BRE12-158: A Postneoadjuvant, Randomized Phase II Trial of Personalized Therapy Versus Treatment of Physician's Choice for Patients With Residual Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.
Adult
Aged
Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic
/ adverse effects
Biomarkers, Tumor
/ genetics
Capecitabine
/ adverse effects
Circulating Tumor DNA
/ genetics
Clinical Decision-Making
Disease-Free Survival
Female
High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
Humans
Middle Aged
Neoadjuvant Therapy
/ adverse effects
Neoplasm, Residual
Patient Selection
Precision Medicine
Predictive Value of Tests
Time Factors
Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Journal
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
ISSN: 1527-7755
Titre abrégé: J Clin Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8309333
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2022
01 02 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
16
12
2021
medline:
22
2
2022
entrez:
15
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have high risk of recurrence with prior data suggesting improved outcomes with capecitabine. Targeted agents have demonstrated activity across multiple cancer types. BRE12-158 was a phase II, multicenter trial that randomly allocated patients with TNBC with residual disease after NAC to genomically directed therapy versus treatment of physician choice (TPC). From March 2014 to December 2018, 193 patients were enrolled. Residual tumors were sequenced using a next-generation sequencing test. A molecular tumor board adjudicated all results. Patients were randomly allocated to four cycles of genomically directed therapy (arm A) versus TPC (arm B). Patients without a target were assigned to arm B. Primary end point was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) among randomly assigned patients. Secondary/exploratory end points included distant disease-free survival, overall survival, toxicity assessment, time-based evolution of therapy, and drug-specific outcomes. One hundred ninety-three patients were randomly allocated or were assigned to arm B. The estimated 2-year DFS for the randomized population only was 56.6% (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.70) for arm A versus 62.4% (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.75) for arm B. No difference was seen in DFS, distant disease-free survival, or overall survival for the entire or randomized populations. There was increased uptake of capecitabine for TPC over time. Patients randomly allocated later had less distant recurrences. Circulating tumor DNA status remained a significant predictor of outcome with some patients demonstrating clearance with postneoadjuvant therapy. Genomically directed therapy was not superior to TPC for patients with residual TNBC after NAC. Capecitabine should remain the standard of care; however, the activity of other agents in this setting provides rationale for testing optimal combinations to improve outcomes. Circulating tumor DNA should be considered a standard covariate for trials in this setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34910554
doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01657
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic
0
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Circulating Tumor DNA
0
Capecitabine
6804DJ8Z9U
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02101385']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase II
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
345-355Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn