Advertisement


Pierfranco Conte, MD, on Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Trial Update on Avelumab as Adjuvant Treatment

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Advertisement

Pierfranco Conte, MD, of the University of Padua, discusses phase III findings from the A-BRAVE trial, which was designed to evaluate the efficacy of avelumab, an anti–PD-L1 antibody, as adjuvant treatment for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer who are at high risk (LBA500).



Transcript

Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
The A-BRAVE trial was an academic driven trial conducted in patients at high risk with early triple negative breast cancer. The purpose of the study was to improve the prognosis of these patients by selecting subgroup of patients at particularly high risk of relapse. In the study, we have randomized two strata of patients. One was patients who went to surgery upfront, and after surgery had a diagnosis of advanced stages of disease, high positivity, axillary lymph load, large tumor size. The second stratum were the patients who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and had surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, still had invasive residual disease in the breast and/or in the axillary lymph nodes. The primary end points of the study were disease-free survival in the entire study population, and the disease-free survival in the post-neoadjuvant group, which included 82% of a total population. We didn't meet the primary end points, because we did observe a difference in favor of avelumab in disease-free survival, a 5% improvement at three years in disease-free survival in the whole population, and a 6% improvement in the post-neoadjuvant population. But this was not statistically significant, hazard ratio was 0.8, p-value 0.17. We did observe on the contrary, a statistically significant difference in overall survival in the entire study. Population at three years the advantage in overall survival for Avelumab was 8.5%, the hazard ratio 0.66, which means a 34% reduction in the risk of death, the p-value 0.035. We did also perform a postdoc exploratory analysis, try to understand why we are seeing a larger benefit in overall survival than disease-free survival, and the analysis was on distant disease-free survival. And again, we did observe a significant advantage for Avelumab, 7.5% improvement at three years in distant disease-free survival, hazard ratio 0.7, p-value 0.027. We do know that in many countries today standard of care for high-risk, early triple negative disease is neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus Pembrolizumab. So Pembrolizumab is given to all these patients before surgery, and also is continued after surgery, independently from the pathological response observed at surgery. And this is, as I said before, standard recommended by international and also national guidelines in Italy. There are aware still patients who do not receive Pembro if a neoadjuvant situation. Patients who have a smaller tumor size, clinically negative axillary lymph nodes, patients for whom physicians may, or might, have some concern about the tolerability of a treatment. So there are still patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy without Pembro. Many of these patients fortunately receive a pathological [inaudible 00:04:00] response, but still some of them, 40 to 50%, have residual invasive disease, and they think that for these patients avelumab will be a good option. Highly effective in terms of distant disease-free survival, effective in terms of overall survival, and also tolerability was quite good. Now of course, this is the first presentation of the study, because the study was an event-driven study. We will follow up the patients longer, by sure. And there are many translational studies ongoing, because we have collected tumor samples, blood, plasma, and feces by all these patients. So, we will have a lot of translational research trying to understand who are the patients who benefit more, and who are the patients who unfortunately still relapse in spite of avelumab?

Related Videos

Breast Cancer

Ciara C. O’Sullivan, MD, MBBCh, on HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: Expert Commentary on Treatments Under Study

Ciara C. O’Sullivan, MD, MBBCh, of Mayo Clinic, discusses three studies of treatment for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and their clinical implications: the EMERALD trial of eribulin and taxane; the Patricia Cohort C trial of palbociclib plus trastuzumab and endocrine therapy; and DB07 on trastuzumab deruxtecan with or without palbociclib.

Skin Cancer

Pauline Funchain, MD and Paolo A. Ascierto, MD, on Advanced Melanoma: Results From the RELATIVITY-048 Trial

Pauline Funchain, MD, of Stanford University and the Stanford Cancer Institute, and Paolo A. Ascierto, MD, of Italy’s Istituto Nazionale Tumori and IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale, discuss efficacy and safety findings of the triplet therapy nivolumab, relatlimab-rmbw, and ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma (Abstract 9504).

 

Gastroesophageal Cancer

Jens Marquardt, MD, and Jens Hoeppner, MD, on Esophageal Cancer: Phase III Findings on Chemotherapy vs Chemoradiation

Jens Marquardt, MD, of the University of Lübeck, and Jens Hoeppner, MD, of the University of Bielefeld, discuss findings from the ESOPEC trial, which showed that perioperative chemotherapy (fluorouracii, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, docetaxel) and surgery improves survival in patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma when compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (41.4 Gy plus carboplatin and paclitaxel) followed by surgery (LBA1).

Skin Cancer

Georgina V. Long, MD, PhD, on BRAF-Mutated Melanoma: Long-Term Follow-up of Adjuvant Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib vs Placebo

Georgina V. Long, MD, PhD, of the Melanoma Institute Australia and The University of Sydney, discusses final results with up to 10 years’ follow-up data of the COMBI-AD study of patients with stage III BRAF-mutated melanoma who received adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib (Abstract 9500).

Issues in Oncology

Andrew Srisuwananukorn, MD, and Alexander T. Pearson, MD, PhD, on Artificial Intelligence in the Clinic: Understanding How to Use This 21st Century Tool

Andrew Srisuwananukorn, MD, of The Ohio State University, and Alexander T. Pearson, MD, PhD, of the University of Chicago, discuss the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the clinic, its potential benefits in diagnosis and treatment, resources available to help physicians learn more about AI, and what’s coming for the next generation of medical school students.

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement