Advertisement


Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, and Kevin Kalinsky, MD, on Breast Cancer: Latest Findings on Fulvestrant or Exemestane With or Without Ribociclib

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting

Advertisement

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Kevin Kalinsky, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, discuss phase II findings from the MAINTAIN trial, which showed a benefit in progression-free survival for patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer when they switched to endocrine therapy and received ribociclib after disease progression on another CDK4/6 inhibitor (Abstract LBA1004).



Transcript

Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
Ann Partridge: So Kevin, the CDK4/6 inhibitors have been now a mainstay of treatment for our patients with hormone receptor positive breast cancer when it's become metastatic and now in the adjuvant setting for some. And yet when they stop working with endocrine therapy, we've said, are we done with them or could we eke little more benefit out of them? And then along comes first in its class, the MAINTAIN trial. Tell us about that. Kevin Kalinsky: Sure. So one of the questions has really been what's the role for CDK4/6 inhibition after CDK4/6 inhibition? And there have been real world data, as well as some clinical data, suggesting that the anti-proliferative effect is no longer there once you stop the CDK4/6 inhibitor. And that's really the rationale for this study. And this is- Ann Partridge: Try and get it back. Kevin Kalinsky: Try to get it back, try to get back. And so this is the first randomized placebo-controlled trial. There are others that will report hopefully soon. This was a study for patients who had a tumor progression in metastatic setting on any endocrine therapy, any CDK4/6 inhibitor. And they were randomized to switching the endocrine therapy plus or minus ribociclib. And this was a placebo-controlled trial. The majority of those patients receive fulvestrant as the endocrine therapy backbone. Of the 119 randomized and evaluable patients, 99 of those had fulvestrant as their endocrine therapy backbone. The primary objective was to see if there was an improvement in progression-free survival, which there was. And the hazard ratio was .57, confidence interval does not cross one. There was an improvement in median progression-free survival, about two and a half months, favoring those who were randomized to ribociclib. Ann Partridge: Which is a significant change, not huge but significant. So tell me about tolerability in the CDK after CDK. Kevin Kalinsky: Yeah. There were really no surprises. Amount of dose reductions due to adverse events were what was expected. It was higher in the patients with ribociclib compared to placebo. About 50% of patients need to have some sort of dose interruption. And there were only three patients overall who actually required having more than one dose reduction overall in the study. Neutropenia was seen, but only two patients had febrile neutropenic events. There were two patients with pneumonitis, one of which was grade three, and there was a slightly higher rate, three infections in the placebo, six infections in the ribociclib arm, but overall nothing that was surprising. Ann Partridge: Pretty well tolerated. Kevin Kalinsky: Pretty well tolerated and manageable, what we've seen in the CDK4/6 inhibitor-naive population. Ann Partridge: And my understanding from your data were that the vast majority of people had gotten palbo in first line. Kevin Kalinsky: Correct. Ann Partridge: Is that correct? So how do you think about that? Kevin Kalinsky: Yeah, so we did try to enrich for patients who would receive ribociclib as their frontline therapy. But despite that, 87% of patients received palbociclib. It was only 12% who received ribociclib. So it was the vast majority who received palbociclib. We did do some subgroup analyses. And what we saw was the hazard ratio was actually quite similar. It was about 0.5 to about 0.58 in those who- Ann Partridge: Regardless of the prior. Kevin Kalinsky: Regardless of the prior. But only 14 patients had prior ribo, so that confidence interval really is quite wide. Ann Partridge: Right. And it's a randomized phase 2. Kevin Kalinsky: It's a randomized phase 2 study. Ann Partridge: So what comes next? Where do we go? Kevin Kalinsky: Right. So I think that, to me, there are some individuals who have been doing this in their practice. And I think those individuals will use these data to justify doing this and will also say this was a randomized phase 2 study. And this was a proof of principle signal finding study. And I think it's important to keep that in mind. It's 120 patients, one of which was not evaluable. Kevin Kalinsky: There are other CDK4/6 inhibitor, post-CDK4/6 inhibitor studies. For instance, PACE is a study that's looking at palbo after palbo. There's also an interesting arm in there of including a [inaudible] checkpoint inhibitor, which will be interesting to see. PALMIRA hopefully will be out as well. And then there's a randomized phase 3 trial, about 350 patients, the post MONARCH study, which will be looking at fulvestrant plus or minus abemaciclib. And in that study, it includes patients who have tumor progression on their adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor, because then maintain all the progression had been on CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting. Ann Partridge: That's interesting. All right, we'll stay tuned. Kevin, thank you so much. This is great. Kevin Kalinsky: Thank you.

Related Videos

Supportive Care
Symptom Management

Sriram Yennu, MD, on Cancer-Related Fatigue: Is Open-Labeled Placebo an Effective Treatment?

Sriram Yennu, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, discusses the placebo response in patients with advanced cancer and cancer-related fatigue. His latest findings show that open-labeled placebo was efficacious in reducing cancer-related fatigue and improving quality of life in fatigued patients with advanced cancer at the end of 1 week. The improvement in fatigue was maintained for 4 weeks (Abstract 12006).

Bladder Cancer

Shilpa Gupta, MD, on Urothelial Cancer: Defining Who Is 'Platinum-Ineligible'

Shilpa Gupta, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, discusses an updated consensus definition for standard therapy and clinical trial eligibility for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer who are platinum-ineligible, criteria that are proposed to guide treatment recommendations for this population. This may be especially important now that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has restricted the use of first-line pembrolizumab to those who are considered platinum-ineligible (Abstract 4577).

Pancreatic Cancer

Rainer Fietkau, MD, on Pancreatic Cancer: Initial Trial Results on Sequential Chemotherapy and Chemoradiotherapy

Rainer Fietkau, MD, of Germany’s University Hospital Erlangen, discusses phase III findings of the CONKO-007 trial, which examined the role of sequential chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy administered to patients with nonresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer following standard-of-care chemotherapy (Abstract 4008).

Prostate Cancer

Alicia K. Morgans, MD, MPH, and Ian D. Davis, PhD, MBBS, on Prostate Cancer: Updated Overall Survival Outcomes With Enzalutamide

Alicia K. Morgans, MD, MPH, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Ian D. Davis, PhD, MBBS, of Monash University and Eastern Health, discuss the latest findings from ANZUP Cancer Trials Group’s ENZAMET cooperative group trial of enzalutamide in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. The results corroborate the benefit of enzalutamide with improved overall survival, and involve some exploratory subgroup analyses (Abstract LBA5004).

Head and Neck Cancer

Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, on Oropharyngeal Cancer and the Feasibility of a Cell-Free DNA Plasma Assay

Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, discusses a translational analysis from the NRG-HN002 study. This phase II trial established the feasibility of the tumor tissue–modified viral (TTMV) human papillomavirus DNA assay in clinical trial specimens. The goal is to use such an assay to measure tumor volume, levels of TTMV over the course of treatment, and the association of TTMV to treatment outcomes (Abstract 6006).

 

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement