Breast Cancer

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

Key clinical point: Several preoperative and postoperative factors predict the risk for arm lymphedema in patients who undergo breast cancer (BC) surgery.

Major finding: Young age (<60 years; P < .001), high body mass index (P < .001), advanced preoperative T and N classifications (P ≤ .01), total mastectomy (P < .001), axillary dissection (P < .001), and collagen disease (P = .024) were the preoperative risk factors for lymphedema. Postoperative bleeding (P   =   .017), chemotherapy (P < .001), and radiotherapy (P < .001) were among the postoperative risk factors for lymphedema.

Study details: Findings are from a nationwide retrospective cohort study including 84,022 women who underwent BC surgery, of which 1547 patients received treatments for lymphedema.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan, and other sources. N Michihata declared serving as an employee at The University of Tokyo.

Source: Konishi T et al. Risk factors for arm lymphedema following breast cancer surgery: A Japanese nationwide database study of 84,022 patients. Breast Cancer. 2022 (Aug 23). Doi: 10.1007/s12282-022-01395-5.

Key clinical point: Several preoperative and postoperative factors predict the risk for arm lymphedema in patients who undergo breast cancer (BC) surgery.

Major finding: Young age (<60 years; P < .001), high body mass index (P < .001), advanced preoperative T and N classifications (P ≤ .01), total mastectomy (P < .001), axillary dissection (P < .001), and collagen disease (P = .024) were the preoperative risk factors for lymphedema. Postoperative bleeding (P   =   .017), chemotherapy (P < .001), and radiotherapy (P < .001) were among the postoperative risk factors for lymphedema.

Study details: Findings are from a nationwide retrospective cohort study including 84,022 women who underwent BC surgery, of which 1547 patients received treatments for lymphedema.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan, and other sources. N Michihata declared serving as an employee at The University of Tokyo.

Source: Konishi T et al. Risk factors for arm lymphedema following breast cancer surgery: A Japanese nationwide database study of 84,022 patients. Breast Cancer. 2022 (Aug 23). Doi: 10.1007/s12282-022-01395-5.

Key clinical point: Several preoperative and postoperative factors predict the risk for arm lymphedema in patients who undergo breast cancer (BC) surgery.

Major finding: Young age (<60 years; P < .001), high body mass index (P < .001), advanced preoperative T and N classifications (P ≤ .01), total mastectomy (P < .001), axillary dissection (P < .001), and collagen disease (P = .024) were the preoperative risk factors for lymphedema. Postoperative bleeding (P   =   .017), chemotherapy (P < .001), and radiotherapy (P < .001) were among the postoperative risk factors for lymphedema.

Study details: Findings are from a nationwide retrospective cohort study including 84,022 women who underwent BC surgery, of which 1547 patients received treatments for lymphedema.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan, and other sources. N Michihata declared serving as an employee at The University of Tokyo.

Source: Konishi T et al. Risk factors for arm lymphedema following breast cancer surgery: A Japanese nationwide database study of 84,022 patients. Breast Cancer. 2022 (Aug 23). Doi: 10.1007/s12282-022-01395-5.

Key clinical point: Letrozole-associated controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (LetCOH) was as effective as conventional controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (cCOH) for fertility preservation (FP) and minimized the risk for supraphysiologic estrogen exposure; however, more patients in the LetCOH group relapsed.

Major finding: In the LetCOH vs cCOH group, estradiol peak at the ovulation trigger was lower, but oocyte maturation rates were significantly higher (P < .001), and the final number of mature oocytes collected was comparable (P   =   .281). Disease recurrence occurred in 17% and 7.2% of patients in the LetCOH and cCOH groups, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study including 97 patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer (BC) who were ≤ 40 years old and had undergone FP with LetCOH (n = 41) or cCOH (n = 56) before receiving chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. I Demeestere declared receiving honoraria and support and serving as a consultant or advisor for several sources outside this work.

Source: Goldrat O et al. Efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with or without letrozole for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study. Eur J Cancer. 2022;174:134-141 (Aug 20). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.07.017

Key clinical point: Letrozole-associated controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (LetCOH) was as effective as conventional controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (cCOH) for fertility preservation (FP) and minimized the risk for supraphysiologic estrogen exposure; however, more patients in the LetCOH group relapsed.

Major finding: In the LetCOH vs cCOH group, estradiol peak at the ovulation trigger was lower, but oocyte maturation rates were significantly higher (P < .001), and the final number of mature oocytes collected was comparable (P   =   .281). Disease recurrence occurred in 17% and 7.2% of patients in the LetCOH and cCOH groups, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study including 97 patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer (BC) who were ≤ 40 years old and had undergone FP with LetCOH (n = 41) or cCOH (n = 56) before receiving chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. I Demeestere declared receiving honoraria and support and serving as a consultant or advisor for several sources outside this work.

Source: Goldrat O et al. Efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with or without letrozole for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study. Eur J Cancer. 2022;174:134-141 (Aug 20). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.07.017

Key clinical point: Letrozole-associated controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (LetCOH) was as effective as conventional controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (cCOH) for fertility preservation (FP) and minimized the risk for supraphysiologic estrogen exposure; however, more patients in the LetCOH group relapsed.

Major finding: In the LetCOH vs cCOH group, estradiol peak at the ovulation trigger was lower, but oocyte maturation rates were significantly higher (P < .001), and the final number of mature oocytes collected was comparable (P   =   .281). Disease recurrence occurred in 17% and 7.2% of patients in the LetCOH and cCOH groups, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study including 97 patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer (BC) who were ≤ 40 years old and had undergone FP with LetCOH (n = 41) or cCOH (n = 56) before receiving chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. I Demeestere declared receiving honoraria and support and serving as a consultant or advisor for several sources outside this work.

Source: Goldrat O et al. Efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with or without letrozole for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study. Eur J Cancer. 2022;174:134-141 (Aug 20). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.07.017

Key clinical point: Women who were diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) at a young age and underwent fertility preservation (FP) did not experience any increased risk for disease-specific mortality or relapse.

Major finding: Compared with women who did not undergo FP, disease-specific mortality was similar in women who underwent hormonal FP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.59; 95% CI 0.32-1.09) and nonhormonal FP (aHR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20-1.29). Hormonal (aHR 0.81; 95% CI 0.49-1.37) and nonhormonal (aHR 0.75; 95% CI 0.35-1.62) FP were associated with similar relapse or death rates in a subcohort of 723 women with complete relapse information.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a population-based nationwide cohort study including 1275 women of reproductive age (18-44 years old) who were diagnosed with BC, of which 425 women received hormonal (n = 367) or nonhormonal (n = 58) FP treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society and other sources. Prof. Bergh declared receiving grants and personal fees from several sources.

Source: Marklund A et al. Relapse rates and disease-specific mortality following procedures for fertility preservation at time of breast cancer diagnosis. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Aug 25). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.3677

Key clinical point: Women who were diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) at a young age and underwent fertility preservation (FP) did not experience any increased risk for disease-specific mortality or relapse.

Major finding: Compared with women who did not undergo FP, disease-specific mortality was similar in women who underwent hormonal FP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.59; 95% CI 0.32-1.09) and nonhormonal FP (aHR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20-1.29). Hormonal (aHR 0.81; 95% CI 0.49-1.37) and nonhormonal (aHR 0.75; 95% CI 0.35-1.62) FP were associated with similar relapse or death rates in a subcohort of 723 women with complete relapse information.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a population-based nationwide cohort study including 1275 women of reproductive age (18-44 years old) who were diagnosed with BC, of which 425 women received hormonal (n = 367) or nonhormonal (n = 58) FP treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society and other sources. Prof. Bergh declared receiving grants and personal fees from several sources.

Source: Marklund A et al. Relapse rates and disease-specific mortality following procedures for fertility preservation at time of breast cancer diagnosis. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Aug 25). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.3677

Key clinical point: Women who were diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) at a young age and underwent fertility preservation (FP) did not experience any increased risk for disease-specific mortality or relapse.

Major finding: Compared with women who did not undergo FP, disease-specific mortality was similar in women who underwent hormonal FP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.59; 95% CI 0.32-1.09) and nonhormonal FP (aHR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20-1.29). Hormonal (aHR 0.81; 95% CI 0.49-1.37) and nonhormonal (aHR 0.75; 95% CI 0.35-1.62) FP were associated with similar relapse or death rates in a subcohort of 723 women with complete relapse information.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a population-based nationwide cohort study including 1275 women of reproductive age (18-44 years old) who were diagnosed with BC, of which 425 women received hormonal (n = 367) or nonhormonal (n = 58) FP treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society and other sources. Prof. Bergh declared receiving grants and personal fees from several sources.

Source: Marklund A et al. Relapse rates and disease-specific mortality following procedures for fertility preservation at time of breast cancer diagnosis. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Aug 25). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.3677

Key clinical point: In estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-positive (ER+/HER2+) breast cancer (BC), HER2-enriched (HER2-E) tumors were more likely to respond poorly to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy and pose an increased risk for disease recurrence.

Major finding: AI-treated HER2-E tumors were associated with poorer Ki67 response and higher Ki67 expression level at 2-weeks timepoint compared with luminal A and B tumors (odds ratio 1.52-12.31; false discovery rate < 0.0001). HER2-E subtype was an independent predictor of shorter time to recurrence (hazard ratio 2.55; P   =   .022).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 POETIC trial including 342 patients with early ER+/HER2+ BC who were assigned to 2 weeks of perisurgical AI (n = 237) or no AI (n = 105).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Some authors declared holding or filing patents or receiving grants, nonfinancial support, consulting fees, honoraria, or research funding from several sources.

Source: Bergamino MA et al. HER2-enriched subtype and novel molecular subgroups drive aromatase inhibitor resistance and an increased risk of relapse in early ER+/HER2+ breast cancer. EBioMedicine. 2022;83:104205 (Aug 16). Doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104205

Key clinical point: In estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-positive (ER+/HER2+) breast cancer (BC), HER2-enriched (HER2-E) tumors were more likely to respond poorly to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy and pose an increased risk for disease recurrence.

Major finding: AI-treated HER2-E tumors were associated with poorer Ki67 response and higher Ki67 expression level at 2-weeks timepoint compared with luminal A and B tumors (odds ratio 1.52-12.31; false discovery rate < 0.0001). HER2-E subtype was an independent predictor of shorter time to recurrence (hazard ratio 2.55; P   =   .022).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 POETIC trial including 342 patients with early ER+/HER2+ BC who were assigned to 2 weeks of perisurgical AI (n = 237) or no AI (n = 105).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Some authors declared holding or filing patents or receiving grants, nonfinancial support, consulting fees, honoraria, or research funding from several sources.

Source: Bergamino MA et al. HER2-enriched subtype and novel molecular subgroups drive aromatase inhibitor resistance and an increased risk of relapse in early ER+/HER2+ breast cancer. EBioMedicine. 2022;83:104205 (Aug 16). Doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104205

Key clinical point: In estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-positive (ER+/HER2+) breast cancer (BC), HER2-enriched (HER2-E) tumors were more likely to respond poorly to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy and pose an increased risk for disease recurrence.

Major finding: AI-treated HER2-E tumors were associated with poorer Ki67 response and higher Ki67 expression level at 2-weeks timepoint compared with luminal A and B tumors (odds ratio 1.52-12.31; false discovery rate < 0.0001). HER2-E subtype was an independent predictor of shorter time to recurrence (hazard ratio 2.55; P   =   .022).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 POETIC trial including 342 patients with early ER+/HER2+ BC who were assigned to 2 weeks of perisurgical AI (n = 237) or no AI (n = 105).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Some authors declared holding or filing patents or receiving grants, nonfinancial support, consulting fees, honoraria, or research funding from several sources.

Source: Bergamino MA et al. HER2-enriched subtype and novel molecular subgroups drive aromatase inhibitor resistance and an increased risk of relapse in early ER+/HER2+ breast cancer. EBioMedicine. 2022;83:104205 (Aug 16). Doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104205

Key clinical point: Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (ERBB2+) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) are more likely to need radiation for brain metastasis (BRM) than those with other BC subtypes.

Major finding: At the 3-year timepoint, the cumulative incidences of BRM was highest in patients with ERBB2+/hormone receptor-negative (HR−) BC (25.3%). TNBC (hazard ratio 4.25), ERBB2+/HR+ BC (hazard ratio 1.94), and ERBB2+/HR− BC (hazard ratio 2.81; all P < .001) were associated with a shorter time from BC diagnosis to brain radiotherapy than HR+/ERBB2− BC. Patients who received radiotherapy for BRM were more likely to have TNBC or ERBB2+ BC than HR+/ERBB2− BC (P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, observational population-based cohort study including 3916 patients with metastatic BC, of which 31.0% had HR+/ERBB2− BC, 7.9% had ERBB2+/HR+ BC, 5.1% had ERBB2+/HR− BC, and 6.6% had TNBC.

Disclosures: This research was supported by Eli Lilly. Some authors declared serving as consultants, board members, or speakers or receiving grants or personal fees from several sources, including Eli Lilly.

Source: Wang XY et al. Analysis of rates of brain metastases and association with breast cancer subtypes in Ontario, Canada. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(8):e2225424 (Aug 12). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.25424

Key clinical point: Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (ERBB2+) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) are more likely to need radiation for brain metastasis (BRM) than those with other BC subtypes.

Major finding: At the 3-year timepoint, the cumulative incidences of BRM was highest in patients with ERBB2+/hormone receptor-negative (HR−) BC (25.3%). TNBC (hazard ratio 4.25), ERBB2+/HR+ BC (hazard ratio 1.94), and ERBB2+/HR− BC (hazard ratio 2.81; all P < .001) were associated with a shorter time from BC diagnosis to brain radiotherapy than HR+/ERBB2− BC. Patients who received radiotherapy for BRM were more likely to have TNBC or ERBB2+ BC than HR+/ERBB2− BC (P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, observational population-based cohort study including 3916 patients with metastatic BC, of which 31.0% had HR+/ERBB2− BC, 7.9% had ERBB2+/HR+ BC, 5.1% had ERBB2+/HR− BC, and 6.6% had TNBC.

Disclosures: This research was supported by Eli Lilly. Some authors declared serving as consultants, board members, or speakers or receiving grants or personal fees from several sources, including Eli Lilly.

Source: Wang XY et al. Analysis of rates of brain metastases and association with breast cancer subtypes in Ontario, Canada. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(8):e2225424 (Aug 12). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.25424

Key clinical point: Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (ERBB2+) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) are more likely to need radiation for brain metastasis (BRM) than those with other BC subtypes.

Major finding: At the 3-year timepoint, the cumulative incidences of BRM was highest in patients with ERBB2+/hormone receptor-negative (HR−) BC (25.3%). TNBC (hazard ratio 4.25), ERBB2+/HR+ BC (hazard ratio 1.94), and ERBB2+/HR− BC (hazard ratio 2.81; all P < .001) were associated with a shorter time from BC diagnosis to brain radiotherapy than HR+/ERBB2− BC. Patients who received radiotherapy for BRM were more likely to have TNBC or ERBB2+ BC than HR+/ERBB2− BC (P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, observational population-based cohort study including 3916 patients with metastatic BC, of which 31.0% had HR+/ERBB2− BC, 7.9% had ERBB2+/HR+ BC, 5.1% had ERBB2+/HR− BC, and 6.6% had TNBC.

Disclosures: This research was supported by Eli Lilly. Some authors declared serving as consultants, board members, or speakers or receiving grants or personal fees from several sources, including Eli Lilly.

Source: Wang XY et al. Analysis of rates of brain metastases and association with breast cancer subtypes in Ontario, Canada. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(8):e2225424 (Aug 12). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.25424

Key clinical point: Lapatinib demonstrated excellent survival outcomes in patients with small, node-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC), when used in combination with trastuzumab, but not when used as a substitute for trastuzumab.

Major finding: The 7-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate in the overall cohort was excellent (88.1%), with improved DFS outcomes observed in the trastuzumab (89.6%), trastuzumab followed by lapatinib (89.0%), and trastuzumab+lapatinib (89.1%) arms, but not as much in the lapatinib-only arm (84.3%; stratified log-rank P   =   .031).

Study details: Findings are from a subanalysis of the phase 3 ALTTO trial including 2821 patients with small (pathological tumor size ≤ 3 cm), lymph node-negative, early HER2+ BC who were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, lapatinib, trastuzumab followed by lapatinib, or trastuzumab+lapatinib.

Disclosures: The ALTTO trial received funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis Pharma AG, and other sources. Two authors declared being employees of and owning stocks in Novartis. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Novartis.

Source: Nader-Marta G et al. Outcomes of patients with small and node-negative HER2-positive early breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapy-a sub-analysis of the ALTTO study. Br J Cancer. 2022 (Sep 1). Doi: 10.1038/s41416-022-01963-8

Key clinical point: Lapatinib demonstrated excellent survival outcomes in patients with small, node-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC), when used in combination with trastuzumab, but not when used as a substitute for trastuzumab.

Major finding: The 7-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate in the overall cohort was excellent (88.1%), with improved DFS outcomes observed in the trastuzumab (89.6%), trastuzumab followed by lapatinib (89.0%), and trastuzumab+lapatinib (89.1%) arms, but not as much in the lapatinib-only arm (84.3%; stratified log-rank P   =   .031).

Study details: Findings are from a subanalysis of the phase 3 ALTTO trial including 2821 patients with small (pathological tumor size ≤ 3 cm), lymph node-negative, early HER2+ BC who were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, lapatinib, trastuzumab followed by lapatinib, or trastuzumab+lapatinib.

Disclosures: The ALTTO trial received funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis Pharma AG, and other sources. Two authors declared being employees of and owning stocks in Novartis. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Novartis.

Source: Nader-Marta G et al. Outcomes of patients with small and node-negative HER2-positive early breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapy-a sub-analysis of the ALTTO study. Br J Cancer. 2022 (Sep 1). Doi: 10.1038/s41416-022-01963-8

Key clinical point: Lapatinib demonstrated excellent survival outcomes in patients with small, node-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC), when used in combination with trastuzumab, but not when used as a substitute for trastuzumab.

Major finding: The 7-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate in the overall cohort was excellent (88.1%), with improved DFS outcomes observed in the trastuzumab (89.6%), trastuzumab followed by lapatinib (89.0%), and trastuzumab+lapatinib (89.1%) arms, but not as much in the lapatinib-only arm (84.3%; stratified log-rank P   =   .031).

Study details: Findings are from a subanalysis of the phase 3 ALTTO trial including 2821 patients with small (pathological tumor size ≤ 3 cm), lymph node-negative, early HER2+ BC who were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, lapatinib, trastuzumab followed by lapatinib, or trastuzumab+lapatinib.

Disclosures: The ALTTO trial received funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis Pharma AG, and other sources. Two authors declared being employees of and owning stocks in Novartis. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Novartis.

Source: Nader-Marta G et al. Outcomes of patients with small and node-negative HER2-positive early breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapy-a sub-analysis of the ALTTO study. Br J Cancer. 2022 (Sep 1). Doi: 10.1038/s41416-022-01963-8

Key clinical point: Neratinib as monotherapy or in combination with capecitabine showed good survival outcomes and was well tolerated in a real-world setting of patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC) with or without brain metastases (BM).

Major finding: The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for all patients were 5.9 months (95% CI 4.9-7.4) and 15.0 months (95% CI 10.4-22.2), respectively, with survival outcomes being similar in patients with vs without BM. PFS and OS were significantly longer with neratinib+capecitabine vs neratinib (P ≤ .001). Diarrhea was the major adverse event (64%) with 10% being grade 3.

Study details: Findings are from a single-center retrospective study including 72 patients with advanced HER2+ BC who received neratinib (n = 27) or neratinib+capecitabine (n = 45). Thirty-eight patients had BM.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Royal Marsden National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre for Cancer, UK. The authors declared receiving research funding, speaker’s fees, honoraria, or travel support from several sources.

Source: Cunningham N et al. Neratinib in advanced HER2-positive breast cancer: Experience from the Royal Marsden Hospital. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022;195(3):333-340 (Aug 17). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06703-3

Key clinical point: Neratinib as monotherapy or in combination with capecitabine showed good survival outcomes and was well tolerated in a real-world setting of patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC) with or without brain metastases (BM).

Major finding: The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for all patients were 5.9 months (95% CI 4.9-7.4) and 15.0 months (95% CI 10.4-22.2), respectively, with survival outcomes being similar in patients with vs without BM. PFS and OS were significantly longer with neratinib+capecitabine vs neratinib (P ≤ .001). Diarrhea was the major adverse event (64%) with 10% being grade 3.

Study details: Findings are from a single-center retrospective study including 72 patients with advanced HER2+ BC who received neratinib (n = 27) or neratinib+capecitabine (n = 45). Thirty-eight patients had BM.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Royal Marsden National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre for Cancer, UK. The authors declared receiving research funding, speaker’s fees, honoraria, or travel support from several sources.

Source: Cunningham N et al. Neratinib in advanced HER2-positive breast cancer: Experience from the Royal Marsden Hospital. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022;195(3):333-340 (Aug 17). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06703-3

Key clinical point: Neratinib as monotherapy or in combination with capecitabine showed good survival outcomes and was well tolerated in a real-world setting of patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC) with or without brain metastases (BM).

Major finding: The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for all patients were 5.9 months (95% CI 4.9-7.4) and 15.0 months (95% CI 10.4-22.2), respectively, with survival outcomes being similar in patients with vs without BM. PFS and OS were significantly longer with neratinib+capecitabine vs neratinib (P ≤ .001). Diarrhea was the major adverse event (64%) with 10% being grade 3.

Study details: Findings are from a single-center retrospective study including 72 patients with advanced HER2+ BC who received neratinib (n = 27) or neratinib+capecitabine (n = 45). Thirty-eight patients had BM.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Royal Marsden National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre for Cancer, UK. The authors declared receiving research funding, speaker’s fees, honoraria, or travel support from several sources.

Source: Cunningham N et al. Neratinib in advanced HER2-positive breast cancer: Experience from the Royal Marsden Hospital. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022;195(3):333-340 (Aug 17). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06703-3

Key clinical point: Addition of durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) improved survival in women with early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) although improvement in the pathological complete response (pCR) rate was nonsignificant.

Major finding: In the overall cohort, durvalumab vs placebo improved 3-year invasive disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48; log-rank P   =   .036), distant disease-free survival (HR 0.31; log-rank P   =   .005), and overall survival (HR 0.24; log-rank P   =   .006) rates, despite no adjuvant component of durvalumab.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 GeparNuevo study including 174 patients with primary nonmetastatic TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive NACT with durvalumab or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AstraZeneca and Celgene. The authors declared receiving grants, personal fees, nonfinancial support, or other support from several sources.

Source: Loibl S et al. Neoadjuvant durvalumab improves survival in early triple-negative breast cancer independent of pathological complete response. Ann Oncol. 2022 (Aug 9). Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.07.1940

Key clinical point: Addition of durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) improved survival in women with early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) although improvement in the pathological complete response (pCR) rate was nonsignificant.

Major finding: In the overall cohort, durvalumab vs placebo improved 3-year invasive disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48; log-rank P   =   .036), distant disease-free survival (HR 0.31; log-rank P   =   .005), and overall survival (HR 0.24; log-rank P   =   .006) rates, despite no adjuvant component of durvalumab.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 GeparNuevo study including 174 patients with primary nonmetastatic TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive NACT with durvalumab or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AstraZeneca and Celgene. The authors declared receiving grants, personal fees, nonfinancial support, or other support from several sources.

Source: Loibl S et al. Neoadjuvant durvalumab improves survival in early triple-negative breast cancer independent of pathological complete response. Ann Oncol. 2022 (Aug 9). Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.07.1940

Key clinical point: Addition of durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) improved survival in women with early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) although improvement in the pathological complete response (pCR) rate was nonsignificant.

Major finding: In the overall cohort, durvalumab vs placebo improved 3-year invasive disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48; log-rank P   =   .036), distant disease-free survival (HR 0.31; log-rank P   =   .005), and overall survival (HR 0.24; log-rank P   =   .006) rates, despite no adjuvant component of durvalumab.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 GeparNuevo study including 174 patients with primary nonmetastatic TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive NACT with durvalumab or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AstraZeneca and Celgene. The authors declared receiving grants, personal fees, nonfinancial support, or other support from several sources.

Source: Loibl S et al. Neoadjuvant durvalumab improves survival in early triple-negative breast cancer independent of pathological complete response. Ann Oncol. 2022 (Aug 9). Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.07.1940

Key clinical point: Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) was more effective than chemotherapy in improving progression-free survival (PFS) and showed a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated, endocrine-resistant, hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: SG vs chemotherapy significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; P   =   .0003), with PFS rates being 46% vs 30% at 6 months and 21% vs 7% at 12 months, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events with SG vs chemotherapy were neutropenia (51% vs 38%) and diarrhea (9% vs 1%).

Study details: Findings are the primary results of the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 trial including 543 patients with HR+/HER2− locally recurrent inoperable/metastatic BC who had received prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor with 2-4 lines of chemotherapy and were randomly assigned to receive SG or chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Gilead Sciences Inc. Four authors declared being employees of or stockowners in Gilead Sciences. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Gilead.

Source: Rugo HS et al. Sacituzumab govitecan in hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Aug 26). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01002

Key clinical point: Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) was more effective than chemotherapy in improving progression-free survival (PFS) and showed a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated, endocrine-resistant, hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: SG vs chemotherapy significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; P   =   .0003), with PFS rates being 46% vs 30% at 6 months and 21% vs 7% at 12 months, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events with SG vs chemotherapy were neutropenia (51% vs 38%) and diarrhea (9% vs 1%).

Study details: Findings are the primary results of the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 trial including 543 patients with HR+/HER2− locally recurrent inoperable/metastatic BC who had received prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor with 2-4 lines of chemotherapy and were randomly assigned to receive SG or chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Gilead Sciences Inc. Four authors declared being employees of or stockowners in Gilead Sciences. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Gilead.

Source: Rugo HS et al. Sacituzumab govitecan in hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Aug 26). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01002

Key clinical point: Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) was more effective than chemotherapy in improving progression-free survival (PFS) and showed a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated, endocrine-resistant, hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: SG vs chemotherapy significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; P   =   .0003), with PFS rates being 46% vs 30% at 6 months and 21% vs 7% at 12 months, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events with SG vs chemotherapy were neutropenia (51% vs 38%) and diarrhea (9% vs 1%).

Study details: Findings are the primary results of the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 trial including 543 patients with HR+/HER2− locally recurrent inoperable/metastatic BC who had received prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor with 2-4 lines of chemotherapy and were randomly assigned to receive SG or chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Gilead Sciences Inc. Four authors declared being employees of or stockowners in Gilead Sciences. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Gilead.

Source: Rugo HS et al. Sacituzumab govitecan in hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Aug 26). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01002