Among patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation, olaparib monotherapy provided a significant benefit over standard therapy; median progression-free survival was 2.8 months longer and the risk of disease progression or death was 42% lower with olaparib monotherapy than with standard therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; OlympiAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02000622 .).

Background In the OlympiAD study, olaparib was shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) in patients with a germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We now report the planned final overall survival (OS) results, and describe the most common adverse events (AEs) to better understand olaparib tolerability in this population. Patients and methods OlympiAD, a Phase III, randomized, controlled, open-label study (NCT02000622), enrolled patients with a germline BRCAm and HER2-negative mBC who had received ≤2 lines of chemotherapy for mBC. Patients were randomized to olaparib tablets (300 mg bid) or predeclared TPC (capecitabine, vinorelbine, or eribulin). OS and safety were secondary end points. Results A total of 205 patients were randomized to olaparib and 97 to TPC. At 64% data maturity, median OS was 19.3 months with olaparib versus 17.1 months with TPC (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66–1.23; P = 0.513); median follow-up was 25.3 and 26.3 months, respectively. HR for OS with olaparib versus TPC in prespecified subgroups were: prior chemotherapy for mBC [no (first-line setting): 0.51, 95% CI 0.29–0.90; yes (second/third-line): 1.13, 0.79–1.64]; receptor status (triple negative: 0.93, 0.62–1.43; hormone receptor positive: 0.86, 0.55–1.36); prior platinum (yes: 0.83, 0.49–1.45; no: 0.91, 0.64–1.33). Adverse events during olaparib treatment were generally low grade and manageable by supportive treatment or dose modification. There was a low rate of treatment discontinuation (4.9%), and the risk of developing anemia did not increase with extended olaparib exposure. Conclusions While there was no statistically significant improvement in OS with olaparib compared to TPC, there was the possibility of meaningful OS benefit among patients who had not received chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Olaparib was generally well-tolerated, with no evidence of cumulative toxicity during extended exposure.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

PURPOSE Pyrotinib, an irreversible pan-ErbB inhibitor, showed promising antitumor activity and acceptable tolerability in a phase I trial. We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of pyrotinib versus lapatinib, both in combination with capecitabine, in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer in an open-label, multicenter, randomized phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Chinese patients with HER2-positive relapsed or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with taxanes, anthracyclines, and/or trastuzumab were assigned (1:1) to receive 400 mg pyrotinib or lapatinib 1,250 mg orally once per day for 21-day cycles in combination with capecitabine (1,000 mg/m2 orally twice per day on days 1 to 14). The primary end point was investigator-assessed overall response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1. RESULTS Between May 29, 2015, and March 15, 2016, 128 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the pyrotinib (n = 65) or lapatinib (n = 63) treatment groups. The overall response rate was 78.5% (95% CI, 68.5% to 88.5%) with pyrotinib and 57.1% (95% CI, 44.9% to 69.4%) with lapatinib (treatment difference, 21.3%; 95% CI, 4.0% to 38.7%; P = .01). The median progression-free survival was 18.1 months (95% CI, 13.9 months to not reached) with pyrotinib and 7.0 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 9.8 months) with lapatinib (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.58; P < .001). The most frequent grade 3 to 4 adverse events were hand-foot syndrome in 16 of 65 patients (24.6%) in the pyrotinib group versus 13 of 63 (20.6%) in the lapatinib group; diarrhea in 10 patients (15.4%) versus three patients (4.8%), respectively; and decreased neutrophil count in six patients (9.2%) versus two patients (3.2%), respectively. CONCLUSION In women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with taxanes, anthracyclines, and/or trastuzumab, pyrotinib plus capecitabine yielded statistically significant better overall response rate and progression-free survival than lapatinib plus capecitabine in this randomized phase II trial.

The ABC community strongly calls for clinical trials addressing important unanswered clinical questions in this setting, and not just for regulatory purposes. Clinical trials should continue to be performed, even after approval of a new treatment, providing real world performance of the therapy. Expert opinionVoters: 43 Yes: 100%Every advanced breast cancer patient must have access to optimal cancer treatment and supportive care according to the highest standards of patient centered care, as defined by:Open communication between patients and their cancer care teams as a primary goal.Educating patients about treatment options and supportive care, through development and dissemination of evidencebased information in a clear, culturally appropriate form. Encouraging patients to be proactive in their care and to share decision-making with their health care providers.Empowering patients to develop the capability of improving their own quality of life within their cancer experience. Always taking into account patient preferences, values and needs as essential to optimal cancer care. Expert opinion Voters: 44 Yes: 100% We strongly recommend the use of objective scales, such as the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale or the ASCO Value Framework, to evaluate the real magnitude of benefit provided by a new treatment and help prioritize funding, particularly in countries with limited resources. Expert opinion Voters: 40 Yes: 87.5% (35) Abstain: 5% (2) The use of telemedicine oncology to help management of patients with ABC living in remote places, is an important option to consider when geographic distances are a problem and provided that issues of connectivity are solved. Expert opinion Voters: 42 Yes: 92.8% (39) Abstain: 4.7% (2) Strong consideration should be given to the use of validated PROMs (patient-reported outcome measures) for patients to record the symptoms of disease and side effects of treatment experienced as a regular part of clinical care. These PROMs should be simple, and user-friendly to facilitate their use in clinical practice, and thought needs to be given to the easiest collection platform, e.g. tablets or smartphones. Systematic monitoring would facilitate communication between patients and their treatment teams by better characterizing the toxicities of all anticancer therapies. This would permit early intervention of supportive care services enhancing quality of life 1 C Voters: 39 Yes: 87.1% (34) Abstain: 5.1% (2)As survival is improving in many patients with ABC, consideration of survivorship issues should be part of the routine care of these patients. Health professionals should therefore be ready to change and adapt treatment strategies to disease status, treatment adverse effects and quality of life, patients' priorities and life plans. Attention to chronic needs for home and family care, job and social requirements, should be incorporated in the treatment planning and periodically updated. Expert opinion Voters: 40 Yes: 95% (38) Abstain: 5% (2) ABC patients who desire to work or need to w...

Background: In the phase III IMpassion130 trial, combining atezolizumab with first-line nanoparticle albumin-boundpaclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC) showed a statistically significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive populations, and a clinically meaningful overall survival (OS) effect in PD-L1-positive aTNBC. The phase III KEYNOTE-355 trial adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy for aTNBC showed similar PFS effects. IMpassion131 evaluated first-line atezolizumabepaclitaxel in aTNBC. Patients and methods: Eligible patients [no prior systemic therapy or 12 months since (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy] were randomised 2:1 to atezolizumab 840 mg or placebo (days 1, 15), both with paclitaxel 90 mg/m 2 (days 1, 8, 15), every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were tumour PD-L1 status, prior taxane, liver metastases and geographical region. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS, tested hierarchically first in the PD-L1-positive [immune cell expression 1%, VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay] population, and then in the ITT population. OS was a secondary endpoint. Results: Of 651 randomised patients, 45% had PD-L1-positive aTNBC. At the primary PFS analysis, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve investigator-assessed PFS in the PD-L1-positive population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-1.12; P ¼ 0.20; median PFS 6.0 months with atezolizumabepaclitaxel versus 5.7 months with placeboepaclitaxel]. In the PD-L1-positive population, atezolizumabepaclitaxel was associated with more favourable unconfirmed best overall response rate (63% versus 55% with placeboepaclitaxel) and median duration of response (7.2 versus 5.5 months, respectively). Final OS results showed no difference between arms (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.64; median 22.1 months with atezolizumabepaclitaxel versus 28.3 months with placeboe paclitaxel in the PD-L1-positive population). Results in the ITT population were consistent with the PD-L1-positive population. The safety profile was consistent with known effects of each study drug. Conclusion: Combining atezolizumab with paclitaxel did not improve PFS or OS versus paclitaxel alone. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03125902.