Among patients receiving initial systemic treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, the duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving ribociclib plus letrozole than among those receiving placebo plus letrozole, with a higher rate of myelosuppression in the ribociclib group. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01958021 .).

Purpose MONARCH 2 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107703) compared the efficacy and safety of abemaciclib, a selective cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, plus fulvestrant with fulvestrant alone in patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Patients and Methods MONARCH 2 was a global, double-blind, phase III study of women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative ABC who had progressed while receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET), ≤ 12 months from the end of adjuvant ET, or while receiving first-line ET for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo (150 mg twice daily) on a continuous schedule and fulvestrant (500 mg, per label). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and key secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, clinical benefit rate, quality of life, and safety. Results Between August 2014 and December 2015, 669 patients were randomly assigned to receive abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (n = 446) or placebo plus fulvestrant (n = 223). Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly extended PFS versus fulvestrant alone (median, 16.4 v 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.553; 95% CI, 0.449 to 0.681; P < .001). In patients with measurable disease, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant achieved an ORR of 48.1% (95% CI, 42.6% to 53.6%) compared with 21.3% (95% CI, 15.1% to 27.6%) in the control arm. The most common adverse events in the abemaciclib versus placebo arms were diarrhea (86.4% v 24.7%), neutropenia (46.0% v 4.0%), nausea (45.1% v 22.9%), and fatigue (39.9% v 26.9%). Conclusions Abemaciclib at 150 mg twice daily plus fulvestrant was effective, significantly improving PFS and ORR and demonstrating a tolerable safety profile in women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative ABC who progressed while receiving ET.

IMPORTANCE Statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefits of CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitors in combination with fulvestrant for hormone receptor (HR)-positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) in patients regardless of menopausal status after prior endocrine therapy (ET) has not yet been demonstrated. OBJECTIVE To compare the effect of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant on OS at the prespecified interim of MONARCH 2 (338 events) in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer that progressed during prior ET. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS MONARCH 2 was a global, randomized, placebocontrolled, double-blind phase 3 trial of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for treatment of premenopausal or perimenopausal women (with ovarian suppression) and postmenopausal women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative ABC that progressed during ET. Patients were enrolled between August 7, 2014, and December 29, 2015. Analyses for this report were conducted at the time of database lock on June 20, 2019. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo, 150 mg, every 12 hours on a continuous schedule plus fulvestrant, 500 mg, per label. Randomization was stratified based on site of metastasis (visceral, bone only, or other) and resistance to prior ET (primary vs secondary). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was investigator-assessed progressionfree survival. Overall survival was a gated key secondary end point. The boundary P value for the interim analysis was .02. RESULTS Of 669 women enrolled, 446 (median [range] age, 59 [32-91] years) were randomized to the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm and 223 (median [range] age, 62 [32-87] years) were randomized to the placebo plus fulvestrant arm. At the prespecified interim, 338 deaths (77% of the planned 441 at the final analysis) were observed in the intent-to-treat population, with a median OS of 46.7 months for abemaciclib plus fulvestrant and 37.3 months for placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.757; 95% CI, 0.606-0.945; P = .01). Improvement in OS was consistent across all stratification factors. Among stratification factors, more pronounced effects were observed in patients with visceral disease (HR, 0.675; 95% CI, 0.511-0.891) and primary resistance to prior ET (HR, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.451-1.043). Time to second disease progression (median, 23.1 months vs 20.6 months), time to chemotherapy (median, 50.2 months vs 22.1 months), and chemotherapy-free survival (median, 25.5 months vs 18.2 months) were also statistically significantly improved in the abemaciclib arm vs placebo arm. No new safety signals were observed for abemaciclib. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful median OS improvement of 9.4 months for patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative ABC who progressed after prior ET regardless of menopausal status. Abemaciclib substantially delayed ...

PURPOSE Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeting plus endocrine therapy (ET) improved clinical benefit in HER2-positive, hormone receptor (HR)–positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) versus ET alone. Dual HER2 blockade enhances clinical benefit versus single HER2 blockade. The ALTERNATIVE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual HER2 blockade plus aromatase inhibitor (AI) in postmenopausal women with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC who received prior ET and prior neo(adjuvant)/first-line trastuzumab (TRAS) plus chemotherapy. This updated article reflects minor numerical corrections in some secondary efficacy analyses that resulted from programming errors and that do not change the major conclusions of the study. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lapatinib (LAP) plus TRAS plus AI, TRAS plus AI, or LAP plus AI. Patients for whom chemotherapy was intended were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; investigator assessed) with LAP plus TRAS plus AI versus TRAS plus AI. Secondary end points were PFS (comparison of other arms), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and safety. RESULTS Three hundred fifty-five patients were included in this analysis: LAP plus TRAS plus AI (n = 120), TRAS plus AI (n = 117), and LAP plus AI (n = 118). Baseline characteristics were balanced. The study met its primary end point; superior PFS was observed with LAP plus TRAS plus AI versus TRAS plus AI (median PFS, 11 v 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88]; P = .0063). A consistent PFS benefit was observed in predefined subgroups. ORR, CBR, and OS also favored LAP plus TRAS plus AI. The median PFS with LAP plus AI versus TRAS plus AI was 8.3 versus 5.6 months (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.17]; P = .3159). Common adverse events (AEs; ≥ 15%) with LAP plus TRAS plus AI, TRAS plus AI, and LAP plus AI were diarrhea (69%, 9%, and 51%, respectively), rash (36%, 2%, and 28%, respectively), nausea (22%, 9%, and 22%, respectively), and paronychia (30%, 0%, and 15%, respectively), mostly grade 1 or 2. Serious AEs were reported similarly across the 3 groups, and AEs leading to discontinuation were lower with LAP plus TRAS plus AI. CONCLUSION Dual HER2 blockade with LAP plus TRAS plus AI showed superior PFS benefit versus TRAS plus AI in patients with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC. This combination offers an effective and safe chemotherapy-sparing alternative treatment regimen for this patient population.

Purpose Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeting plus endocrine therapy (ET) improved clinical benefit in HER2-positive, hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) versus ET alone. Dual HER2 blockade enhances clinical benefit versus single HER2 blockade. The ALTERNATIVE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual HER2 blockade plus aromatase inhibitor (AI) in postmenopausal women with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC who received prior ET and prior neo(adjuvant)/first-line trastuzumab (TRAS) plus chemotherapy. Methods Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lapatinib (LAP) + TRAS + AI, TRAS + AI, or LAP + AI. Patients for whom chemotherapy was intended were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; investigator assessed) with LAP + TRAS + AI versus TRAS + AI. Secondary end points were PFS (comparison of other arms), overall survival, overall response rate, clinical benefit rate, and safety. Results Three hundred fifty-five patients were included in this analysis: LAP + TRAS + AI (n = 120), TRAS + AI (n = 117), and LAP + AI (n = 118). Baseline characteristics were balanced. The study met its primary end point; superior PFS was observed with LAP + TRAS + AI versus TRAS + AI (median PFS, 11 v 5.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88; P = .0064). Consistent PFS benefit was observed in predefined subgroups. Overall response rate, clinical benefit rate, and overall survival also favored LAP + TRAS + AI. The median PFS with LAP + AI versus TRAS + AI was 8.3 versus 5.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98; P = .0361). Common adverse events (AEs; ≥ 15%) with LAP + TRAS + AI, TRAS + AI, and LAP + AI were diarrhea (69%, 9%, and 51%, respectively), rash (36%, 2%, and 28%, respectively), nausea (22%, 9%, and 22%, respectively), and paronychia (30%, 0%, and 15%, respectively), mostly grade 1 or 2. Serious AEs were reported similarly across the three groups, and AEs leading to discontinuation were lower with LAP + TRAS + AI. Conclusion Dual HER2 blockade with LAP + TRAS + AI showed superior PFS benefit versus TRAS + AI in patients with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC. This combination offers an effective and safe chemotherapy-sparing alternative treatment regimen for this patient population.