Nab-paclitaxel weekly versus dose-dense solvent-based paclitaxel followed by dose-dense epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide in high-risk HR+/HER2- early breast cancer: results from the neoadjuvant part of the WSG-ADAPT-HR+/HER2- trial.
Humans
Female
Breast Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Epirubicin
/ therapeutic use
Neoadjuvant Therapy
/ methods
Solvents
/ therapeutic use
Ki-67 Antigen
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ therapeutic use
Paclitaxel
/ therapeutic use
Albumins
/ therapeutic use
Cyclophosphamide
/ therapeutic use
Receptor, ErbB-2
/ genetics
albumin-bound paclitaxel
breast neoplasms
neoadjuvant therapy
paclitaxel
Journal
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology
ISSN: 1569-8041
Titre abrégé: Ann Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9007735
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
received:
02
12
2022
revised:
03
04
2023
accepted:
06
04
2023
medline:
12
6
2023
pubmed:
17
4
2023
entrez:
16
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In high-risk hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC), nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel showed promising efficacy versus solvent-based (sb)-paclitaxel in neoadjuvant trials; however, optimal patient and therapy selection remains a topic of ongoing research. Here, we investigate the potential of Oncotype DX® recurrence score (RS) and endocrine therapy (ET) response (low post-endocrine Ki67) for therapy selection. Within the WSG-ADAPT trial (NCT01779206), high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC patients were randomized to (neo)adjuvant 4× sb-paclitaxel 175 mg/m Eight hundred and sixty-four patients received neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel (n= 437) or sb-paclitaxel (n = 427); nab-paclitaxel was superior for pCR (20.8% versus 12.9%, P = 0.002). pCR was higher for RS >25 versus RS ≤25 (16.0% versus 8.4%, P = 0.021) and for ET non-response versus ET response (15.1% versus 6.0%, P = 0.027); no factors were predictive for the relative efficacy of nab-paclitaxel versus sb-paclitaxel. Patients with pCR had longer distant disease-free survival [dDFS; hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.91, P = 0.024]. Despite favorable prognostic association of RS >25 versus RS ≤25 with pCR (odds ratio 3.11, 95% CI 1.71-5.63, P ≤ 0.001), higher RS was unfavorably associated with dDFS (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, P = 0.010). In high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC, neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel q1w appears superior to sb-paclitaxel q2w regarding pCR. Combining RS and ET response assessment appears to select patients with highest pCR rates. The disadvantage of higher RS for dDFS is reduced in patients with pCR. These are the first results from a large neoadjuvant randomized trial supporting the use of RS to help select patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In high-risk hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC), nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel showed promising efficacy versus solvent-based (sb)-paclitaxel in neoadjuvant trials; however, optimal patient and therapy selection remains a topic of ongoing research. Here, we investigate the potential of Oncotype DX® recurrence score (RS) and endocrine therapy (ET) response (low post-endocrine Ki67) for therapy selection.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Within the WSG-ADAPT trial (NCT01779206), high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC patients were randomized to (neo)adjuvant 4× sb-paclitaxel 175 mg/m
RESULTS
Eight hundred and sixty-four patients received neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel (n= 437) or sb-paclitaxel (n = 427); nab-paclitaxel was superior for pCR (20.8% versus 12.9%, P = 0.002). pCR was higher for RS >25 versus RS ≤25 (16.0% versus 8.4%, P = 0.021) and for ET non-response versus ET response (15.1% versus 6.0%, P = 0.027); no factors were predictive for the relative efficacy of nab-paclitaxel versus sb-paclitaxel. Patients with pCR had longer distant disease-free survival [dDFS; hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.91, P = 0.024]. Despite favorable prognostic association of RS >25 versus RS ≤25 with pCR (odds ratio 3.11, 95% CI 1.71-5.63, P ≤ 0.001), higher RS was unfavorably associated with dDFS (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, P = 0.010).
CONCLUSIONS
In high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC, neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel q1w appears superior to sb-paclitaxel q2w regarding pCR. Combining RS and ET response assessment appears to select patients with highest pCR rates. The disadvantage of higher RS for dDFS is reduced in patients with pCR. These are the first results from a large neoadjuvant randomized trial supporting the use of RS to help select patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37062416
pii: S0923-7534(23)00136-9
doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.04.002
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
130-nm albumin-bound paclitaxel
0
Epirubicin
3Z8479ZZ5X
Solvents
0
Ki-67 Antigen
0
Paclitaxel
P88XT4IS4D
Albumins
0
Cyclophosphamide
8N3DW7272P
Receptor, ErbB-2
EC 2.7.10.1
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01779206']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
531-542Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure OG received consulting fees from Celgene, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Pierre Fabre, Gilead, and Molecular health; honoraria from Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, NanoString Technologies, and AstraZeneca; payment for expert testimony from Genomic Health; and travel support from Roche, all outside of the submitted work; and co-director position at West German Study Group. SK received research funding from Roche and Novartis; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Genomic Health/Exact Science, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Seagen, Pfizer, pfm Medical, Roche, Somatex, and Gilead; travel support from Roche and Daiichi Sankyo; and other financial or non-financial interests for Non-Continuing Medical Education services from Somatex, Roche, Novartis, and Lilly, all outside of the submitted work; and co-director position at West German Study Group. UN received research funding paid to institution from Agendia, Amgen, Celgene, Genomic Health, NanoString Technologies, Roche, and Sanofi; consulting fees from Genomic Health and Roche; honoraria from Agendia, Amgen, Celgene, Genomic Health, NanoString Technologies, Novartis pharma, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Roche/Genentech, and Teva; payment for expert testimony from Genomic Health; travel support from Genomic Health, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, and Roche; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board at Roche, Seagen, and Exact Sciences, all outside of the submitted work; and co-director position at West German Study Group. MB received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Teva, MSD; travel support from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo; and reports consulting/advisory role for AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Puma, Roche, all outside of the submitted work. HF received honoraria from Roche and iOMEDICO (lecture); and travel support from Celgene and Amgen, all outside of the submitted work. CU received consulting fees from Tesaro, Novartis, Roche; research funding paid to institution from West German Study Group, German Breast Group, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Palleos Healthcare Services Gmbh, Pierre Fabre, AGO-Studiengruppe; travel support from German Breast Group, West German Study Group, AGO-Studiengruppe; and provided expert testimony for Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, all outside of the submitted work. BA received honoraria from Pfizer, Roche Pharma, MSD, onkowissen.de, Novartis Pharma, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Lilly, promedicis, all outside of the submitted work. RK received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Roche/Genentech, Sandoz, and Seattle Genetics; and honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Novartis, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, and Zodiac Pharma, all paid to immediate family member and outside of the submitted work; and co-director position at West German Study Group. MG received consulting fees from AstraZeneca and travel support from Daiichi Sankyo, all outside of the submitted work. RW received consulting fees, honoraria, and travel support from Agendia, Amgen, Aristo, AstraZeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences/Genomic Health, Gilead, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, PumaBiotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Sanofi Genzyme, Seattle Genetics/Seagen, Tesaro Bio, Teva, Veracyte, and Viatris; and other financial or non-financial interests from FomF (Forum for medical education in Germany), Aurikamed, Clinsol, Pomme Med, all outside of the submitted work. RB is a current employee of and owns stock in Exact Sciences Corporation. HHK received honoraria for lectures from Roche Pharma, Novartis, Genomic Health, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Pfizer; and participation in Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board at Roche Pharma, Genomic Health, and AstraZeneca, all outside of the submitted work. NH received research funding paid to institution from Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech; honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Roche/Genentech, Sandoz, Sanofi, and Seagen, all outside of the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.