Effect of Eribulin With or Without Pembrolizumab on Progression-Free Survival for Patients With Hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Adult
Aged
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
/ administration & dosage
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ therapeutic use
B7-H1 Antigen
/ analysis
Breast Neoplasms
/ chemistry
Cross-Over Studies
Female
Furans
/ administration & dosage
Humans
Ketones
/ administration & dosage
Male
Middle Aged
Receptor, ErbB-2
/ analysis
Receptors, Estrogen
/ analysis
Receptors, Progesterone
/ analysis
Journal
JAMA oncology
ISSN: 2374-2445
Titre abrégé: JAMA Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101652861
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2020
01 10 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
4
9
2020
medline:
4
2
2021
entrez:
4
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prior studies have shown that only a small proportion of patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) experience benefit from programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors given as monotherapy. There are data suggesting that activity may be greater with combination strategies. To compare the efficacy of eribulin plus pembrolizumab vs eribulin alone in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative MBC. Multicenter phase 2 randomized clinical trial of patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative MBC who had received 2 or more lines of hormonal therapy and 0 to 2 lines of chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to eribulin, 1.4 mg/m2 intravenously, on days 1 and 8 plus pembrolizumab, 200 mg/m2 intravenously, on day 1 of a 21-day cycle or eribulin alone. At time of progression, patients in the eribulin monotherapy arm could cross over and receive pembrolizumab monotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). Exploratory analyses assessed the association between PFS and PD-L1 status, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), tumor mutational burden (TMB), and genomic alterations. Eighty-eight patients started protocol therapy; the median (range) age was 57 (30-76) years, median (range) number of prior lines of chemotherapy was 1 (0-2), and median (range) number of prior lines of hormonal therapy was 2 (0-5). Median follow-up was 10.5 (95% CI, 0.4-22.8) months. Median PFS and ORR were not different between the 2 groups (PFS, 4.1 vs 4.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.50-1.26; P = .33; ORR, 27% vs 34%, respectively; P = .49). Fourteen patients started crossover treatment with pembrolizumab; 1 patient experienced stable disease. All-cause adverse events occurred in all patients (grade ≥3, 65%) including 2 treatment-related deaths in the combination group, both from immune-related colitis in the setting of sepsis, attributed to both drugs. The PD-L1 22C3 assay was performed on archival tumor samples in 65 patients: 24 (37%) had PD-L1-positive tumors. Analysis indicated that PD-L1 status, TILs, TMB, and genomic alterations were not associated with PFS. In this randomized clinical trial of patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative MBC, the addition of pembrolizumab to eribulin did not improve PFS, ORR, or OS compared with eribulin alone in either the intention-to-treat or PD-L1-positive populations. Further efforts to explore the benefits of adding checkpoint inhibition to chemotherapy among less heavily pretreated patients are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03051659.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32880602
pii: 2769923
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3524
pmc: PMC7489368
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
0
B7-H1 Antigen
0
CD274 protein, human
0
Furans
0
Ketones
0
Receptors, Estrogen
0
Receptors, Progesterone
0
pembrolizumab
DPT0O3T46P
ERBB2 protein, human
EC 2.7.10.1
Receptor, ErbB-2
EC 2.7.10.1
eribulin
LR24G6354G
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03051659']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase II
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1598-1605Références
Ann Oncol. 2015 Feb;26(2):259-71
pubmed: 25214542
JAMA Oncol. 2020 May 1;6(5):676-684
pubmed: 32053137
J Clin Invest. 2019 Apr 1;129(4):1785-1800
pubmed: 30753167
Nature. 2019 May;569(7757):560-564
pubmed: 31118521
Br J Cancer. 2014 Mar 18;110(6):1497-505
pubmed: 24569463
Ann Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;30(3):397-404
pubmed: 30475950
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 01;5(8):1205-1214
pubmed: 30973611
Breast. 2016 Oct;29:241-50
pubmed: 27481651
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19(1):40-50
pubmed: 29233559
Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Feb 1;26(3):657-668
pubmed: 31611282
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016 Nov;140(11):1259-1266
pubmed: 27788043
N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 29;379(22):2108-2121
pubmed: 30345906
Ann Oncol. 2018 Nov 1;29(11):2232-2239
pubmed: 30203045
JCI Insight. 2018 Feb 22;3(4):
pubmed: 29467336
Br J Cancer. 2016 May 24;114(11):1212-8
pubmed: 27140309
Cancer Discov. 2017 Aug;7(8):818-831
pubmed: 28572459
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Jun 15;24(12):2804-2811
pubmed: 29559561
Lancet. 2020 Dec 5;396(10265):1817-1828
pubmed: 33278935
Cancer Immunol Res. 2014 Apr;2(4):361-70
pubmed: 24764583
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Feb;167(3):671-686
pubmed: 29063313
Ann Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;30(3):405-411
pubmed: 30475947
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Feb 20;33(6):594-601
pubmed: 25605862