Phase II Study of Gemcitabine and Bevacizumab As First-Line Treatment in Taxane-Pretreated, HER2-Negative, Locally Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer

Trial Watch: Tumor-targeting monoclonal antibodies in cancer therapy

In 1997, for the first time in history, a monoclonal antibody (mAb), i.e., the chimeric anti-CD20 molecule rituximab, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in cancer patients. Since then, the panel of mAbs that are approved by international regulatory agencies for the treatment of hematopoietic and solid malignancies has not stopped to expand, nowadays encompassing a stunning amount of 15 distinct molecules. This therapeutic armamentarium includes mAbs that target tumor-associated antigens, as well as molecules that interfere with tumor-stroma interactions or exert direct immunostimulatory effects. These three classes of mAbs exert antineoplastic activity via distinct mechanisms, which may or may not involve immune effectors other than the mAbs themselves. In previous issues of OncoImmunology, we provided a brief scientific background to the use of mAbs, all types confounded, in cancer therapy, and discussed the results of recent clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of this approach. Here, we focus on mAbs that primarily target malignant cells or their interactions with stromal components, as opposed to mAbs that mediate antineoplastic effects by activating the immune system. In particular, we discuss relevant clinical findings that have been published during the last 13 months as well as clinical trials that have been launched in the same period to investigate the therapeutic profile of hitherto investigational tumor-targeting mAbs.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Bevacizumab in First-Line Metastatic Breast Cancer: Lessons for Research and Regulatory Enterprises

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration's accelerated approval and later withdrawal of bevacizumab in patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) is a seminal case for ongoing debates about the validity of using progression-free survival (PFS) as a surrogate measure for overall survival (OS) in cancer drug approvals. We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the evidence around bevacizumab's regulatory approval and withdrawal in mBC.

METHODS

We searched for all published phase II or III clinical trials testing bevacizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with mBC. Data were extracted on trial demographics, interventions, and outcomes. Descriptive analysis was stratified by whether the trial was initiated before, during, or after the accelerated approval. We used a cumulative random-effects meta-analysis to assess the evolution of evidence of the effect of bevacizumab on PFS and OS. We estimated the association between the trial-level PFS and OS effect using a nonlinear mixed-regression model.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies were included. Trial activity dramatically dropped after the accelerated approval was withdrawn. Eight clinical trials reported hazard ratios (hazard ratios) and were meta-analyzed. The cumulative hazard ratio for PFS was 0.72 (95% CI = 0.65 to 0.79), and the cumulative hazard ratio for OS was 0.90 (95% CI = 0.80 to 1.01). The regression model showed a statistically nonsignificant association between PFS benefit and OS benefit (β = 0.43, SE = 0.81).

CONCLUSION

The US Food and Drug Administration's decision-making in this case was consistent with the evolving state of evidence. However, the fact that seven clinical trials are insufficient to conclude validity (or lack thereof) for a trial-level surrogate suggests that it would be more efficient to conduct trials using the more clinically meaningful endpoints.

A systematic review of bevacizumab efficacy in breast cancer

Angiogenesis is a key component of cancer growth, invasion and metastasis. Therefore, inhibition of angiogenesis is an attractive strategy for the treatment of cancer. We systematically describe phase II and III clinical trials of bevacizumab for the treatment of breast cancer.

METHODS

A computer-based literature search was carried out using PUBMED and conference databases. Original phase II and III studies reporting ≥15 patients who received bevacizumab were included.

RESULTS

41 phase II trials were identified in the metastatic setting. Most trials found bevacizumab treatment feasible. Response rates (RR) varied from 0% to 76.5%, time to progression (TTP)/progression free survival (PFS) from 2.4 to 25.3 months and overall survival from 11.5 to more than 38 months. 14 phase III trials including more than 4400 patients with MBC unanimously showed increased RR and PFS, however, no trials demonstrated an OS benefit. In the neoadjuvant setting 23 phase II and III trials were identified. All studies found increased pCR/tpCR but no benefit in terms of OS could be demonstrated. The only study conducted in the adjuvant setting failed to show any survival benefit of bevacizumab.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased response rates in both the metastatic and neoadjuvant setting, bevacizumab has failed to show any OS benefit. Future trials should include identification of robust predictive biomarkers in order to improve our understanding of molecular biomarkers and mechanisms.