Michelino De Laurentiis

Purpose This phase III study evaluated ribociclib plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer who were treatment naïve or had received up to one line of prior endocrine therapy in the advanced setting. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to ribociclib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. The primary end point was locally assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety. Results A total of 484 postmenopausal women were randomly assigned to ribociclib plus fulvestrant, and 242 were assigned to placebo plus fulvestrant. Median progression-free survival was significantly improved with ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant: 20.5 months (95% CI, 18.5 to 23.5 months) versus 12.8 months (95% CI, 10.9 to 16.3 months), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.593; 95% CI, 0.480 to 0.732; P < .001). Consistent treatment effects were observed in patients who were treatment naïve in the advanced setting (hazard ratio, 0.577; 95% CI, 0.415 to 0.802), as well as in patients who had received up to one line of prior endocrine therapy for advanced disease (hazard ratio, 0.565; 95% CI, 0.428 to 0.744). Among patients with measurable disease, the overall response rate was 40.9% for the ribociclib plus fulvestrant arm and 28.7% for placebo plus fulvestrant. Grade 3 adverse events reported in ≥ 10% of patients in either arm (ribociclib plus fulvestrant v placebo plus fulvestrant) were neutropenia (46.6% v 0%) and leukopenia (13.5% v 0%); the only grade 4 event reported in ≥ 5% of patients was neutropenia (6.8% v 0%). Conclusion Ribociclib plus fulvestrant might represent a new first- or second-line treatment option in hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In an earlier analysis of this phase 3 trial, ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than fulvestrant alone in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. Here we report the results of a protocol-specified second interim analysis of overall survival. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either ribociclib or placebo in addition to fulvestrant as first-line or second-line treatment. Survival was evaluated by means of a stratified log-rank test and summarized with the use of Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: This analysis was based on 275 deaths: 167 among 484 patients (34.5%) receiving ribociclib and 108 among 242 (44.6%) receiving placebo. Ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a significant overall survival benefit over placebo plus fulvestrant. The estimated overall survival at 42 months was 57.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52.0 to 63.2) in the ribociclib group and 45.9% (95% CI, 36.9 to 54.5) in the placebo group, for a 28% difference in the relative risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92; P = 0.00455). The benefit was consistent across most subgroups. In a descriptive update, median progression-free survival among patients receiving first-line treatment was 33.6 months (95% CI, 27.1 to 41.3) in the ribociclib group and 19.2 months (95% CI, 14.9 to 23.6) in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a significant overall survival benefit over placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. (Funded by Novartis; MONALEESA-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02422615.).

•The phase III IMpassion131 trial evaluated atezolizumab combined with paclitaxel as first-line therapy for aTNBC.•The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS, tested hierarchically in the PD-L1+ and then ITT populations.•Neither PFS nor OS was improved with the combination of atezolizumab plus paclitaxel in either population.•These findings may result from imbalances in prognostic features or chance findings in a relatively small trial.•IMpassion131 results highlight the need for further research into immunotherapy for TNBC. BackgroundIn the phase III IMpassion130 trial, combining atezolizumab with first-line nanoparticle albumin-bound-paclitaxel 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 atezolizumab–paclitaxel in aTNBC.Patients and methodsEligible 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/m2 (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.ResultsOf 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 = 0.20; median PFS 6.0 months with atezolizumab–paclitaxel versus 5.7 months with placebo–paclitaxel]. In the PD-L1-positive population, atezolizumab–paclitaxel was associated with more favourable unconfirmed best overall response rate (63% versus 55% with placebo–paclitaxel) 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 atezolizumab–paclitaxel versus 28.3 months with placebo–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.ConclusionCombining atezolizumab with paclitaxel did not improve PFS or OS versus paclitaxel alone.ClinicalTrials.govNCT03125902. In the phase III IMpassion130 trial, combining atezolizumab with first-line nanoparticle albumin-bound-paclitaxel 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 atezolizumab–paclitaxel in aTNBC. 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/m2 (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. 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 = 0.20; median PFS 6.0 months with atezolizumab–paclitaxel versus 5.7 months with placebo–paclitaxel]. In the PD-L1-positive population, atezolizumab–paclitaxel was associated with more favourable unconfirmed best overall response rate (63% versus 55% with placebo–paclitaxel) 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 atezolizumab–paclitaxel versus 28.3 months with placebo–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. Combining atezolizumab with paclitaxel did not improve PFS or OS versus paclitaxel alone.