Neratinib + capecitabine versus lapatinib + capecitabine in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with ≥ 2 HER2-directed regimens: Findings from the multinational, randomized, phase III NALA trial.

Cristina Saura(Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari), Mafalda Oliveira(Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari), Yin‐Hsun Feng(Chi Mei Medical Center), Ming‐Shen Dai(Tri-Service General Hospital), Sara A. Hurvitz(UCLA Health), Sung‐Bae Kim(Ulsan College), Beverly Moy(Massachusetts General Hospital), Suzette Delaloge(Institut Gustave Roussy), William J. Gradishar(Northwestern University), Norikazu Masuda(Osaka National Hospital), Markéta Palácová(Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute), Maureen Trudeau(Sunnybrook Health Science Centre), Johanna Mattson(Helsinki University Hospital), Yoon Sim Yap(National Cancer Centre Singapore), Richard Bryce(Puma Biotechnology (United States)), Bin Yao(Puma Biotechnology (United States)), Judith D. Bebchuk(Puma Biotechnology (United States)), Kiana Keyvanjah(Puma Biotechnology (United States)), Adam Brufsky(Magee-Womens Hospital), NALA Investigators
Journal of Clinical Oncology
May 20, 2019
Cited by 100

Abstract

1002 Background: NALA (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01808573) is a multinational, randomized, open-label, phase III trial of neratinib (an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI]) + capecitabine (N+C) vs lapatinib (a reversible dual TKI) + capecitabine (L+C) in patients with stage IV HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had received ≥2 prior HER2-directed regimens for MBC. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to N (240 mg qd po) + C (750 mg/m 2 bid po) or L (1250 mg qd po) + C (1000 mg/m 2 bid po). Co-primary endpoints were centrally assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS; objective response rate (ORR); duration of response (DoR); clinical benefit rate (CBR); time to intervention for symptomatic metastatic central nervous system (CNS) disease; safety; and patient-reported health outcomes. Results: 621 patients were randomized (307 to N+C; 314 to L+C). The risk of disease progression or death was reduced by 24% with N+C vs L+C (HR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.63–0.93; p = 0.006); 6- and 12-month PFS rates were 47.2% vs 37.8% and 28.8% vs 14.8% for N+C vs L+C, respectively. OS rates at 6 and 12 months were 90.2% vs 87.5% and 72.5% vs 66.7% for N+C vs L+C, respectively (HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.72–1.07; p = 0.2086). ORR in patients with measurable disease at screening was improved with N+C vs L+C (32.8% vs 26.7%; p = 0.1201), as was CBR (44.5% vs 35.6%; p = 0.0328) and DoR (HR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.33–0.74; p = 0.0004). Time to intervention for symptomatic CNS disease (overall cumulative incidence 22.8% vs 29.2%; p = 0.043) was delayed with N+C vs L+C. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar between arms, but there was a higher rate of grade 3 diarrhea with N+C vs L+C (24.4% vs 12.5%). TEAEs leading to neratinib/lapatinib discontinuation were lower with neratinib (10.9%) than with lapatinib (14.5%). Conclusions: N+C significantly improved PFS with a trend towards improved OS vs L+C. N+C also resulted in a delayed time to intervention for symptomatic CNS disease. Tolerability was similar between the two arms, with no new safety signals observed. Clinical trial information: NCT01808573.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis