Robert Hugh Jones, MD, PhD, on Breast Cancer: Updated Overall Survival Data on Fulvestrant Plus Capivasertib
2022 ASCO Annual Meeting
Robert Hugh Jones, MD, PhD, of Cardiff University and Velindre Hospital, discusses results from an updated analysis of the FAKTION trial, which showed improved overall survival with fulvestrant plus capivasertib in women with metastatic estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer whose disease had relapsed or progressed on an aromatase inhibitor. The benefit may be predominantly in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN pathway–altered tumors, a topic researchers continue to study in the phase III CAPItello-291 trial (Abstract 1005).
Transcript
Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
So the FAKTION trial is a randomized phase two trial that compares the activity of a hormone therapy called Fulvestrant plus capivasertib, which is an AKT inhibitor, compared to Fulvestrant and placebo in patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, which is incurable. So patients with metastatic disease. and what we did in the first instance is we randomized patients one to one to get either Fulvestrant plus capivasertib or Fulvestrant plus placebo. And in the first instance, we looked at progression-free survival in the intention to treat population. This was reported around three years ago, and it showed that patients who got the capivasertib had a survival or progression-free survival of around about 10.3 months compared to 4.8 months, if you got the Fulvestrant plus placebo. At that time, we did some limited biomarker analysis to see were the patients who had an activated pathway with PI3-kinase mutations were more likely to get benefit from those than those patients that didn't have an activated pathway. At that time, there was no difference between the two groups. So the advantage you couldn't distinguish which patient groups were going to get the most advantage. What we've now done is we've waited some time and done further analysis. So what we are looking at now is overall survival and looking at a more extensive biomarker analysis. And what we found most importantly was patients not only experienced longer time to control their cancer in the capivasertib group, but they had a longer overall survival. So within unselected patient groups that was around about six months, it was 29 months compared with 23 months. But when we did the biomarker analysis, we identified a greater number of patients that had what we call an altered pathway. So around about 54% of patients had an altered pathway. And when we looked at those patients, they were the ones that got the most benefit. So in terms of overall survival, patients with an activated pathway had around about 39 months worth of life. Whereas patients who had an activated pathway, but got placebo only had around 20 months when we looked at the patients that didn't have an activated pathway, there was very little difference between the two groups. So there was no particular benefit in getting the extra capivasertib drug. And what that means is that we can now select patients out who are most likely to benefit from this new treatment. It is a phase two study. So on its own, it won't change practice, but we have right behind it, a phase three study called CAPItello, and that will be looking at a much larger group of patients. And what we can then see is whether this large group of patients get a similar benefit. The other thing to mention is that because FAKTION was recruiting a number of years ago, patients weren't getting CDK4/6 inhibitors before entry into the study standard practice has now changed. And therefore the phase three study that's following on will look at that group of patients that are getting CDK4/6 inhibitors. And therefore it'll be more representative of real life data. We hope the phase three study repeats the incremental benefits that we've seen in the phase two. And that in turn could lead to a change in practice.
Related Videos
The ASCO Post Staff
Ruben A. Mesa, MD, of Mays Cancer Center at UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center, discusses new findings from the MOMENTUM study. This trial showed that in symptomatic and anemic patients with myelofibrosis, momelotinib was superior to danazol for symptom and spleen responses, as well as transfusion requirements (Abstract 7002).
The ASCO Post Staff
Nancy Davidson, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, reviews results from four abstracts about the importance of long-term follow-up in studies of adjuvant endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. Because the natural history of hormone receptor–positive breast cancer is long, an effort is underway to improve selection of patients by clinical parameters or biomarkers, refine the endocrine therapy background, and administer more effective combinations of endocrine therapy with other agents.
The ASCO Post Staff
Gilberto de Lima Lopes, Jr, MD, MBA, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, and Matthew Krebs, PhD, of The University of Manchester and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, discuss results from the CHRYSALIS study. The trial showed that the bispecific antibody amivantamab-vmjw demonstrated antitumor activity, even after prior treatment, in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that exhibits the MET exon 14 skipping mutation (Abstract 9008).
The ASCO Post Staff
Rami Manochakian, MD, of Mayo Clinic Florida, discusses the phase II findings of the NADIM II trial, which confirmed that, in terms of pathologic complete response as well as the feasibility of surgery, combining nivolumab and chemotherapy was superior to chemotherapy alone as a neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced, resectable stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (Abstract 8501).
The ASCO Post Staff
Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, discusses results from the CALGB 30610 study, which showed a similar clinical benefit for once- and twice-daily radiotherapy administered to patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. While both regimens were well tolerated, patients who received radiotherapy once daily had better quality-of-life scores at week 3 and slightly worse scores at week 12. Patients believed the once-daily regimen was more convenient (Abstract 8504).