摘要号：LBA1
题目：Primary results from EMILIA, a phase III study of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) versus capecitabine (X) and lapatinib (L) in HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with trastuzumab (T) and a taxane.
摘要：
Background: T-DM1 is an antibody-drug conjugate comprising T, a stable linker, and the potent cytotoxic agent DM1; it incorporates the antitumor activities of T and the HER2-targeted delivery of DM1.
Methods: EMILIA is a randomized study of T-DM1 vs XL, the only approved combination for T-refractory HER2+ MBC. Patients (pts) received T-DM1 (3.6 mg/kg IV q3w) or X (1000 mg/m2 PO bid, days 1–14 q3w) + L (1,250 mg PO daily) until progressive disease (PD) or unmanageable toxicity. Pts had confirmed HER2+ MBC (IHC3+ and/or FISH+), and prior therapy with T and a taxane. Primary end points were PFS by independent review, OS and safety. An interim OS analysis (efficacy boundary: HR= 0.617; p=0.0003) was planned at the time of the final PFS analysis.
Results: 991 pts were enrolled; 978 received treatment. Median (med) durations of follow-up were 12.9 (T-DM1) and 12.4 (XL) months (mo). Baseline demographics, prior therapy and disease characteristics were balanced. There was a significant improvement in PFS favoring T-DM1 (med 9.6 vs 6.4 mo; HR=0.650 [95% CI, 0.549–0.771]; p <0.0001). The med T-DM1 OS was not reached vs 23.3 mo (HR=0.621 [95% CI, 0.475–0.813]; p=0.0005); the interim efficacy boundary was not crossed. T-DM1 was well tolerated with no unexpected safety signals. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) per treatment were for T-DM1: thrombocytopenia (12.9% vs 0.2%), increased AST (4.3% vs 0.8%), and increased ALT (2.9% vs 1.4%); for XL: diarrhea (20.7% vs 1.6%), palmar plantar erythrodysesthesia (16.4% vs 0) and vomiting (4.5% vs 0.8%). The table lists other end points.
Conclusions: T-DM1 conferred a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS compared with XL. Other end points support T-DM1 as an active and well-tolerated novel therapy for HER2+ advanced BC.
摘要号：501
题目：Effect of osteoporosis in postmenopausal breast cancer patients randomized to adjuvant exemestane or anastrozole: NCIC CTG MA.27.
绝经后乳腺癌患者辅助
依西美坦或阿拉曲唑的骨质疏松效应：NCIC CTG MA.27
摘要：
Background: NCIC CTG MA.27 compared adjuvant steroidal [exemestane (E)] and non-steroidal [anastrozole (A)] aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and showed neither to be superior in breast cancer outcomes. AIs are known to increase the risk of osteoporosis. We examined the effects of baseline or subsequent self reported osteoporosis on disease outcomes.
Methods: MA.27 enrolled 7,576 women. Event free survival (EFS) was the primary endpoint. Distant disease-free-survival (DDFS) was a secondary outcome. MA.27 permitted bisphosphonates to prevent or treat osteopenia or osteoporosis unless prohibited by enrollment to one of two cohorts in a bone substudy. Osteoporosis was considered present for this analysis if reported at baseline or prior to relapse or breast cancer death. Multivariate stratified Cox regression was used to examine the effects of trial therapy, osteoporosis, baseline patient and tumour characteristics on EFS; DDFS; bone only relapse; bone concurrent with other relapse; and non-bone recurrence. Bone marrow recurrence (N=8) was excluded.
Results: Osteoporosis was reported at baseline by 654 of 7576 (8.6%) women, and prior to relapse by an additional 661 women. EFS events occurred in 693/7576 (9.15%). Osteoporosis was significantly associated with better EFS [HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.66-0.99), p=0.04] with no difference in multivariate HR of E vs A: 1.02, 95% CI 0.88-1.19, p=0.77. Women experienced 313 (4.1%) DDFS events. Osteoporosis was associated with better DDFS [HR 0.71 (95% CI 0.51-0.98), p=0.04], adjusted HR of E to A: 0.94 (95% CI of 0.75-1.17), p=0.56. Both EFS and DDFS interactions of osteoporosis with trial therapy were not significant (p>0.05). Osteoporosis was not significantly associated with the site of relapse.
Conclusions: Osteoporosis had a significant prognostic association with improved EFS and DDFS in women treated with AIs. We plan to investigate the use of bisphosphonates, raloxifene treatment prior to randomization, and markers of bone resorption with outcome.
摘要号：CRA1002
题目：CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H: Randomized phase III trial of weekly paclitaxel (P) compared to weekly nanoparticle albumin bound nab-paclitaxel (NP) or ixabepilone (Ix) with or without bevacizumab (B) as first-line therapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (MBC).
CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H：紫杉醇周疗(P)对比白蛋白纳米紫杉醇(NP)周疗或伊沙匹隆(Ix)加或不加贝伐单抗作为局部复发或转移性乳腺癌(MBC)一线治疗的随机III期研究
摘要：
Background: Weekly P is superior to q 3 week (wk) dosing, and adding B improves progression free survival (PFS) (E2100). Ix is a potent epothilone that can be effective after microtubule inhibitor resistance. NP is a novel albumin-bound formulation of P with promising activity in the first-line MBC setting. In this phase III trial, the efficacy of weekly Ix or NP is compared to P, in combination with B in patients (pts) with chemotherapy (CTX) naïve MBC. Toxicity including >Grade 2 sensory neuropathy (SN) is compared to P.
Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to receive P (90 mg/m2), Ix (16 mg/m2) or NP (150 mg/m2) on a 3 wk on, 1 wk off schedule, stratified by prior adjuvant taxane use and hormone receptor status. B was initially given to all pts, but became optional in 3/2011 and was added to stratification. The primary end point of PFS is defined as time from randomization to progression or all-cause death. With a target N=900 pts, the study was powered to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.36 (median PFS 10 vs 13.6 mos). Eligibility included no prior CTX for MBC, >12 mos from adjuvant P and measurable disease.
Results: 799 pts were enrolled between 11/08-11/11 (283 to P, 271 to NP, 245 to Ix); 98% received B. 72% had ER+ disease, 44% received adjuvant P. At the 1st interim analysis (165 events) the comparison of Ix to P crossed the futility boundary (FB) and accrual to Ix was closed. At the 2nd interim analysis (236 events), NP to P crossed the FB and the study was closed on 11/30/11. Median PFS was 10.4, 9.6 and 7.6 mos for P, NP and Ix, with HRs (95% CIs) of 0.94 (0.73-1.22) and 0.66 (0.51-0.84) for P to NP and Ix respectively. Grade 2+ SN was 48% for NP, 44% for Ix and 37% for P; Grade 3+ hematologic toxicity was 49% for NP, 20% for Ix, and 12% for P.
Conclusions: In pts with CTX naive MBC, both NP and Ix are highly unlikely to be superior to P for PFS (when all are combined with B), and in combination with B, weekly P is the better tolerated drug. Toxicity including SN was greater in each experimental arm compared to P. Updated data will be presented, and correlative studies will be reported at a future date.
摘要号：LBA1000
题目：NSABP B-38: Definitive analysis of a randomized adjuvant trial comparing dose-dense (DD) AC→paclitaxel (P) plus gemcitabine (G) with DD AC→P and with docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) in women with operable, node-positive breast cancer.
NSABP B-38：剂量密集AC序贯紫杉醇(P)联合吉西他滨(G)对比剂量密集AC序贯紫杉醇(P)以及TAC治疗可手术、淋巴结阳性乳腺癌的临床随机研究最终分析结果
摘要：
Background: The primary aims were to determine whether adjuvant DD AC→PG will be superior to DD AC→P as well as to TAC in DFS and to compare the relative DFS of TAC and DD AC→P. Secondary endpoints include survival and toxicity.
Methods: From Nov 3, 2004 to May 3, 2007, 4894 women were randomized; 1630 to TAC (docetaxel [T] 75 mg/m2, doxorubicin [A] 50 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide [C] 500 mg/m2 q3 wks x 6), 1634 to DD AC→P (A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4 followed by P 175 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4), and 1630 to DD AC→PG (A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4 → P 175 mg/m2 + G 2000 mg/m2q2 wks x 4). Primary G-CSF support was required and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) were used at investigator discretion. 52% were postmenopausal, 65% had 1 - 3 positive nodes, and 80% had HR+ breast cancer. Log-rank tests were used for pair-wise comparisons of the primary (DFS) and secondary (OS) endpoints among the three treatment arms.
Results: With 64 months median follow-up, 5-year DFS in DD AC→PG group was 80.6% compared with 82.2% in DD AC→P group (HR=1.1; p=0.27) and 80.1 % (HR=0.97; p=0.71) in TAC group. 5-year OS was 90.8% in DD AC→PG group as compared with 89.1% (HR=.89; p=0.25) in DD AC→P group and 89.6 % (HR=0.90; p=0.32) in TAC group. HR for DFS and OS of DD AC→P vs. TAC were 0.89 (p=0.14) and 1.01 (p=0.92) respectively. Toxicities for TAC, DD AC→P, DD AC→PG, respectively: febrile neutropenia (Gr 3/4: 9%, 4%, 4% [p<0.001]), sensory neuropathy (Gr 3/4: <1%, 7%, 6% [p<0.001]), diarrhea (Gr 3/4: 8 %, 2%, 2% [p<0.001]). Hgb was <10 in 12%, 26%, 33% with ESA use in 35.2%, 47%, 51.6% and transfusions in 3.7%, 6.3%, 9.4%. Deaths on treatment: N=13, 5, 7 (p=0.2). AML/MDS: N=5, 8, 11. All cycles completed in 91% for TAC and 88% for DD regimens.
Conclusions: Addition of G to DD AC→P did not improve outcomes. No significant differences in efficacy endpoints were identified between DD AC→P and TAC, though toxicity profiles differed.
摘要号：1003
题目：A phase III, multicenter, randomized trial of maintenance versus observation after achieving clinical response in patients with metastatic breast cancer who received six cycles of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy (KCSG-BR 0702, NCT00561119).
在一线接受6个周期吉西他滨联合紫杉醇治疗后取得临床缓解的晚期乳腺癌患者中比较维持治疗和观察的III期、多中心、随机试验(KCSG-BR 0702, NCT00561119)
摘要：
Background: Chemotherapy provides a survival benefit in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), but the optimal duration of chemotherapy remains controversial. Primary purpose of the study was to evaluate whether the maintenance chemotherapy with gemcitabine/paclitaxel (GP), which is one of the two regimens which showed a survival gain from a randomized trial, is superior to observation in terms of progression free survival (PFS) in responding patients with MBC after 6 cycles of GP as first-line treatment.
Methods: This study is a prospective, randomized, multi-center, phase III study. Patients who achieved response (CR+PR+SD) following 6 cycles of GP chemotherapy (gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 on day 1 and 8 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks) randomized to maintenance till progression or observation arm. The trial was conducted by the Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG).
Results: Among total 324 patients enrolled between 2007 and 2010 from 10 centers, 231 responding patients to were randomly assigned to maintenance chemotherapy (n=116) or observation (n=115). Median age was 49 (range 28-76). The numbers of hormone receptor (HR)+ve and HR-ve patients were 172 (74.5%) and 59 (25.5%), respectively. The median No. of chemotherapy cycles in maintenance group was 12 (range 6-32). During median 33 months of follow-up, median PFS was superior in maintenance than in observation (12.0 vs. 8.3 months, p=0.030). Patients < age 50 years (hazard ratio 0.50, p=0.001) and HR-ve patients (hazard ratio 0.52, p=0.019) received more benefit from maintenance chemotherapy in terms of PFS. Median OS was superior in maintenance than in observation (36.8 vs 28.0 months, p=0.047). Neurotoxicity (≥ grade 2) was more common in maintenance than in observation without statistical significance (41.7% vs 33.3%, p=0.210). Serial assessment of Quality of Life (QoL) did not show any significant difference between two groups.
Conclusions: Maintenance GP chemotherapy for responding patients with MBC showed clinical benefit in terms of PFS and OS without impairment of QoL.
我要投稿
