Advertisement


Nicholas C. Turner, MD, PhD, on New Data on Capivasertib and Fulvestrant for Advanced Breast Cancer

2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium

Advertisement

Nicholas C. Turner, MD, PhD, of London’s Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden, discusses phase III results from the CAPItello-291 clinical trial, which showed that in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative tumors resistant to aromatase inhibitors, adding the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant doubled the median progression-free survival compared with placebo plus fulvestrant (Abstract GS3-04).



Transcript

Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
AKT inhibition is common in advanced hormone receptor positive HER2 negative breast cancers. The CAPitello 291 study investigated the AKT inhibitor, capivasertib. The study recruited patients with advanced hormone receptor positive HER2 negative breast cancer that had progressed on prior aromatase inhibitor. The study allowed up to two prior lines of endocrine therapy and one prior line of chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer, and also allowed prior CDK4/6 inhibitor, mandating 51% of patients to have had a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor at least. 708 patients were recruited, randomized one to one between fulvestrant and placebo and fulvestrant and capivasertib. There were two co-primary endpoints. Investigator assessed PPFs overall and in AKT pathway activated cancers. AKT pathway activated cancers were defined as the presence of PIC3CA, AKT1, or P10 mutations in the cancer, which was determined in tissue, which was submitted after randomization and analyzed with the FoundationOne assay. Overall, 41% of tumors had AKT pathway activating alterations. Overall, median PFS improved from 3.6 months on fulvestrant and placebo to 7.2 months on capivasertib and fulvestrant. A hazard ratio of 0.6, highly statistically significant. Then in the co-primary endpoint of AKT pathway activated cancers, PFS improved from 3.1 months on placebo to 7.2 months on capivasertib. A hazard ratio of 0.5. Again, highly statistically significant. If we come to adverse effects, overall capivasertib was well tolerated with a manageable safety profile. 13% of patients stopped due to adverse effects. The most prominent adverse effect was diarrhea, which occurred in 72% of patients, predominantly grade one diarrhea, although 9% of patients had grade three diarrhea. Rash also occurred in 38% of patients, 12% grade three, but prominently both hypoglycemia and stomatitis were relatively uncommon, grade three and only 2% of patients each. Overall the CAPitello 291 study showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival, both overall and in AKT pathway activated cancers. The benefit was consistent across subgroups including in patients with prior CDK46 inhibitor use. Currently, overall survival data is immature and ongoing follow-up is going on for two further formal analyses of overall survival. In conclusion, it is hopeful that capivasertib will be a future treatment option for the population of patients who were recruited in the study.

Related Videos

Breast Cancer

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, on Interrupting Breast Cancer Treatment to Attempt Pregnancy

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses results from the POSITIVE trial, which showed that a temporary interruption of endocrine therapy in women with hormone-responsive breast cancer in order to attempt pregnancy, does not affect short-term disease outcomes. The study found that 74% of women had at least one pregnancy, most (70%) within 2 years. Birth defects were low (2%) and were not clearly associated with treatment exposure. Dr. Partridge explains that these data stress the need to incorporate patient-centered reproductive health care in the treatment and follow-up of young women with breast cancer (Abstract GS4-09).

Breast Cancer

Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, on Elacestrant vs Standard-of-Care Endocrine Therapy in ER-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer

Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital, discusses results from the phase III EMERALD trial, the first study to demonstrate improved progression-free survival vs standard of care in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer with one to two prior lines of endocrine treatment, with or without one line of chemotherapy. This finding applied to all patients in the study, including the subgroup with ESR1 mutations (Abstract GS3-01).

Breast Cancer

François-Clément Bidard, MD, PhD: Circulating Tumor Cells May Help Improve Outcomes in Metastatic Disease

François-Clément Bidard, MD, PhD, of the Institut Curie, discusses overall survival results from the STIC CTC trial. To guide the choice between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy for patients with metastatic, estrogen receptor–positive/HER2-negative breast cancer, researchers compared circulating tumor cell (CTC) count to physician’s choice of treatment. The data suggest that the CTC count resulted in better long-term outcomes (Abstract GS3-09).

Breast Cancer
Immunotherapy

Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, on Updated Survival Results on T-DXd vs T-DM1 in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, discusses phase III findings from the DESTINY-Breast03 study, which showed that second-line treatment with fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (T-DXd) led to longer overall survival compared with ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Patients treated with T-DXd had a 36% lower risk of death than those treated with T-DM1 (Abstract GS2-02).

Breast Cancer

Sean Khozin, MD, MPH, on Randomized Trials vs Real-World Evidence in Patients With Advanced Cancer

Sean Khozin, MD, MPH, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, discusses the “external validity deficits” of randomized clinical trials, which still involve only about 5% of adults with cancer, who may differ in important ways from real-world populations. Dr. Khozin describes the reasons for low levels of participation and advocates for capturing the experience of patients not represented in traditional clinical trials, so real-world data can address these validity deficits.

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement