Efficacy of Neratinib Plus Capecitabine in the Subgroup of Patients with Central Nervous System Involvement from the NALA Trial.
Capecitabine
Central nervous system neoplasms
Lapatinib
Neratinib
Receptor, ErbB-2
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
received:
01
12
2020
accepted:
03
05
2021
pubmed:
25
5
2021
medline:
29
9
2021
entrez:
24
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Neratinib has efficacy in central nervous system (CNS) metastases from HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We report outcomes among patients with CNS metastases at baseline from the phase III NALA trial of neratinib plus capecitabine (N + C) versus lapatinib plus capecitabine (L + C). NALA was a randomized, active-controlled trial in patients who received two or more previous HER2-directed regimens for HER2-positive MBC. Patients with asymptomatic/stable brain metastases (treated or untreated) were eligible. Patients were assigned to N + C (neratinib 240 mg per day, capecitabine 750 mg/m Of 621 patients enrolled, 101 (16.3%) had known CNS metastases at baseline (N + C, n = 51; L + C, n = 50); 81 had received prior CNS-directed radiotherapy and/or surgery. In the CNS subgroup, mean PFS through 24 months was 7.8 months with N + C versus 5.5 months with L + C (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-1.05), and mean OS through 48 months was 16.4 versus 15.4 months (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.59-1.38). At 12 months, cumulative incidence of interventions for CNS disease was 25.5% for N + C versus 36.0% for L + C, and cumulative incidence of progressive CNS disease was 26.2% versus 41.6%, respectively. In patients with target CNS lesions at baseline (n = 32), confirmed intracranial objective response rates were 26.3% and 15.4%, respectively. No new safety signals were observed. These analyses suggest improved PFS and CNS outcomes with N + C versus L + C in patients with CNS metastases from HER2-positive MBC. In a subgroup of patients with central nervous system (CNS) metastases from HER2-positive breast cancer after two or more previous HER2-directed regimens, the combination of neratinib plus capecitabine was associated with improved progression-free survival and CNS outcomes compared with lapatinib plus capecitabine. These findings build on previous phase II and III studies describing efficacy of neratinib in the prevention and treatment of CNS metastases, and support a role for neratinib as a systemic treatment option in the management of patients with HER2-positive brain metastases following antibody-based HER2-directed therapies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Neratinib has efficacy in central nervous system (CNS) metastases from HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We report outcomes among patients with CNS metastases at baseline from the phase III NALA trial of neratinib plus capecitabine (N + C) versus lapatinib plus capecitabine (L + C).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
NALA was a randomized, active-controlled trial in patients who received two or more previous HER2-directed regimens for HER2-positive MBC. Patients with asymptomatic/stable brain metastases (treated or untreated) were eligible. Patients were assigned to N + C (neratinib 240 mg per day, capecitabine 750 mg/m
RESULTS
Of 621 patients enrolled, 101 (16.3%) had known CNS metastases at baseline (N + C, n = 51; L + C, n = 50); 81 had received prior CNS-directed radiotherapy and/or surgery. In the CNS subgroup, mean PFS through 24 months was 7.8 months with N + C versus 5.5 months with L + C (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-1.05), and mean OS through 48 months was 16.4 versus 15.4 months (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.59-1.38). At 12 months, cumulative incidence of interventions for CNS disease was 25.5% for N + C versus 36.0% for L + C, and cumulative incidence of progressive CNS disease was 26.2% versus 41.6%, respectively. In patients with target CNS lesions at baseline (n = 32), confirmed intracranial objective response rates were 26.3% and 15.4%, respectively. No new safety signals were observed.
CONCLUSION
These analyses suggest improved PFS and CNS outcomes with N + C versus L + C in patients with CNS metastases from HER2-positive MBC.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
In a subgroup of patients with central nervous system (CNS) metastases from HER2-positive breast cancer after two or more previous HER2-directed regimens, the combination of neratinib plus capecitabine was associated with improved progression-free survival and CNS outcomes compared with lapatinib plus capecitabine. These findings build on previous phase II and III studies describing efficacy of neratinib in the prevention and treatment of CNS metastases, and support a role for neratinib as a systemic treatment option in the management of patients with HER2-positive brain metastases following antibody-based HER2-directed therapies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34028126
doi: 10.1002/onco.13830
pmc: PMC8342591
doi:
Substances chimiques
Quinolines
0
Capecitabine
6804DJ8Z9U
Receptor, ErbB-2
EC 2.7.10.1
neratinib
JJH94R3PWB
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1327-e1338Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.
Références
Front Neuroendocrinol. 2014 Jan;35(1):8-30
pubmed: 23994581
Drug Metab Dispos. 2019 Apr;47(4):393-404
pubmed: 30705084
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Dec;18(12):1688-1700
pubmed: 29146401
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 10;38(23):2610-2619
pubmed: 32468955
Front Neurosci. 2019 Jan 11;12:1019
pubmed: 30686985
N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 14;380(7):617-628
pubmed: 30516102
Ann Oncol. 2015 Jan;26(1):113-119
pubmed: 25355722
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 13;382(7):597-609
pubmed: 31825569
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Sep 20;38(27):3138-3149
pubmed: 32678716
Mol Pharmacol. 2012 Jul;82(1):47-58
pubmed: 22491935
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Jan;167(2):479-483
pubmed: 28975433
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2017 Jan 5;18(1):1
pubmed: 28057083
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Dec 1;2(12):1557-1564
pubmed: 27078022
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Apr 15;25(8):2433-2441
pubmed: 30593513
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Mar;17(3):367-377
pubmed: 26874901
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Dec 1;19(23):6404-18
pubmed: 24298071
Ann Oncol. 2020 Oct;31(10):1350-1358
pubmed: 32634611
J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 1;37(13):1081-1089
pubmed: 30860945
Cancer Discov. 2020 Feb;10(2):198-213
pubmed: 31806627
JAMA Oncol. 2017 May 1;3(5):666-671
pubmed: 27926948
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 13;377(2):122-131
pubmed: 28581356
Oncology (Williston Park). 2014 Jul;28(7):572-8
pubmed: 25144276
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Jan;14(1):64-71
pubmed: 23122784
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 Dec;112(3):533-43
pubmed: 18188694
N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 28;355(26):2733-43
pubmed: 17192538
Clin Breast Cancer. 2020 Apr;20(2):145-151.e2
pubmed: 31558424
Neuro Oncol. 2015 Feb;17(2):289-95
pubmed: 25015089