Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

Pathological complete response has been proposed as a surrogate endpoint for prediction of long-term clinical benefit, such as disease-free survival, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). We had four key objectives: to establish the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS, to establish the definition of pathological complete response that correlates best with long-term outcome, to identify the breast cancer subtypes in which pathological complete response is best correlated with long-term outcome, and to assess whether an increase in frequency of pathological complete response between treatment groups predicts improved EFS and OS.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Medline for clinical trials of neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. To be eligible, studies had to meet three inclusion criteria: include at least 200 patients with primary breast cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery; have available data for pathological complete response, EFS, and OS; and have a median follow-up of at least 3 years. We compared the three most commonly used definitions of pathological complete response--ypT0 ypN0, ypT0/is ypN0, and ypT0/is--for their association with EFS and OS in a responder analysis. We assessed the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS in various subgroups. Finally, we did a trial-level analysis to assess whether pathological complete response could be used as a surrogate endpoint for EFS or OS.

FINDINGS

We obtained data from 12 identified international trials and 11 955 patients were included in our responder analysis. Eradication of tumour from both breast and lymph nodes (ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0) was better associated with improved EFS (ypT0 ypN0: hazard ratio [HR] 0·44, 95% CI 0·39-0·51; ypT0/is ypN0: 0·48, 0·43-0·54) and OS (0·36, 0·30-0·44; 0·36, 0·31-0·42) than was tumour eradication from the breast alone (ypT0/is; EFS: HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·55-0·66; OS 0·51, 0·45-0·58). We used the ypT0/is ypN0 definition for all subsequent analyses. The association between pathological complete response and long-term outcomes was strongest in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (EFS: HR 0·24, 95% CI 0·18-0·33; OS: 0·16, 0·11-0·25) and in those with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative tumours who received trastuzumab (EFS: 0·15, 0·09-0·27; OS: 0·08, 0·03, 0·22). In the trial-level analysis, we recorded little association between increases in frequency of pathological complete response and EFS (R(2)=0·03, 95% CI 0·00-0·25) and OS (R(2)=0·24, 0·00-0·70).

INTERPRETATION

Patients who attain pathological complete response defined as ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0 have improved survival. The prognostic value is greatest in aggressive tumour subtypes. Our pooled analysis could not validate pathological complete response as a surrogate endpoint for improved EFS and OS.

FUNDING

US Food and Drug Administration.

FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab for the Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Progression On or After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy

In the CheckMate 057 trial, an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer with progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy, improved overall survival and objective response rates were demonstrated with nivolumab compared with docetaxel. Progression-free survival did not differ between the two arms of the study.

On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded the nivolumab metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) indication to include patients with nonsquamous NSCLC after a 3.25-month review timeline. Approval was based on demonstration of an improvement in overall survival (OS) in an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial comparing nivolumab to docetaxel in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC with progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. The CheckMate 057 trial enrolled 582 patients who were randomized (1:1) to receive nivolumab or docetaxel. Nivolumab demonstrated improved OS compared with docetaxel at the prespecified interim analysis with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.73 (p = .0015), and a median OS of 12.2 months (95% CI: 9.7–15.0 months) in patients treated with nivolumab compared with 9.4 months (95% CI: 8.0–10.7 months) in patients treated with docetaxel. A statistically significant improvement in objective response rate (ORR) was also observed, with an ORR of 19% (95% CI: 15%–24%) in the nivolumab arm and 12% (95% CI: 9%–17%) in the docetaxel arm. The median duration of response was 17 months in the nivolumab arm and 6 months in the docetaxel arm. Progression-free survival was not statistically different between arms. A prespecified retrospective subgroup analysis suggested that patients with programmed cell death ligand 1-negative tumors treated with nivolumab had similar OS to those treated with docetaxel. The toxicity profile of nivolumab was consistent with the known immune-mediated adverse event profile except for 1 case of grade 5 limbic encephalitis, which led to a postmarketing requirement study to better characterize immune-mediated encephalitis.

Implications for Practice:

Based on the results from the CheckMate 057 clinical trial, nivolumab represents a new treatment option for patients requiring second-line treatment for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The role of nivolumab in patients with sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) alterations is less clear. Until dedicated studies are performed to better characterize the role and sequence of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) therapy, patients with EGFR or ALK alterations should have progressed on appropriate targeted therapy before initiating PD-1 inhibitor therapy. Some patients whose tumors lack programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression also appear to have durable responses. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted approval to Dako’s PD-L1 test, PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx, which the applicant claimed as a nonessential complementary diagnostic for nivolumab use.

FDA Approval Summary: Dabrafenib and Trametinib for the Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers Harboring BRAF V600E Mutations

This article summarizes the FDA review of the efficacy supplement supporting approval of dabrafenib and trametinib administered concurrently for BRAF V600E‐mutant non‐small cell lung cancer.

On June 22, 2017, the Food and Drug Administration expanded indications for dabrafenib and trametinib to include treatment of patients with metastatic non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring BRAF V600E mutations. Approval was based on results from an international, multicenter, multicohort, noncomparative, open‐label trial, study BRF113928, which sequentially enrolled 93 patients who had received previous systemic treatment for advanced NSCLC (Cohort B, n = 57) or were treatment‐naïve (Cohort C, n = 36). All patients received dabrafenib 150 mg orally twice daily and trametinib 2 mg orally once daily. In Cohort B, overall response rate (ORR) was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI] 49%–76%) with response durations ≥6 months in 64% of responders. In Cohort C, ORR was 61% (95% CI 44%–77%) with response durations ≥6 months in 59% of responders. Results were evaluated in the context of the Intergroupe Francophone de Cancérologie Thoracique registry and a chart review of U.S. electronic health records at two academic sites, characterizing treatment outcomes data for patients with metastatic NSCLC with or without BRAF V600E mutations. The treatment effect of dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily was evaluated in 78 patients with previously treated BRAF mutant NSCLC, yielding an ORR of 27% (95% CI 18%–38%), establishing that dabrafenib alone is active, but that the addition of trametinib is necessary to achieve an ORR of >40%. The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were pyrexia, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dry skin, decreased appetite, edema, rash, chills, hemorrhage, cough, and dyspnea.

Implications for Practice.

The approvals of dabrafenib and trametinib, administered concurrently, provide a new regimen for the treatment of a rare subset of non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and demonstrate how drugs active for treatment of BRAF‐mutant tumors in one setting predict efficacy and can provide supportive evidence for approval in another setting. The FDA also approved the first next‐generation sequencing oncology panel test for simultaneous assessment of multiple actionable mutations, which will facilitate selection of optimal, personalized therapy. The test was shown to accurately and reliably select patients with NSCLC with the BRAF V600E mutation for whom treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib is the optimal treatment.

Assessment of benefits and risks in development of targeted therapies for cancer--The view of regulatory authorities

Drug licensing and approval decisions involve the balancing of benefits against the risks (harms) in the presence of uncertainty. Typically, the benefits are estimated from primary efficacy endpoints from confirmatory (phase III) clinical trials although exceptions where promising early data from single-arm studies have led to accelerated approvals are not uncommon, particularly for cancer drugs. The challenge for regulators is to balance early evidence of efficacy that might support approval versus the need to establish clinical benefit based on conclusive evidence. Targeted agents offer the promise that knowledge about the mechanism of the disease will help identify patients with tumors likely to respond, resulting in higher efficacy and less toxicity, and earlier regulatory decisions based on convincing evidence of clinical benefit. In this paper, we describe methods and examples of benefit-risk assessment of targeted drugs, recent initiatives from EMA and FDA on improving communication about benefits and risks, and discuss future steps.

Radiologic Considerations and Standardization of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma Imaging Within Clinical Trials: Consensus Statement from the NCI Thoracic Malignancy Steering Committee - International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer - Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation Clinical Trials Planning Meeting

Detailed guidelines pertaining to radiological assessment of malignant pleural mesothelioma are currently lacking due to the rarity of the disease, complex morphology, propensity to invade multiple planes simultaneously, and lack of specific recommendations within the radiology community about assessment, reporting, and follow-up. In March 2017, a multidisciplinary meeting of mesothelioma experts was co-sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Thoracic Malignancy Steering Committee, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation. One of the outcomes of this conference was the foundation of detailed, multidisciplinary consensus imaging and management guidelines. Here, we present the recommendations for radiologic assessment of malignant pleural mesothelioma in the setting of clinical trial enrollment. We discuss optimization of imaging parameters across modalities, standardized reporting, and response assessment within clinical trials.

A Benefit-Risk Analysis Approach to Capture Regulatory Decision-Making: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Drug regulators around the world make decisions about drug approvability based on qualitative benefit-risk analyses. There is much interest in quantifying regulatory approaches to benefit and risk. In this work the use of a quantitative benefit-risk analysis was applied to regulatory decision-making about new drugs to treat advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Benefits and risks associated with 20 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decisions associated with a set of candidate treatments submitted between 2003 and 2015 were analyzed. For benefit analysis, the median overall survival (OS) was used where available. When not available, OS was estimated based on overall response rate (ORR) or progression-free survival (PFS). Risks were analyzed based on magnitude (or severity) of harm and likelihood of occurrence. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was explored to demonstrate analysis of systematic uncertainty. FDA approval decision outcomes considered were found to be consistent with the benefit-risk logic.

Abstract P1-14-20: Meta-analysis Results from the Collaborative Trials in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer (CTNeoBC)

Withdrawn by Author

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-14-20.

Clinical Trial Diversity in Oncology: FDA Takes Action with Post-Marketing Requirements or Commitments

In recent years, there has been a renewed focus on promoting the inclusion of patients from racial and ethnic minority groups in oncology clinical trials. FDA Oncology has long pointed to the underrepresentation of racial minorities in registration trials leading to approval. US FDA's Guidance on diversity discusses how diversity could be handled within clinical trials, giving recommendations on broadening eligibility criteria, inclusive trial practices, and alternative trial designs. While there is no specific guidance from the FDA on cancer clinical trials, the recommendation is to include a representative population applicable to the US population. With the recent renewed focus on diversity in oncology clinical trials, FDA Oncology has recently asked for the completion of a Diversity Plan during drug development and has issued post-marketing commitments and requirements at the time of approval. As FDA has started to issue post-marketing requirements or commitments regarding diversity in 2020, we sought to analyze the post-marketing studies asking for a study of racial and ethnic minorities issued by the FDA's Office of Oncologic Diseases (OOD). The analysis demonstrated the need to increase the enrollment of a diverse patient population in cancer clinical trials.

A phase I study of nelfinavir, an FDA approved HIV protease inhibitor, in adults with refractory solid tumors

2583

Background: Preclinical studies show that HIV protease inhibitors such as nelfinavir (N) have dose- dependent, pleiotropic anti-cancer activities. However, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of N has not been established in humans. Methods: Pts were treated on a modified Fibonacci dose-escalation scheme with a twice daily oral dose of N starting at the FDA approved dose of 1250 mg bid on a 21-day cycle. Patients with refractory solid tumors, ECOG PS < 2, and adequate organ function were eligible. Therapy continued until MTD or disease progression. PBMCs as well as optional tumor biopsies were collected for Akt inhibition and expression of markers of ER stress (ERS). Results: 14 patients have been enrolled. Of the 11 evaluable for toxicity, there were 10 men, 10 Caucasians, and 1 African American (median age 63 years (range 24 - 77)). Tumor types included NSCLC (3), SCLC (2), thyroid (3), pancreatic (1), colorectal (1), and renal cell (1). Median number of prior systemic therapies was 2 (range, 1 - 6). There have been no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. We observed 12 grade 3 toxicities that were asymptomatic laboratory abnormalities. The most prevalent toxicities were ALT transaminitis (5 events in 8 subjects in dose level ((DL) 2, 3, 4), AST transaminitis (4 events in 8 subjects in DL 2, 4), diarrhea (8 events in 5 subjects in DL 2, 3, 4), and hyperglycemia (5 events in 5 subjects in DL 1, 2, 3). Enrollment continues at DL 4 (3125 mg twice daily). There have been no responses. Two subjects with lung cancer had stable disease for 9 weeks. Pharmacokinetic data revealed median Cmax of 2,461.5 ng/ml (DL1), 11,809 ng/ml (DL2), 11,576 ng/ml (DL3), and 11,986 ng/ml (DL4), occurring 4 hours after an oral dose. There was no relationship between the drug levels and albumin levels. Akt inhibition and increased expression of markers of ERS and apoptosis have been observed in PBMCs from week 1 in the majority of patients at every dose level, but there was no correlation with clinical response. Conclusions: N appears to be well tolerated in subjects with advanced solid tumors at 2.5 times the FDA approved dose. AUC data suggest that there may be only minimal increases in plasma drug concentrations with doses above 1875 mg twice daily.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.