented, and in the CTC arm, the clinician’s choice was dismissed.

The trial protocol did not specify a chemotherapy regimen, and patients initially assigned to chemotherapy were allowed to have maintenance hormonal therapy.

At 42 months of follow-up, median PFS in the CTC arm was 15.6 months, compared with 14.0 months in the clinician choice arm. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.92 (90% confidence interval, 0.80-1.06), and the trial met its primary noninferiority endpoint with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.25.

The OS rate at 24 months in the CTC group was 82.1%, and in the clinician choice arm was 81.4% (nonsignificant).

Planned subgroup analyses in which the two decision methods were in agreement on whether a patient was at either low or high risk found no significant differences in either PFS or OS, showing that the CTC count complemented the prognostic estimate and isolated patients with either excellent or poor outcomes.


However, when the clinician rated the risk as low but the CTC count rated it as high (196 patients), PFS was significantly higher with CTC (HR, 0.62; P = .002). OS did not differ in this circumstance.

In an exploratory analysis combining all patients with discordant findings (clinician low/CTC high or vice versa), the investigators determined that chemotherapy would offer a significant advantage for both PFS (HR, 0.66; adjusted P = .001) and OS (HR, 0.65; adjusted P = .04).

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at the University of Texas, San Antonio, who moderated a briefing where Dr. Bidard discussed the findings prior to presentation in a general session, said that she is not fully convinced that CTC counts can substitute for the clinician’s discretion. “I would probably want to see another study or some more data.”

She noted that for the patient population in this study clinicians today often prescribe cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors in the first-line setting over conventional chemotherapy.

“But it is true that CDK 4/6 inhibitors, besides their cost, $10,000 a month, also are toxic to our patients. They cause neutropenias, increase infections, some diarrhea, so if there is a group I can potentially save from taking a CDK 4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting I’d love to do that. In the metastatic setting what we’re trying to do for years is deescalate therapy, so the idea of giving chemotherapy instead of endocrine therapy is a little foreign to us,” Dr. Kaklamani said.

The strength of the study, however, is that it’s the first to show a survival benefit using CTCs as a diagnostic aid, she added.

Lisa A. Carey, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the technology is promising, but not ready for prime time.

“To be honest, it didn’t appear to me that it helped very much, so that particular approach I don’t think is likely to have much benefit for patients. But the concept is an excellent one, and I do think that’s something we need to take home, that this is an area of an unmet need,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of France, Institut Curie, and Menarini. Dr. Bidard reported receiving research funding and travel grants from Menarini. Dr. Kaklamani and Dr. Carey reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bidard F-C et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS3-07.

©ASH/Scott Morgan 2018

SAN DIEGO—In a phase 3 trial, ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) improved survival when compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy in patients younger than 70 with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Patients who received IR had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared to patients who received fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

“This establishes ibrutinib-based therapy as the most effective treatment tested to date in this disease for untreated patients,” said Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, of Stanford University in California.

In fact, the study results are likely to dethrone FCR as the most active chemoimmunotherapy regimen against CLL, Dr. Shanafelt said.

He presented the results during the late-breaking abstract session at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract LBA-4*).

The trial (NCT02048813) included 529 patients age 70 or younger with previously untreated CLL. They were randomized on a 2:1 basis to either six cycles of FCR according to standard protocols (n=175) or IR (n=354).

IR consisted of ibrutinib given at 420 mg daily for each 28-day cycle and rituximab given at 50 mg/m² on day 1 of cycle 2, at 325 mg/m² on day 2 of cycle 2, and at 500 mg/m² on day 1 for cycles 3 to 7.

From cycle 8 on, patients in the IR arm received daily ibrutinib at 420 mg until disease progression.

Dr. Shanafelt said patient characteristics were well-balanced between the treatment arms.

He presented results from both an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis and a per-protocol analysis excluding 22 patients in the IR arm and nine patients in the FCR arm who were randomized but later found not to meet eligibility criteria.

PFS

In the ITT analysis, there were 37 cases of progression or death in the IR arm and 40 cases in the FCR arm. This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death of 0.35 with IR (P<0.00001).

In the per-protocol analysis, there were 33 cases of progression or death in the IR arm and 39 cases in the FCR arm. The HR was 0.32 favoring IR (P<0.00001).

In a subgroup analysis of PFS, IR was superior to FCR regardless of patient age, sex, performance status, disease stage, or the presence or absence of the 11q23.3 deletion.

PFS was significantly better with IR in patients with unmutated IGHV (HR= 0.26, P<0.00001) but not in patients with mutated IGHV (HR=0.44, P=0.07).

Overall survival

In the ITT analysis, there were four deaths in the IR arm and 10 in the FCR arm (HR=0.17, P<0.0003).

In the per-protocol analysis, there were three deaths in the IR arm and 10 deaths in the FCR arm (HR=0.13, P<0.0001).

Dr. Shanafelt noted that, although the overall number of deaths was relatively small, there were twice as many patients enrolled in the IR arm as in the FCR arm, meaning the rate of death in the FCR arm was five-fold higher than in the IR arm.

Safety and cost

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 58.5% of patients in the IR arm and 72.1% of patients in the FCR arm (P=0.004).

Specific AEs that occurred significantly less often with IR included neutropenia (22.7% vs. 43.7%), anemia (2.6% vs. 12.0%), thrombocytopenia (2.9% vs. 13.9%), any infection (7.1% vs. 19.0%), and neutropenic fever (2.3% vs. 15.8%; P<0.001 for all comparisons).

AEs that occurred more frequently with IR than FCR included atrial fibrillation (2.9% vs. 0%, P=0.04) and hypertension (7.4% vs. 1.9%, P=0.01).

Dr. Shanafelt acknowledged that one possible barrier to the IR regimen is cost. The monthly cost of ibrutinib maintenance is about $10,000, he said, although he noted that cost considerations were not studied in the trial.

“Future trials testing novel agent combinations to see if we can eliminate the need for chronic therapy should be pursued,” he said.

The trial was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute with additional support from Pharmacyclics. Dr. Shanafelt reported patents and royalties from the Mayo Clinic, and research funding from Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

©ASH/Scott Morgan 2018

SAN DIEGO—In a phase 3 trial, ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) improved survival when compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy in patients younger than 70 with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Patients who received IR had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared to patients who received fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

“This establishes ibrutinib-based therapy as the most effective treatment tested to date in this disease for untreated patients,” said Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, of Stanford University in California.

In fact, the study results are likely to dethrone FCR as the most active chemoimmunotherapy regimen against CLL, Dr. Shanafelt said.

He presented the results during the late-breaking abstract session at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract LBA-4*).

The trial (NCT02048813) included 529 patients age 70 or younger with previously untreated CLL. They were randomized on a 2:1 basis to either six cycles of FCR according to standard protocols (n=175) or IR (n=354).

IR consisted of ibrutinib given at 420 mg daily for each 28-day cycle and rituximab given at 50 mg/m² on day 1 of cycle 2, at 325 mg/m² on day 2 of cycle 2, and at 500 mg/m² on day 1 for cycles 3 to 7.

From cycle 8 on, patients in the IR arm received daily ibrutinib at 420 mg until disease progression.

Dr. Shanafelt said patient characteristics were well-balanced between the treatment arms.

He presented results from both an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis and a per-protocol analysis excluding 22 patients in the IR arm and nine patients in the FCR arm who were randomized but later found not to meet eligibility criteria.

PFS

In the ITT analysis, there were 37 cases of progression or death in the IR arm and 40 cases in the FCR arm. This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death of 0.35 with IR (P<0.00001).

In the per-protocol analysis, there were 33 cases of progression or death in the IR arm and 39 cases in the FCR arm. The HR was 0.32 favoring IR (P<0.00001).

In a subgroup analysis of PFS, IR was superior to FCR regardless of patient age, sex, performance status, disease stage, or the presence or absence of the 11q23.3 deletion.

PFS was significantly better with IR in patients with unmutated IGHV (HR= 0.26, P<0.00001) but not in patients with mutated IGHV (HR=0.44, P=0.07).

Overall survival

In the ITT analysis, there were four deaths in the IR arm and 10 in the FCR arm (HR=0.17, P<0.0003).

In the per-protocol analysis, there were three deaths in the IR arm and 10 deaths in the FCR arm (HR=0.13, P<0.0001).

Dr. Shanafelt noted that, although the overall number of deaths was relatively small, there were twice as many patients enrolled in the IR arm as in the FCR arm, meaning the rate of death in the FCR arm was five-fold higher than in the IR arm.

Safety and cost

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 58.5% of patients in the IR arm and 72.1% of patients in the FCR arm (P=0.004).

Specific AEs that occurred significantly less often with IR included neutropenia (22.7% vs. 43.7%), anemia (2.6% vs. 12.0%), thrombocytopenia (2.9% vs. 13.9%), any infection (7.1% vs. 19.0%), and neutropenic fever (2.3% vs. 15.8%; P<0.001 for all comparisons).

AEs that occurred more frequently with IR than FCR included atrial fibrillation (2.9% vs. 0%, P=0.04) and hypertension (7.4% vs. 1.9%, P=0.01).

Dr. Shanafelt acknowledged that one possible barrier to the IR regimen is cost. The monthly cost of ibrutinib maintenance is about $10,000, he said, although he noted that cost considerations were not studied in the trial.

“Future trials testing novel agent combinations to see if we can eliminate the need for chronic therapy should be pursued,” he said.

The trial was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute with additional support from Pharmacyclics. Dr. Shanafelt reported patents and royalties from the Mayo Clinic, and research funding from Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

©ASH/Scott Morgan 2018

SAN DIEGO—In a phase 3 trial, ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) improved survival when compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy in patients younger than 70 with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Patients who received IR had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared to patients who received fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

“This establishes ibrutinib-based therapy as the most effective treatment tested to date in this disease for untreated patients,” said Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, of Stanford University in California.

In fact, the study results are likely to dethrone FCR as the most active chemoimmunotherapy regimen against CLL, Dr. Shanafelt said.

He presented the results during the late-breaking abstract session at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract LBA-4*).

The trial (NCT02048813) included 529 patients age 70 or younger with previously untreated CLL. They were randomized on a 2:1 basis to either six cycles of FCR according to standard protocols (n=175) or IR (n=354).

IR consisted of ibrutinib given at 420 mg daily for each 28-day cycle and rituximab given at 50 mg/m² on day 1 of cycle 2, at 325 mg/m² on day 2 of cycle 2, and at 500 mg/m² on day 1 for cycles 3 to 7.

From cycle 8 on, patients in the IR arm received daily ibrutinib at 420 mg until disease progression.

Dr. Shanafelt said patient characteristics were well-balanced between the treatment arms.

He presented results from both an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis and a per-protocol analysis excluding 22 patients in the IR arm and nine patients in the FCR arm who were randomized but later found not to meet eligibility criteria.

PFS

In the ITT analysis, there were 37 cases of progression or death in the IR arm and 40 cases in the FCR arm. This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death of 0.35 with IR (P<0.00001).

In the per-protocol analysis, there were 33 cases of progression or death in the IR arm and 39 cases in the FCR arm. The HR was 0.32 favoring IR (P<0.00001).

In a subgroup analysis of PFS, IR was superior to FCR regardless of patient age, sex, performance status, disease stage, or the presence or absence of the 11q23.3 deletion.

PFS was significantly better with IR in patients with unmutated IGHV (HR= 0.26, P<0.00001) but not in patients with mutated IGHV (HR=0.44, P=0.07).

Overall survival

In the ITT analysis, there were four deaths in the IR arm and 10 in the FCR arm (HR=0.17, P<0.0003).

In the per-protocol analysis, there were three deaths in the IR arm and 10 deaths in the FCR arm (HR=0.13, P<0.0001).

Dr. Shanafelt noted that, although the overall number of deaths was relatively small, there were twice as many patients enrolled in the IR arm as in the FCR arm, meaning the rate of death in the FCR arm was five-fold higher than in the IR arm.

Safety and cost

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 58.5% of patients in the IR arm and 72.1% of patients in the FCR arm (P=0.004).

Specific AEs that occurred significantly less often with IR included neutropenia (22.7% vs. 43.7%), anemia (2.6% vs. 12.0%), thrombocytopenia (2.9% vs. 13.9%), any infection (7.1% vs. 19.0%), and neutropenic fever (2.3% vs. 15.8%; P<0.001 for all comparisons).

AEs that occurred more frequently with IR than FCR included atrial fibrillation (2.9% vs. 0%, P=0.04) and hypertension (7.4% vs. 1.9%, P=0.01).

Dr. Shanafelt acknowledged that one possible barrier to the IR regimen is cost. The monthly cost of ibrutinib maintenance is about $10,000, he said, although he noted that cost considerations were not studied in the trial.

“Future trials testing novel agent combinations to see if we can eliminate the need for chronic therapy should be pursued,” he said.

The trial was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute with additional support from Pharmacyclics. Dr. Shanafelt reported patents and royalties from the Mayo Clinic, and research funding from Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

SAN ANTONIO – When disseminated tumor cells – even a single cell – are detected in the bone marrow of patients with early breast cancer, it’s not a good sign, according to results of pooled international analysis.

The presence of disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) in marrow at the time of primary diagnosis was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and distant disease-free survival (DDFS), reported Andreas Daniel Hartkopf, MD, MSc, of the University of Tübingen, Germany, on behalf of colleagues in the PADDY study.

“The DTC detection was associated with higher local tumor burden and more aggressive biological subtype,” he said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The PADDY (Pooled Analysis of DTC Detection in Early Breast Cancer) study is an international cooperative effort designed to evaluate the association between DTC detection in patients with early breast cancer and clinical outcomes.

The investigators collected individual data sets including information on bone marrow samples from 10,307 patients treated at 11 centers in the United States and Europe.

The patients had early invasive breast cancer (T1-4, NO-3, M0) and for inclusion in the study had to have had bone marrow aspiration performed at the time of diagnosis or during primary surgery, with no prior systemic therapy. DTCs were detected by cytokeratin staining.

Patients were defined as being DTC positive if one or more DTCs were detected.

A total of 2,814 of the 10,307 patients (27.3%) were DTC positive. DTC status was not significantly associated with menopausal status or tumor histology (invasive ductal, invasive lobular, or other), but was positively associated with tumor grade, with 21.1% of patients with grade 1 tumors being DTC positive, compared with 27.2% with grade 2 tumors, and 29.9% with grade 3 tumors (P less than .001).

At a median follow-up of 7.6 years from bone marrow sampling DTC positivity was significantly associated with, in addition to higher tumor grade, higher T stage, nodal positivity, estrogen and progesterone receptor negativity, and HER2 positivity (P less than .001 for all).

Univariate analysis showed that DTC-positive patients had significantly shorter OS, breast cancer–specific survival, and DDFS compared with DTC negative patients (P less than .001 for all).

In a multivariate model stratified by center and controlling for age, menopausal status, histology, tumor size, nodal status, and biological subtype, DTC was an independent prognostic marker for OS (hazard ratio 1.23, P = .006), DFS (HR 1.30, P less than .001) and DDFS (HR 1.30, P = .006), but not for locoregional relapse-free survival.

“These results confirm that DTC detection is an independent risk factor for metastatic relapse and poor overall survival in early breast cancer,” Dr. Hartkopf said.

There was a statistically significant interaction between DTCs and subtypes with regard to DDFS, with a HR of 2.34 for patients with luminal B disease (P = .014).

“Future trials must evaluate the predictive value of DTC detection and/or their characterization on adjuvant therapy efficacy,” Dr. Hartkopf concluded.

Dr. Hartkopf did not disclose a study funding source or potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Hartkopf AD et al. SABCS 2018. Abstract GS5-07.

SAN ANTONIO – When disseminated tumor cells – even a single cell – are detected in the bone marrow of patients with early breast cancer, it’s not a good sign, according to results of pooled international analysis.

The presence of disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) in marrow at the time of primary diagnosis was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and distant disease-free survival (DDFS), reported Andreas Daniel Hartkopf, MD, MSc, of the University of Tübingen, Germany, on behalf of colleagues in the PADDY study.

“The DTC detection was associated with higher local tumor burden and more aggressive biological subtype,” he said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The PADDY (Pooled Analysis of DTC Detection in Early Breast Cancer) study is an international cooperative effort designed to evaluate the association between DTC detection in patients with early breast cancer and clinical outcomes.

The investigators collected individual data sets including information on bone marrow samples from 10,307 patients treated at 11 centers in the United States and Europe.

The patients had early invasive breast cancer (T1-4, NO-3, M0) and for inclusion in the study had to have had bone marrow aspiration performed at the time of diagnosis or during primary surgery, with no prior systemic therapy. DTCs were detected by cytokeratin staining.

Patients were defined as being DTC positive if one or more DTCs were detected.

A total of 2,814 of the 10,307 patients (27.3%) were DTC positive. DTC status was not significantly associated with menopausal status or tumor histology (invasive ductal, invasive lobular, or other), but was positively associated with tumor grade, with 21.1% of patients with grade 1 tumors being DTC positive, compared with 27.2% with grade 2 tumors, and 29.9% with grade 3 tumors (P less than .001).

At a median follow-up of 7.6 years from bone marrow sampling DTC positivity was significantly associated with, in addition to higher tumor grade, higher T stage, nodal positivity, estrogen and progesterone receptor negativity, and HER2 positivity (P less than .001 for all).

Univariate analysis showed that DTC-positive patients had significantly shorter OS, breast cancer–specific survival, and DDFS compared with DTC negative patients (P less than .001 for all).

In a multivariate model stratified by center and controlling for age, menopausal status, histology, tumor size, nodal status, and biological subtype, DTC was an independent prognostic marker for OS (hazard ratio 1.23, P = .006), DFS (HR 1.30, P less than .001) and DDFS (HR 1.30, P = .006), but not for locoregional relapse-free survival.

“These results confirm that DTC detection is an independent risk factor for metastatic relapse and poor overall survival in early breast cancer,” Dr. Hartkopf said.

There was a statistically significant interaction between DTCs and subtypes with regard to DDFS, with a HR of 2.34 for patients with luminal B disease (P = .014).

“Future trials must evaluate the predictive value of DTC detection and/or their characterization on adjuvant therapy efficacy,” Dr. Hartkopf concluded.

Dr. Hartkopf did not disclose a study funding source or potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Hartkopf AD et al. SABCS 2018. Abstract GS5-07.

SAN ANTONIO – When disseminated tumor cells – even a single cell – are detected in the bone marrow of patients with early breast cancer, it’s not a good sign, according to results of pooled international analysis.

The presence of disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) in marrow at the time of primary diagnosis was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and distant disease-free survival (DDFS), reported Andreas Daniel Hartkopf, MD, MSc, of the University of Tübingen, Germany, on behalf of colleagues in the PADDY study.

“The DTC detection was associated with higher local tumor burden and more aggressive biological subtype,” he said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The PADDY (Pooled Analysis of DTC Detection in Early Breast Cancer) study is an international cooperative effort designed to evaluate the association between DTC detection in patients with early breast cancer and clinical outcomes.

The investigators collected individual data sets including information on bone marrow samples from 10,307 patients treated at 11 centers in the United States and Europe.

The patients had early invasive breast cancer (T1-4, NO-3, M0) and for inclusion in the study had to have had bone marrow aspiration performed at the time of diagnosis or during primary surgery, with no prior systemic therapy. DTCs were detected by cytokeratin staining.

Patients were defined as being DTC positive if one or more DTCs were detected.

A total of 2,814 of the 10,307 patients (27.3%) were DTC positive. DTC status was not significantly associated with menopausal status or tumor histology (invasive ductal, invasive lobular, or other), but was positively associated with tumor grade, with 21.1% of patients with grade 1 tumors being DTC positive, compared with 27.2% with grade 2 tumors, and 29.9% with grade 3 tumors (P less than .001).

At a median follow-up of 7.6 years from bone marrow sampling DTC positivity was significantly associated with, in addition to higher tumor grade, higher T stage, nodal positivity, estrogen and progesterone receptor negativity, and HER2 positivity (P less than .001 for all).

Univariate analysis showed that DTC-positive patients had significantly shorter OS, breast cancer–specific survival, and DDFS compared with DTC negative patients (P less than .001 for all).

In a multivariate model stratified by center and controlling for age, menopausal status, histology, tumor size, nodal status, and biological subtype, DTC was an independent prognostic marker for OS (hazard ratio 1.23, P = .006), DFS (HR 1.30, P less than .001) and DDFS (HR 1.30, P = .006), but not for locoregional relapse-free survival.

“These results confirm that DTC detection is an independent risk factor for metastatic relapse and poor overall survival in early breast cancer,” Dr. Hartkopf said.

There was a statistically significant interaction between DTCs and subtypes with regard to DDFS, with a HR of 2.34 for patients with luminal B disease (P = .014).

“Future trials must evaluate the predictive value of DTC detection and/or their characterization on adjuvant therapy efficacy,” Dr. Hartkopf concluded.

Dr. Hartkopf did not disclose a study funding source or potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Hartkopf AD et al. SABCS 2018. Abstract GS5-07.

SAN DIEGO – The combination of ibrutinib and rituximab was associated with a two-thirds reduction in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) progression, compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy in patients younger than 70 years old, interim results of a phase 3 randomized trial showed.

Among 529 patients with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL randomly assigned to ibrutinib-rituximab (IR) or to chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR), the IR regimen was associated with a 65% reduction in risk for disease progression, which was the trial’s primary endpoint.

The IR regimen was also associated with better overall survival out to 4 years of follow-up, reported Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

“This establishes ibrutinib-based therapy as the most effective treatment tested to date in this disease for untreated patients,” he said at a media briefing prior at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The study results are likely to dethrone FCR as the most active chemoimmunotherapy regimen against CLL, Dr. Shanafelt said.

In the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group E1912 trial, 529 patients aged 70 or younger with previously untreated CLL were enrolled and randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to either standard therapy with six cycles of FCR according to standard protocols (175 patients), or IR, with ibrutinib 420 mg daily for each cycle, and rituximab delivered 50 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 of cycle 2, and 325 mg/m² on day 2 of the same cycle, and 500 mg/m² on day 1 for all remaining cycles (354 patients).

From cycle 8 until progression, patients in the IR arm received daily ibrutinib 420 mg.

Dr. Shanafelt presented results from both an intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol analysis excluding 22 patients in the IR arm and 9 patients in the FCR arm who were randomized but later found not to meet eligibility criteria.

After a mean follow-up of 34 months, there were 37 PFS events in the IR arm, compared with 40 events in the FCR arm in an intention-to-treat analysis. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.35 with IR (P less than .00001).

The results were similar in the per-protocol analysis, with an HR of 0.32 favoring IR (P less than .00001).*

There were four deaths in the IR arm, compared with 10 in the FCR arm at the time of the data lock, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival of 0.17 (P less than .0003) in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 0.13 in the per-protocol analysis (P less than .0001).

Dr. Shanafelt noted that although the overall number of deaths was relatively small, there were twice as many patients enrolled in the IR arm as in the FCR arm, meaning that the rate of deaths in the FCR arm was fivefold higher than in the IR arm.

In a subgroup analysis of PFS, IR was superior to FCR regardless of patient age, sex, performance status, disease stage, or the presence or absence of the 11q23.3 deletion.

PFS was also significantly better with IR in patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) regions (HR 0.26, P less than .00001), but not in patients with mutated IGHV.*

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 58.5% of patients in the IR arm, compared with 72.1% of patients in the FCR arm. Specific events that occurred significantly less often with IR included neutropenia (22.7% vs. 43.7%), anemia (2.6% vs. 12.0%), thrombocytopenia (2.9% vs. 13.9%), any infection (7.1% vs. 19.0%), and neutropenic fever (2.3% vs. 15.8%; P less than .001 for all comparisons).

Events that occurred more frequently with IR than FCR included atrial fibrillation (2.9% vs. 0%, P = .04), and hypertension (7.4% vs. 1.9%, P = .01).

Dr. Shanafelt acknowledged that one possible barrier to the IR regimen is cost; the monthly cost of ibrutinib maintenance is about $10,000, he said, although he noted that cost considerations were not studied in the trial.

“Future trials testing novel agent combinations to see if we can eliminate the need for chronic therapy should be pursued,” he said.

The trial was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute with additional support from Pharmacyclics. Dr. Shanafelt reported patents and royalties from the Mayo Clinic, and research funding from Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Abbvie, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen.

SOURCE: Shanafelt TD et al. ASH 2018, Abstract LBA-4.

*Correction, 12/12/2018: An earlier version of this story misstated the P value in two comparisons.

SAN DIEGO – The combination of ibrutinib and rituximab was associated with a two-thirds reduction in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) progression, compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy in patients younger than 70 years old, interim results of a phase 3 randomized trial showed.

Among 529 patients with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL randomly assigned to ibrutinib-rituximab (IR) or to chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR), the IR regimen was associated with a 65% reduction in risk for disease progression, which was the trial’s primary endpoint.

The IR regimen was also associated with better overall survival out to 4 years of follow-up, reported Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

“This establishes ibrutinib-based therapy as the most effective treatment tested to date in this disease for untreated patients,” he said at a media briefing prior at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The study results are likely to dethrone FCR as the most active chemoimmunotherapy regimen against CLL, Dr. Shanafelt said.

In the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group E1912 trial, 529 patients aged 70 or younger with previously untreated CLL were enrolled and randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to either standard therapy with six cycles of FCR according to standard protocols (175 patients), or IR, with ibrutinib 420 mg daily for each cycle, and rituximab delivered 50 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 of cycle 2, and 325 mg/m² on day 2 of the same cycle, and 500 mg/m² on day 1 for all remaining cycles (354 patients).

From cycle 8 until progression, patients in the IR arm received daily ibrutinib 420 mg.

Dr. Shanafelt presented results from both an intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol analysis excluding 22 patients in the IR arm and 9 patients in the FCR arm who were randomized but later found not to meet eligibility criteria.

After a mean follow-up of 34 months, there were 37 PFS events in the IR arm, compared with 40 events in the FCR arm in an intention-to-treat analysis. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.35 with IR (P less than .00001).

The results were similar in the per-protocol analysis, with an HR of 0.32 favoring IR (P less than .00001).*

There were four deaths in the IR arm, compared with 10 in the FCR arm at the time of the data lock, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival of 0.17 (P less than .0003) in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 0.13 in the per-protocol analysis (P less than .0001).

Dr. Shanafelt noted that although the overall number of deaths was relatively small, there were twice as many patients enrolled in the IR arm as in the FCR arm, meaning that the rate of deaths in the FCR arm was fivefold higher than in the IR arm.

In a subgroup analysis of PFS, IR was superior to FCR regardless of patient age, sex, performance status, disease stage, or the presence or absence of the 11q23.3 deletion.

PFS was also significantly better with IR in patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) regions (HR 0.26, P less than .00001), but not in patients with mutated IGHV.*

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 58.5% of patients in the IR arm, compared with 72.1% of patients in the FCR arm. Specific events that occurred significantly less often with IR included neutropenia (22.7% vs. 43.7%), anemia (2.6% vs. 12.0%), thrombocytopenia (2.9% vs. 13.9%), any infection (7.1% vs. 19.0%), and neutropenic fever (2.3% vs. 15.8%; P less than .001 for all comparisons).

Events that occurred more frequently with IR than FCR included atrial fibrillation (2.9% vs. 0%, P = .04), and hypertension (7.4% vs. 1.9%, P = .01).

Dr. Shanafelt acknowledged that one possible barrier to the IR regimen is cost; the monthly cost of ibrutinib maintenance is about $10,000, he said, although he noted that cost considerations were not studied in the trial.

“Future trials testing novel agent combinations to see if we can eliminate the need for chronic therapy should be pursued,” he said.

The trial was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute with additional support from Pharmacyclics. Dr. Shanafelt reported patents and royalties from the Mayo Clinic, and research funding from Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Abbvie, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen.

SOURCE: Shanafelt TD et al. ASH 2018, Abstract LBA-4.

*Correction, 12/12/2018: An earlier version of this story misstated the P value in two comparisons.

SAN DIEGO – The combination of ibrutinib and rituximab was associated with a two-thirds reduction in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) progression, compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy in patients younger than 70 years old, interim results of a phase 3 randomized trial showed.

Among 529 patients with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL randomly assigned to ibrutinib-rituximab (IR) or to chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR), the IR regimen was associated with a 65% reduction in risk for disease progression, which was the trial’s primary endpoint.

The IR regimen was also associated with better overall survival out to 4 years of follow-up, reported Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

“This establishes ibrutinib-based therapy as the most effective treatment tested to date in this disease for untreated patients,” he said at a media briefing prior at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The study results are likely to dethrone FCR as the most active chemoimmunotherapy regimen against CLL, Dr. Shanafelt said.

In the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group E1912 trial, 529 patients aged 70 or younger with previously untreated CLL were enrolled and randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to either standard therapy with six cycles of FCR according to standard protocols (175 patients), or IR, with ibrutinib 420 mg daily for each cycle, and rituximab delivered 50 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 of cycle 2, and 325 mg/m² on day 2 of the same cycle, and 500 mg/m² on day 1 for all remaining cycles (354 patients).

From cycle 8 until progression, patients in the IR arm received daily ibrutinib 420 mg.

Dr. Shanafelt presented results from both an intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol analysis excluding 22 patients in the IR arm and 9 patients in the FCR arm who were randomized but later found not to meet eligibility criteria.

After a mean follow-up of 34 months, there were 37 PFS events in the IR arm, compared with 40 events in the FCR arm in an intention-to-treat analysis. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.35 with IR (P less than .00001).

The results were similar in the per-protocol analysis, with an HR of 0.32 favoring IR (P less than .00001).*

There were four deaths in the IR arm, compared with 10 in the FCR arm at the time of the data lock, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival of 0.17 (P less than .0003) in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 0.13 in the per-protocol analysis (P less than .0001).

Dr. Shanafelt noted that although the overall number of deaths was relatively small, there were twice as many patients enrolled in the IR arm as in the FCR arm, meaning that the rate of deaths in the FCR arm was fivefold higher than in the IR arm.

In a subgroup analysis of PFS, IR was superior to FCR regardless of patient age, sex, performance status, disease stage, or the presence or absence of the 11q23.3 deletion.

PFS was also significantly better with IR in patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) regions (HR 0.26, P less than .00001), but not in patients with mutated IGHV.*

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 58.5% of patients in the IR arm, compared with 72.1% of patients in the FCR arm. Specific events that occurred significantly less often with IR included neutropenia (22.7% vs. 43.7%), anemia (2.6% vs. 12.0%), thrombocytopenia (2.9% vs. 13.9%), any infection (7.1% vs. 19.0%), and neutropenic fever (2.3% vs. 15.8%; P less than .001 for all comparisons).

Events that occurred more frequently with IR than FCR included atrial fibrillation (2.9% vs. 0%, P = .04), and hypertension (7.4% vs. 1.9%, P = .01).

Dr. Shanafelt acknowledged that one possible barrier to the IR regimen is cost; the monthly cost of ibrutinib maintenance is about $10,000, he said, although he noted that cost considerations were not studied in the trial.

“Future trials testing novel agent combinations to see if we can eliminate the need for chronic therapy should be pursued,” he said.

The trial was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute with additional support from Pharmacyclics. Dr. Shanafelt reported patents and royalties from the Mayo Clinic, and research funding from Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Abbvie, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen.

SOURCE: Shanafelt TD et al. ASH 2018, Abstract LBA-4.

*Correction, 12/12/2018: An earlier version of this story misstated the P value in two comparisons.

SAN ANTONIO – Good old tamoxifen, there’s life in the old girl yet: A 3-year course of low-dose tamoxifen – one-fourth of the standard dose – reduced the risk of breast intraepithelial neoplasia (IEN) recurrence by half, compared with placebo.

And although the patient numbers were relatively small, tamoxifen at 5 mg/day also reduced the risk of contralateral breast cancer by 75%, results of the TAM01 study showed.

Among 500 patients with either atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) randomized either to tamoxifen 5 mg/day for 3 years or placebo, there were 28 cases of either invasive breast cancer or recurrent DCIS in patients after a median follow-up of 5.1 years for patients assigned to placebo, compared with 14 events for patients assigned to tamoxifen, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.48 (P = .024), reported Andrea De Censi, MD, from Ospidali Galliera in Genoa, Italy, at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“We think our results have external validity because of the pragmatic nature of the study and the easy accessibility of the drug, and so they are generalizable,” he said, adding that “our findings are applicable in clinical practice from tomorrow [on].”

Despite concerns about the known carcinogenic and cardiovascular side effects of tamoxifen, there were no significant differences in either the rate of endometrial cancer or of deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism between the groups, and there was only a borderline increase in hot flashes among patients randomized to tamoxifen.

IEN accounts for approximately 15%-25% of all breast neoplasms. Although tamoxifen has a long track record of efficacy in prevention of recurrence, its side effects, including increased risk of endometrial cancer and thrombotic events as well as menopausal-type symptoms, have dissuaded some clinicians from prescribing it and scared some patients away from taking it.

Dr. De Censi and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial comparing tamoxifen 5 mg daily with placebo in 500 women with hormone-sensitive breast IEN following surgery. Women with grade 3 disease, positive margins, or comedo/necrosis DCIS received radiotherapy.

The patients were followed every 6 months, and had annual mammograms for at least 5 years after randomization.

As noted before, after 5.1 years median follow-up the primary endpoint of invasive breast cancer or DCIS had occurred in 28 patients on placebo versus 14 on tamoxifen, for an HR of 0.48. The respective incidences of contralateral breast cancer were 12 and 3, translating into a HR for tamoxifen at 0.24 (P = .018).

There were no statistically significant differences in serious adverse events between groups, including endometrial cancer (one in the tamoxifen group vs. one in the placebo group), DVT/PE (one in each group), other neoplasms (four vs. six cases, respectively), coronary heart disease (two cases each), other nonfatal events (three vs. five), or deaths (one vs. two).

“If we compare these findings with the NSABP-P1 prevention trial with a dose of 20 mg per day we would expect 2.7 endometrial cancers on tamoxifen, and 2.4 DVT or pulmonary emboli,” Dr. De Censi said in a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a general session.

Patient-reported daily hot flashes occurred slightly but significantly more often with tamoxifen (P = .05). But when the frequency of reported hot flashes was multiplied by the intensity, the difference between the arms was not significant.

There were no significant differences between the groups for the patient-reported outcomes of vaginal dryness or pain at intercourse, or of musculoskeletal pain/arthralgia. Treatment adherence over 3 years did not differ between the groups.

Dr. De Censi noted that because 5 mg tablets of tamoxifen are not currently available, investigators recommend either cutting 10 mg tablets in half or taking the 10-mg dose every other day.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at the University of Texas, San Antonio, who moderated the briefing, commented that the study provides valuable information about the dosing of this time-tested drug.

“When you look at drug development, in many cases we rush these drugs out and we don’t pay attention to the dose that’s needed – we pay attention to the dose that’s not very toxic, and so many of the drugs that we use we end up using them at higher doses than we need to use them,” she said.

“A drug doesn’t work if you don’t take it, and so if you can find ways to take the drug, like in giving it at lower doses, then these women are going to benefit,” Dr. Kaklamani added.

She said that based on these data she would “definitely” give patients with ADH and LCIS lower doses of tamoxifen, and while she wants to see more data on DCIS patients with further follow-up, “if I have a DCIS patient who’s not tolerating tamoxifen at the 20 mg dose, I’d be extremely happy lowering to 5 mg.”

Sandhya Pruthi, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that, while she was impressed by both the reduction in risk and the favorable side effect profile, the patient sample was too small to draw firm conclusions.

“Could I go back to the clinic and tell all my patients who are taking 20 mg of tamoxifen that you can now cut your dose in half to 10 mg or even to the 5-mg dose based on this trial? That would I think be a little premature,” she said.

“Where I would like to go with this is that we do a larger trial – a randomized, controlled trial,” Dr. Pruthi added.

The TAM01 study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health, Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian League Against Cancer. Dr. De Censi and his coauthors reported having no direct conflicts of interest. Dr. Kaklamani and Dr. Pruthi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: De Censi A et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS3-01.

SAN ANTONIO – Good old tamoxifen, there’s life in the old girl yet: A 3-year course of low-dose tamoxifen – one-fourth of the standard dose – reduced the risk of breast intraepithelial neoplasia (IEN) recurrence by half, compared with placebo.

And although the patient numbers were relatively small, tamoxifen at 5 mg/day also reduced the risk of contralateral breast cancer by 75%, results of the TAM01 study showed.

Among 500 patients with either atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) randomized either to tamoxifen 5 mg/day for 3 years or placebo, there were 28 cases of either invasive breast cancer or recurrent DCIS in patients after a median follow-up of 5.1 years for patients assigned to placebo, compared with 14 events for patients assigned to tamoxifen, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.48 (P = .024), reported Andrea De Censi, MD, from Ospidali Galliera in Genoa, Italy, at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“We think our results have external validity because of the pragmatic nature of the study and the easy accessibility of the drug, and so they are generalizable,” he said, adding that “our findings are applicable in clinical practice from tomorrow [on].”

Despite concerns about the known carcinogenic and cardiovascular side effects of tamoxifen, there were no significant differences in either the rate of endometrial cancer or of deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism between the groups, and there was only a borderline increase in hot flashes among patients randomized to tamoxifen.

IEN accounts for approximately 15%-25% of all breast neoplasms. Although tamoxifen has a long track record of efficacy in prevention of recurrence, its side effects, including increased risk of endometrial cancer and thrombotic events as well as menopausal-type symptoms, have dissuaded some clinicians from prescribing it and scared some patients away from taking it.

Dr. De Censi and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial comparing tamoxifen 5 mg daily with placebo in 500 women with hormone-sensitive breast IEN following surgery. Women with grade 3 disease, positive margins, or comedo/necrosis DCIS received radiotherapy.

The patients were followed every 6 months, and had annual mammograms for at least 5 years after randomization.

As noted before, after 5.1 years median follow-up the primary endpoint of invasive breast cancer or DCIS had occurred in 28 patients on placebo versus 14 on tamoxifen, for an HR of 0.48. The respective incidences of contralateral breast cancer were 12 and 3, translating into a HR for tamoxifen at 0.24 (P = .018).

There were no statistically significant differences in serious adverse events between groups, including endometrial cancer (one in the tamoxifen group vs. one in the placebo group), DVT/PE (one in each group), other neoplasms (four vs. six cases, respectively), coronary heart disease (two cases each), other nonfatal events (three vs. five), or deaths (one vs. two).

“If we compare these findings with the NSABP-P1 prevention trial with a dose of 20 mg per day we would expect 2.7 endometrial cancers on tamoxifen, and 2.4 DVT or pulmonary emboli,” Dr. De Censi said in a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a general session.

Patient-reported daily hot flashes occurred slightly but significantly more often with tamoxifen (P = .05). But when the frequency of reported hot flashes was multiplied by the intensity, the difference between the arms was not significant.

There were no significant differences between the groups for the patient-reported outcomes of vaginal dryness or pain at intercourse, or of musculoskeletal pain/arthralgia. Treatment adherence over 3 years did not differ between the groups.

Dr. De Censi noted that because 5 mg tablets of tamoxifen are not currently available, investigators recommend either cutting 10 mg tablets in half or taking the 10-mg dose every other day.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at the University of Texas, San Antonio, who moderated the briefing, commented that the study provides valuable information about the dosing of this time-tested drug.

“When you look at drug development, in many cases we rush these drugs out and we don’t pay attention to the dose that’s needed – we pay attention to the dose that’s not very toxic, and so many of the drugs that we use we end up using them at higher doses than we need to use them,” she said.

“A drug doesn’t work if you don’t take it, and so if you can find ways to take the drug, like in giving it at lower doses, then these women are going to benefit,” Dr. Kaklamani added.

She said that based on these data she would “definitely” give patients with ADH and LCIS lower doses of tamoxifen, and while she wants to see more data on DCIS patients with further follow-up, “if I have a DCIS patient who’s not tolerating tamoxifen at the 20 mg dose, I’d be extremely happy lowering to 5 mg.”

Sandhya Pruthi, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that, while she was impressed by both the reduction in risk and the favorable side effect profile, the patient sample was too small to draw firm conclusions.

“Could I go back to the clinic and tell all my patients who are taking 20 mg of tamoxifen that you can now cut your dose in half to 10 mg or even to the 5-mg dose based on this trial? That would I think be a little premature,” she said.

“Where I would like to go with this is that we do a larger trial – a randomized, controlled trial,” Dr. Pruthi added.

The TAM01 study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health, Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian League Against Cancer. Dr. De Censi and his coauthors reported having no direct conflicts of interest. Dr. Kaklamani and Dr. Pruthi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: De Censi A et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS3-01.

SAN ANTONIO – Good old tamoxifen, there’s life in the old girl yet: A 3-year course of low-dose tamoxifen – one-fourth of the standard dose – reduced the risk of breast intraepithelial neoplasia (IEN) recurrence by half, compared with placebo.

And although the patient numbers were relatively small, tamoxifen at 5 mg/day also reduced the risk of contralateral breast cancer by 75%, results of the TAM01 study showed.

Among 500 patients with either atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) randomized either to tamoxifen 5 mg/day for 3 years or placebo, there were 28 cases of either invasive breast cancer or recurrent DCIS in patients after a median follow-up of 5.1 years for patients assigned to placebo, compared with 14 events for patients assigned to tamoxifen, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.48 (P = .024), reported Andrea De Censi, MD, from Ospidali Galliera in Genoa, Italy, at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“We think our results have external validity because of the pragmatic nature of the study and the easy accessibility of the drug, and so they are generalizable,” he said, adding that “our findings are applicable in clinical practice from tomorrow [on].”

Despite concerns about the known carcinogenic and cardiovascular side effects of tamoxifen, there were no significant differences in either the rate of endometrial cancer or of deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism between the groups, and there was only a borderline increase in hot flashes among patients randomized to tamoxifen.

IEN accounts for approximately 15%-25% of all breast neoplasms. Although tamoxifen has a long track record of efficacy in prevention of recurrence, its side effects, including increased risk of endometrial cancer and thrombotic events as well as menopausal-type symptoms, have dissuaded some clinicians from prescribing it and scared some patients away from taking it.

Dr. De Censi and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial comparing tamoxifen 5 mg daily with placebo in 500 women with hormone-sensitive breast IEN following surgery. Women with grade 3 disease, positive margins, or comedo/necrosis DCIS received radiotherapy.

The patients were followed every 6 months, and had annual mammograms for at least 5 years after randomization.

As noted before, after 5.1 years median follow-up the primary endpoint of invasive breast cancer or DCIS had occurred in 28 patients on placebo versus 14 on tamoxifen, for an HR of 0.48. The respective incidences of contralateral breast cancer were 12 and 3, translating into a HR for tamoxifen at 0.24 (P = .018).

There were no statistically significant differences in serious adverse events between groups, including endometrial cancer (one in the tamoxifen group vs. one in the placebo group), DVT/PE (one in each group), other neoplasms (four vs. six cases, respectively), coronary heart disease (two cases each), other nonfatal events (three vs. five), or deaths (one vs. two).

“If we compare these findings with the NSABP-P1 prevention trial with a dose of 20 mg per day we would expect 2.7 endometrial cancers on tamoxifen, and 2.4 DVT or pulmonary emboli,” Dr. De Censi said in a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a general session.

Patient-reported daily hot flashes occurred slightly but significantly more often with tamoxifen (P = .05). But when the frequency of reported hot flashes was multiplied by the intensity, the difference between the arms was not significant.

There were no significant differences between the groups for the patient-reported outcomes of vaginal dryness or pain at intercourse, or of musculoskeletal pain/arthralgia. Treatment adherence over 3 years did not differ between the groups.

Dr. De Censi noted that because 5 mg tablets of tamoxifen are not currently available, investigators recommend either cutting 10 mg tablets in half or taking the 10-mg dose every other day.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at the University of Texas, San Antonio, who moderated the briefing, commented that the study provides valuable information about the dosing of this time-tested drug.

“When you look at drug development, in many cases we rush these drugs out and we don’t pay attention to the dose that’s needed – we pay attention to the dose that’s not very toxic, and so many of the drugs that we use we end up using them at higher doses than we need to use them,” she said.

“A drug doesn’t work if you don’t take it, and so if you can find ways to take the drug, like in giving it at lower doses, then these women are going to benefit,” Dr. Kaklamani added.

She said that based on these data she would “definitely” give patients with ADH and LCIS lower doses of tamoxifen, and while she wants to see more data on DCIS patients with further follow-up, “if I have a DCIS patient who’s not tolerating tamoxifen at the 20 mg dose, I’d be extremely happy lowering to 5 mg.”

Sandhya Pruthi, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that, while she was impressed by both the reduction in risk and the favorable side effect profile, the patient sample was too small to draw firm conclusions.

“Could I go back to the clinic and tell all my patients who are taking 20 mg of tamoxifen that you can now cut your dose in half to 10 mg or even to the 5-mg dose based on this trial? That would I think be a little premature,” she said.

“Where I would like to go with this is that we do a larger trial – a randomized, controlled trial,” Dr. Pruthi added.

The TAM01 study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health, Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian League Against Cancer. Dr. De Censi and his coauthors reported having no direct conflicts of interest. Dr. Kaklamani and Dr. Pruthi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: De Censi A et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS3-01.

Photo courtesy of ASH

SAN DIEGO—A recurrent mutation in BCL2, the therapeutic target of venetoclax, appears to be a major contributor to drug resistance in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), investigators reported.

The mutation has been detected in some patients with CLL up to 2 years before resistance to venetoclax actually develops, according to Piers Blombery, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

“We have identified the first acquired BCL2 mutation developed in patients clinically treated with venetoclax,” he said during the late-breaking abstracts session at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting.

The mutation, which the investigators have labeled BCL2 Gly101Val, “is a recurrent and frequent mediator of resistance and may be detected years before clinical relapse occurs,” Dr. Blombery added.

A paper on the mutation was published in Cancer Discovery to coincide with the presentation at ASH (abstract LBA-7).

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of venetoclax as continuous therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL, the majority of patients experience disease progression, prompting the investigators to explore molecular mechanisms of secondary resistance.

To do this, they analyzed paired samples from 15 patients with CLL, enrolled in clinical trials of venetoclax, collected both before the start of venetoclax therapy and at the time of disease progression.

In seven patients, the investigators identified a novel mutation that showed up at the time of progression but was absent from the pre-venetoclax samples.

The mutation first became detectable from about 19 to 42 months after the start of therapy and preceded clinical progression by as much as 25 months, the investigators found.

They pinned the mutation down to the BH3-binding groove on BCL2, the same molecular site targeted by venetoclax. They found the mutation was not present in samples from 96 patients with venetoclax-naive CLL nor in any other B-cell malignancies.

Searches for references to the mutation in both a cancer database (COSMIC) and a population database (gnomAD) came up empty.

In other experiments, the investigators determined that cell lines overexpressing BCL2 Gly101Val are resistant to venetoclax, and, in the presence of venetoclax in vitro, BCL2 Gly101Val-expressing cells have a growth advantage compared with wild-type cells.

Additionally, they showed that the mutation results in impaired venetoclax binding in vitro.

“BCL2 Gly101Val is observed subclonally, implicating multiple mechanisms of venetoclax resistance in the same patient,” Dr. Blombery said.

He added that the identification of the resistance mutation is a strong rationale for using combination therapy to treat patients with relapsed or refractory CLL to help prevent or attenuate selection pressures that lead to resistance.

Dr. Blombery reported having no relevant disclosures. The investigators were supported by the Wilson Center for Lymphoma Genomics, Snowdome Foundation, National Health Medical Research Council, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Leukemia Foundation, Cancer Council of Victoria, and Australian Cancer Research Foundation.

Photo courtesy of ASH

SAN DIEGO—A recurrent mutation in BCL2, the therapeutic target of venetoclax, appears to be a major contributor to drug resistance in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), investigators reported.

The mutation has been detected in some patients with CLL up to 2 years before resistance to venetoclax actually develops, according to Piers Blombery, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

“We have identified the first acquired BCL2 mutation developed in patients clinically treated with venetoclax,” he said during the late-breaking abstracts session at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting.

The mutation, which the investigators have labeled BCL2 Gly101Val, “is a recurrent and frequent mediator of resistance and may be detected years before clinical relapse occurs,” Dr. Blombery added.

A paper on the mutation was published in Cancer Discovery to coincide with the presentation at ASH (abstract LBA-7).

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of venetoclax as continuous therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL, the majority of patients experience disease progression, prompting the investigators to explore molecular mechanisms of secondary resistance.

To do this, they analyzed paired samples from 15 patients with CLL, enrolled in clinical trials of venetoclax, collected both before the start of venetoclax therapy and at the time of disease progression.

In seven patients, the investigators identified a novel mutation that showed up at the time of progression but was absent from the pre-venetoclax samples.

The mutation first became detectable from about 19 to 42 months after the start of therapy and preceded clinical progression by as much as 25 months, the investigators found.

They pinned the mutation down to the BH3-binding groove on BCL2, the same molecular site targeted by venetoclax. They found the mutation was not present in samples from 96 patients with venetoclax-naive CLL nor in any other B-cell malignancies.

Searches for references to the mutation in both a cancer database (COSMIC) and a population database (gnomAD) came up empty.

In other experiments, the investigators determined that cell lines overexpressing BCL2 Gly101Val are resistant to venetoclax, and, in the presence of venetoclax in vitro, BCL2 Gly101Val-expressing cells have a growth advantage compared with wild-type cells.

Additionally, they showed that the mutation results in impaired venetoclax binding in vitro.

“BCL2 Gly101Val is observed subclonally, implicating multiple mechanisms of venetoclax resistance in the same patient,” Dr. Blombery said.

He added that the identification of the resistance mutation is a strong rationale for using combination therapy to treat patients with relapsed or refractory CLL to help prevent or attenuate selection pressures that lead to resistance.

Dr. Blombery reported having no relevant disclosures. The investigators were supported by the Wilson Center for Lymphoma Genomics, Snowdome Foundation, National Health Medical Research Council, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Leukemia Foundation, Cancer Council of Victoria, and Australian Cancer Research Foundation.

Photo courtesy of ASH

SAN DIEGO—A recurrent mutation in BCL2, the therapeutic target of venetoclax, appears to be a major contributor to drug resistance in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), investigators reported.

The mutation has been detected in some patients with CLL up to 2 years before resistance to venetoclax actually develops, according to Piers Blombery, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

“We have identified the first acquired BCL2 mutation developed in patients clinically treated with venetoclax,” he said during the late-breaking abstracts session at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting.

The mutation, which the investigators have labeled BCL2 Gly101Val, “is a recurrent and frequent mediator of resistance and may be detected years before clinical relapse occurs,” Dr. Blombery added.

A paper on the mutation was published in Cancer Discovery to coincide with the presentation at ASH (abstract LBA-7).

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of venetoclax as continuous therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL, the majority of patients experience disease progression, prompting the investigators to explore molecular mechanisms of secondary resistance.

To do this, they analyzed paired samples from 15 patients with CLL, enrolled in clinical trials of venetoclax, collected both before the start of venetoclax therapy and at the time of disease progression.

In seven patients, the investigators identified a novel mutation that showed up at the time of progression but was absent from the pre-venetoclax samples.

The mutation first became detectable from about 19 to 42 months after the start of therapy and preceded clinical progression by as much as 25 months, the investigators found.

They pinned the mutation down to the BH3-binding groove on BCL2, the same molecular site targeted by venetoclax. They found the mutation was not present in samples from 96 patients with venetoclax-naive CLL nor in any other B-cell malignancies.

Searches for references to the mutation in both a cancer database (COSMIC) and a population database (gnomAD) came up empty.

In other experiments, the investigators determined that cell lines overexpressing BCL2 Gly101Val are resistant to venetoclax, and, in the presence of venetoclax in vitro, BCL2 Gly101Val-expressing cells have a growth advantage compared with wild-type cells.

Additionally, they showed that the mutation results in impaired venetoclax binding in vitro.

“BCL2 Gly101Val is observed subclonally, implicating multiple mechanisms of venetoclax resistance in the same patient,” Dr. Blombery said.

He added that the identification of the resistance mutation is a strong rationale for using combination therapy to treat patients with relapsed or refractory CLL to help prevent or attenuate selection pressures that lead to resistance.

Dr. Blombery reported having no relevant disclosures. The investigators were supported by the Wilson Center for Lymphoma Genomics, Snowdome Foundation, National Health Medical Research Council, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Leukemia Foundation, Cancer Council of Victoria, and Australian Cancer Research Foundation.

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with estrogen-receptor positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, the use of circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts can help clinicians decide with confidence between ordering first-line hormonal therapy or chemotherapy, investigators say.

In the phase 3 STIC CTC trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive therapy based on either the clinician’s judgment of the best course of therapy for each patient; or on the CTC count with a cutoff of less than 5 CT/7.5 mL, indicating hormonal therapy; and 5 CTC/7.5 mL or above, indicating higher-risk disease requiring chemotherapy. In the clinician’s choice arm, the CTC reading was recorded but not implemented, and in the CTC arm, the clinician’s choice was dismissed.

The trial met its primary noninferiority endpoint, indicating that, in the overall population, CTC counts can provide clinician’s with confidence in the therapeutic choice, said Francois-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, from Institut Curie in Paris.

In a video interview, Dr. Bidard discussed the trial findings, including the provocative exploratory analysis suggesting that, in patients in whom there is discordance between CTC and clinician choice, chemotherapy may be a better therapeutic option.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of France, Institut Curie, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems. Dr. Bidard disclosed research funding and travel grants from Menarini.

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with estrogen-receptor positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, the use of circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts can help clinicians decide with confidence between ordering first-line hormonal therapy or chemotherapy, investigators say.

In the phase 3 STIC CTC trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive therapy based on either the clinician’s judgment of the best course of therapy for each patient; or on the CTC count with a cutoff of less than 5 CT/7.5 mL, indicating hormonal therapy; and 5 CTC/7.5 mL or above, indicating higher-risk disease requiring chemotherapy. In the clinician’s choice arm, the CTC reading was recorded but not implemented, and in the CTC arm, the clinician’s choice was dismissed.

The trial met its primary noninferiority endpoint, indicating that, in the overall population, CTC counts can provide clinician’s with confidence in the therapeutic choice, said Francois-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, from Institut Curie in Paris.

In a video interview, Dr. Bidard discussed the trial findings, including the provocative exploratory analysis suggesting that, in patients in whom there is discordance between CTC and clinician choice, chemotherapy may be a better therapeutic option.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of France, Institut Curie, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems. Dr. Bidard disclosed research funding and travel grants from Menarini.

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with estrogen-receptor positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, the use of circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts can help clinicians decide with confidence between ordering first-line hormonal therapy or chemotherapy, investigators say.

In the phase 3 STIC CTC trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive therapy based on either the clinician’s judgment of the best course of therapy for each patient; or on the CTC count with a cutoff of less than 5 CT/7.5 mL, indicating hormonal therapy; and 5 CTC/7.5 mL or above, indicating higher-risk disease requiring chemotherapy. In the clinician’s choice arm, the CTC reading was recorded but not implemented, and in the CTC arm, the clinician’s choice was dismissed.

The trial met its primary noninferiority endpoint, indicating that, in the overall population, CTC counts can provide clinician’s with confidence in the therapeutic choice, said Francois-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, from Institut Curie in Paris.

In a video interview, Dr. Bidard discussed the trial findings, including the provocative exploratory analysis suggesting that, in patients in whom there is discordance between CTC and clinician choice, chemotherapy may be a better therapeutic option.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of France, Institut Curie, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems. Dr. Bidard disclosed research funding and travel grants from Menarini.

SAN ANTONIO – New life for old medicine: Women aged under 75 years with breast intraepithelial neoplasms (IEN) who took tamoxifen for 3 years at a dose of 5 mg per day – one-fourth the standard dose – had a 50% reduction in risk of IEN recurrence and an even more remarkable 75% reduction in the risk of contralateral breast cancer, compared with women who took placebos in the TAMO1 study.

Despite concerns about the known side effects of tamoxifen, there were no significant differences in either the rate of endometrial cancer or of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism between groups, and there was only a borderline increase in hot flashes among patients randomized to tamoxifen, reported Dr. Andrea De Censi, MD, from Ospedali Galliera in Genoa, Italy.

In a video interview, Dr. De Censi discusses how tamoxifen, a decades-old, inexpensive drug still offers real clinical benefit in day-to-day practice for patients with IEN.

The TAM01 study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health, Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian League Against Cancer. Dr. De Censi and his coauthors reported having no direct conflicts of interest.

SAN ANTONIO – New life for old medicine: Women aged under 75 years with breast intraepithelial neoplasms (IEN) who took tamoxifen for 3 years at a dose of 5 mg per day – one-fourth the standard dose – had a 50% reduction in risk of IEN recurrence and an even more remarkable 75% reduction in the risk of contralateral breast cancer, compared with women who took placebos in the TAMO1 study.

Despite concerns about the known side effects of tamoxifen, there were no significant differences in either the rate of endometrial cancer or of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism between groups, and there was only a borderline increase in hot flashes among patients randomized to tamoxifen, reported Dr. Andrea De Censi, MD, from Ospedali Galliera in Genoa, Italy.

In a video interview, Dr. De Censi discusses how tamoxifen, a decades-old, inexpensive drug still offers real clinical benefit in day-to-day practice for patients with IEN.

The TAM01 study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health, Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian League Against Cancer. Dr. De Censi and his coauthors reported having no direct conflicts of interest.

SAN ANTONIO – New life for old medicine: Women aged under 75 years with breast intraepithelial neoplasms (IEN) who took tamoxifen for 3 years at a dose of 5 mg per day – one-fourth the standard dose – had a 50% reduction in risk of IEN recurrence and an even more remarkable 75% reduction in the risk of contralateral breast cancer, compared with women who took placebos in the TAMO1 study.

Despite concerns about the known side effects of tamoxifen, there were no significant differences in either the rate of endometrial cancer or of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism between groups, and there was only a borderline increase in hot flashes among patients randomized to tamoxifen, reported Dr. Andrea De Censi, MD, from Ospedali Galliera in Genoa, Italy.

In a video interview, Dr. De Censi discusses how tamoxifen, a decades-old, inexpensive drug still offers real clinical benefit in day-to-day practice for patients with IEN.

The TAM01 study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health, Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian League Against Cancer. Dr. De Censi and his coauthors reported having no direct conflicts of interest.

SAN ANTONIO – Patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer with residual invasive disease following neoadjuvant therapy had a 50% reduction in risk for invasive breast cancer recurrence or death when they were treated with the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1; Kadcyla), results of the KATHERINE trial showed.

Among 743 patients randomized to adjuvant therapy with T-DM1, the 3-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) rate was 88.3%, compared with 77.0% for patients assigned to adjuvant trastuzumab (Herceptin).

The hazard ratio for IDFS – a composite endpoint of freedom from ipsilateral invasive breast tumor recurrence, ipsilateral locoregional invasive breast cancer recurrence, contralateral invasive breast cancer, distant recurrence, or death from any cause – was 0.50 (P less than .001), reported Charles E. Geyer Jr., MD, from Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“While additional follow-up will be necessary to evaluate the effect of T-DM1 on overall survival, the compelling and consistent efficacy seen on the IDFS endpoint with the safety profile will likely form the foundation of a new standard of care in the KATHERINE patient population,” he said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Results from KATHERINE were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with its presentation in a briefing and in a general session.

KATHERINE was an open-label, phase 3 trial pitting T-DM1 against trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with early HER2-positive breast cancer with residual invasive disease in the breast or axilla at surgery following neoadjuvant therapy with a taxane (with or without an anthracycline) and trastuzumab. After stratification for clinical presentation (operable vs. inoperable), hormone receptor status, type of preoperative therapy, and pathological nodal status after neoadjuvant, patients were randomized to 14 cycles of either T-DM1 or trastuzumab.

The primary endpoint, IDFS, was as noted before. The trial was stopped after the results were found to cross the efficacy stopping boundary (HR less than 0.732) at the prespecified interim IDFS analysis in July 2018.

The efficacy of T-DM1 was supported by the finding that distant recurrence as the first invasive-disease event occurred in 10.5% of patients assigned to T-DM1, compared with 15.9% of those assigned to trastuzumab. The benefit of T-DM1 was consistent across all key subgroups, including all of the aforementioned stratification factors plus age, group, and race.

The safety analysis included data on 740 patients treated with T-DM1 and 720 treated with trastuzumab. The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events in the T-DM1 group included decreased platelet count in 5.7% and hypertension in 2.0%. The most common grade 3 or greater events in the trastuzumab group were hypertension in 1.2% and radiation-related skin injury in 1.0%.

Serious adverse events were more common in the T-DM1 arm, occurring in 12.7% of patients, compared with 8.1% in the trastuzumab arm. Adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial drug occurred in 18.0% versus 2.1%, in the T-DM1 arm versus trastuzumab arm respectively.

Dr. Geyer said that, in general, adverse events in the T-DM1 arm were consistent with those seen in other studies, with manageable toxicities and no new safety signals.

“At the present time, the role of T-DM1 in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting is limited,” commented invited discussant Eric P. Winer, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “It’s confined to patients who have residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy, but I predict this will change dramatically over time. Given how well tolerated T-DM1 is, how effective it was in this study, the answer that one comes to is why not consider using it more broadly and in an earlier-stage setting?”

Aditya Bardia, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in KATHERINE, agreed that the trial results are practice changing.

“I anticipate we would be using T-DM1 in the future for patients who would otherwise have been eligible for KATHERINE,” he said in an interview.

It’s still unclear, however, whether patients who receive pertuzumab (Perjeta) in the neoadjuvant setting and have residual lymph-node positive or estrogen receptor–negative might benefit with adjuvant therapy with T-DM1 instead of trastuzumab, he said.

“The second question that’s unclear at this time is patients who get 1 year of T-DM1, should they then receive neratinib [Nerlynx], because we have data from the ExteNET trial which showed that patients who complete 1 year of anti-HER2 therapy, if they receive 1 year of neratinib, there’s also reduced risk of recurrence, and that’s an unknown question at this time,” Dr. Bardia said.

The trial was funded by Hoffman–La Roche/Genentech. Dr. Geyer reported travel support from Roche and AstraZeneca, medical writing support from AbbVie and Roche, and honoraria from Celgene. Dr. Winer reported receiving grants for clinical research from and has served as an adviser or consultant to Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Bardia reported relationships with Genentech and Novartis.

SOURCE: Geyer CE et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814017.

SAN ANTONIO – Patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer with residual invasive disease following neoadjuvant therapy had a 50% reduction in risk for invasive breast cancer recurrence or death when they were treated with the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1; Kadcyla), results of the KATHERINE trial showed.

Among 743 patients randomized to adjuvant therapy with T-DM1, the 3-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) rate was 88.3%, compared with 77.0% for patients assigned to adjuvant trastuzumab (Herceptin).

The hazard ratio for IDFS – a composite endpoint of freedom from ipsilateral invasive breast tumor recurrence, ipsilateral locoregional invasive breast cancer recurrence, contralateral invasive breast cancer, distant recurrence, or death from any cause – was 0.50 (P less than .001), reported Charles E. Geyer Jr., MD, from Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“While additional follow-up will be necessary to evaluate the effect of T-DM1 on overall survival, the compelling and consistent efficacy seen on the IDFS endpoint with the safety profile will likely form the foundation of a new standard of care in the KATHERINE patient population,” he said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Results from KATHERINE were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with its presentation in a briefing and in a general session.

KATHERINE was an open-label, phase 3 trial pitting T-DM1 against trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with early HER2-positive breast cancer with residual invasive disease in the breast or axilla at surgery following neoadjuvant therapy with a taxane (with or without an anthracycline) and trastuzumab. After stratification for clinical presentation (operable vs. inoperable), hormone receptor status, type of preoperative therapy, and pathological nodal status after neoadjuvant, patients were randomized to 14 cycles of either T-DM1 or trastuzumab.

The primary endpoint, IDFS, was as noted before. The trial was stopped after the results were found to cross the efficacy stopping boundary (HR less than 0.732) at the prespecified interim IDFS analysis in July 2018.

The efficacy of T-DM1 was supported by the finding that distant recurrence as the first invasive-disease event occurred in 10.5% of patients assigned to T-DM1, compared with 15.9% of those assigned to trastuzumab. The benefit of T-DM1 was consistent across all key subgroups, including all of the aforementioned stratification factors plus age, group, and race.

The safety analysis included data on 740 patients treated with T-DM1 and 720 treated with trastuzumab. The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events in the T-DM1 group included decreased platelet count in 5.7% and hypertension in 2.0%. The most common grade 3 or greater events in the trastuzumab group were hypertension in 1.2% and radiation-related skin injury in 1.0%.

Serious adverse events were more common in the T-DM1 arm, occurring in 12.7% of patients, compared with 8.1% in the trastuzumab arm. Adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial drug occurred in 18.0% versus 2.1%, in the T-DM1 arm versus trastuzumab arm respectively.

Dr. Geyer said that, in general, adverse events in the T-DM1 arm were consistent with those seen in other studies, with manageable toxicities and no new safety signals.

“At the present time, the role of T-DM1 in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting is limited,” commented invited discussant Eric P. Winer, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “It’s confined to patients who have residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy, but I predict this will change dramatically over time. Given how well tolerated T-DM1 is, how effective it was in this study, the answer that one comes to is why not consider using it more broadly and in an earlier-stage setting?”

Aditya Bardia, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in KATHERINE, agreed that the trial results are practice changing.

“I anticipate we would be using T-DM1 in the future for patients who would otherwise have been eligible for KATHERINE,” he said in an interview.

It’s still unclear, however, whether patients who receive pertuzumab (Perjeta) in the neoadjuvant setting and have residual lymph-node positive or estrogen receptor–negative might benefit with adjuvant therapy with T-DM1 instead of trastuzumab, he said.

“The second question that’s unclear at this time is patients who get 1 year of T-DM1, should they then receive neratinib [Nerlynx], because we have data from the ExteNET trial which showed that patients who complete 1 year of anti-HER2 therapy, if they receive 1 year of neratinib, there’s also reduced risk of recurrence, and that’s an unknown question at this time,” Dr. Bardia said.

The trial was funded by Hoffman–La Roche/Genentech. Dr. Geyer reported travel support from Roche and AstraZeneca, medical writing support from AbbVie and Roche, and honoraria from Celgene. Dr. Winer reported receiving grants for clinical research from and has served as an adviser or consultant to Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Bardia reported relationships with Genentech and Novartis.

SOURCE: Geyer CE et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814017.

SAN ANTONIO – Patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer with residual invasive disease following neoadjuvant therapy had a 50% reduction in risk for invasive breast cancer recurrence or death when they were treated with the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1; Kadcyla), results of the KATHERINE trial showed.

Among 743 patients randomized to adjuvant therapy with T-DM1, the 3-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) rate was 88.3%, compared with 77.0% for patients assigned to adjuvant trastuzumab (Herceptin).

The hazard ratio for IDFS – a composite endpoint of freedom from ipsilateral invasive breast tumor recurrence, ipsilateral locoregional invasive breast cancer recurrence, contralateral invasive breast cancer, distant recurrence, or death from any cause – was 0.50 (P less than .001), reported Charles E. Geyer Jr., MD, from Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“While additional follow-up will be necessary to evaluate the effect of T-DM1 on overall survival, the compelling and consistent efficacy seen on the IDFS endpoint with the safety profile will likely form the foundation of a new standard of care in the KATHERINE patient population,” he said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Results from KATHERINE were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with its presentation in a briefing and in a general session.

KATHERINE was an open-label, phase 3 trial pitting T-DM1 against trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with early HER2-positive breast cancer with residual invasive disease in the breast or axilla at surgery following neoadjuvant therapy with a taxane (with or without an anthracycline) and trastuzumab. After stratification for clinical presentation (operable vs. inoperable), hormone receptor status, type of preoperative therapy, and pathological nodal status after neoadjuvant, patients were randomized to 14 cycles of either T-DM1 or trastuzumab.

The primary endpoint, IDFS, was as noted before. The trial was stopped after the results were found to cross the efficacy stopping boundary (HR less than 0.732) at the prespecified interim IDFS analysis in July 2018.

The efficacy of T-DM1 was supported by the finding that distant recurrence as the first invasive-disease event occurred in 10.5% of patients assigned to T-DM1, compared with 15.9% of those assigned to trastuzumab. The benefit of T-DM1 was consistent across all key subgroups, including all of the aforementioned stratification factors plus age, group, and race.

The safety analysis included data on 740 patients treated with T-DM1 and 720 treated with trastuzumab. The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events in the T-DM1 group included decreased platelet count in 5.7% and hypertension in 2.0%. The most common grade 3 or greater events in the trastuzumab group were hypertension in 1.2% and radiation-related skin injury in 1.0%.

Serious adverse events were more common in the T-DM1 arm, occurring in 12.7% of patients, compared with 8.1% in the trastuzumab arm. Adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial drug occurred in 18.0% versus 2.1%, in the T-DM1 arm versus trastuzumab arm respectively.

Dr. Geyer said that, in general, adverse events in the T-DM1 arm were consistent with those seen in other studies, with manageable toxicities and no new safety signals.

“At the present time, the role of T-DM1 in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting is limited,” commented invited discussant Eric P. Winer, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “It’s confined to patients who have residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy, but I predict this will change dramatically over time. Given how well tolerated T-DM1 is, how effective it was in this study, the answer that one comes to is why not consider using it more broadly and in an earlier-stage setting?”

Aditya Bardia, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in KATHERINE, agreed that the trial results are practice changing.

“I anticipate we would be using T-DM1 in the future for patients who would otherwise have been eligible for KATHERINE,” he said in an interview.

It’s still unclear, however, whether patients who receive pertuzumab (Perjeta) in the neoadjuvant setting and have residual lymph-node positive or estrogen receptor–negative might benefit with adjuvant therapy with T-DM1 instead of trastuzumab, he said.

“The second question that’s unclear at this time is patients who get 1 year of T-DM1, should they then receive neratinib [Nerlynx], because we have data from the ExteNET trial which showed that patients who complete 1 year of anti-HER2 therapy, if they receive 1 year of neratinib, there’s also reduced risk of recurrence, and that’s an unknown question at this time,” Dr. Bardia said.

The trial was funded by Hoffman–La Roche/Genentech. Dr. Geyer reported travel support from Roche and AstraZeneca, medical writing support from AbbVie and Roche, and honoraria from Celgene. Dr. Winer reported receiving grants for clinical research from and has served as an adviser or consultant to Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Bardia reported relationships with Genentech and Novartis.

SOURCE: Geyer CE et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814017.