Summary Background In the primary analysis of the NeoSphere trial, patients given neoadjuvant pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel showed a significantly improved pathological complete response ...compared with those given trastuzumab and docetaxel after surgery. Here, we report 5-year progression-free survival, disease-free survival, and safety. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised trial in hospitals and medical clinics, treatment-naive adults with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive four neoadjuvant cycles of trastuzumab (8 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, increasing to 100 mg/m2 from cycle 2 if tolerated; group A), pertuzumab (840 mg loading dose, followed by 420 mg every 3 weeks) and trastuzumab plus docetaxel (group B), pertuzumab and trastuzumab (group C), or pertuzumab and docetaxel (group D). After surgery, patients received three cycles of FEC (fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 , epirubicin 90 mg/m2 , and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 ) every 3 weeks (patients in group C received four cycles of docetaxel prior to FEC), and trastuzumab 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks to complete 1 year's treatment (17 cycles in total). Randomisation was done by a central centre using dynamic allocation, stratified by operable, locally advanced, and inflammatory breast cancer, and by oestrogen and/or progesterone receptor positivity. Safety analyses were done according to treatment received. The primary endpoint (pathological complete response) was previously reported; secondary endpoints reported here are 5-year progression-free survival (analysed in the intention-to-treat population) and disease-free survival (analysed in patients who had surgery). Secondary and exploratory analyses were not powered for formal statistical hypothesis testing, and therefore results are for descriptive purposes only. The study ended on Sept 22, 2014 (last patient, last visit). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00545688. Findings Between Dec 17, 2007, and Dec 22, 2009, 417 eligible patients were randomly assigned to group A (107 patients), group B (107 patients), group C (107 patients), or group D (96 patients). One patient in group A withdrew before treatment. One patient assigned to group D received group A treatment, one patient assigned to group D received group B treatment, and one patient assigned to group B received group C treatment. At clinical cutoff, 87 patients had progressed or died. 5-year progression-free survival rates were 81% (95% CI 71–87) for group A, 86% (77–91) for group B, 73% (64–81) for group C, and 73% (63–81) for group D (hazard ratios 0·69 95% CI 0·34–1·40 group B vs group A, 1·25 0·68–2·30 group C vs group A, and 2·05 1·07–3·93 group D vs group B). Disease-free survival results were consistent with progression-free survival results and were 81% (95% CI 72–88) for group A, 84% (72–91) for group B, 80% (70–86) for group C, and 75% (64–83) for group D. Patients who achieved total pathological complete response (all groups combined) had longer progression-free survival compared with patients who did not (85% 76–91 in patients who achieved total pathological response vs 76% 71–81 in patients who did not achieve total pathological response; hazard ratio 0·54 95% CI 0·29–1·00). There were no new or long-term safety concerns and tolerability was similar across groups (neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment periods combined). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (group A: 71 66% of 107 patients; group B: 59 55% of 107; group C: 40 37% of 108; group D: 60 64% of 94), febrile neutropenia (group A: 10 9%; group B: 12 11%; group C: 5 5%; group D: 15 16%), and leucopenia (group A: 13 12%; group B: 6 6%; group C: 4 4%; group D: 8 9%). The number of patients with one or more serious adverse event was similar across groups (19–22 serious adverse events per group in 18–22% of patients). Interpretation Progression-free survival and disease-free survival at 5-year follow-up show large and overlapping CIs, but support the primary endpoint (pathological complete response) and suggest that neoadjuvant pertuzumab is beneficial when combined with trastuzumab and docetaxel. Additionally, they suggest that total pathological complete response could be an early indicator of long-term outcome in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche.
Summary Background Studies with pertuzumab, a novel anti-HER2 antibody, show improved efficacy when combined with the established HER2-directed antibody trastuzumab in breast cancer therapy. We ...investigated the combination of pertuzumab or trastuzumab, or both, with docetaxel and the combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab without chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study, treatment-naive women with HER2-positive breast cancer were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) centrally and stratified by operable, locally advanced, and inflammatory breast cancer, and by hormone receptor expression to receive four neoadjuvant cycles of: trastuzumab (8 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m2 , escalating, if tolerated, to 100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks; group A) or pertuzumab (loading dose 840 mg, followed by 420 mg every 3 weeks) and trastuzumab plus docetaxel (group B) or pertuzumab and trastuzumab (group C) or pertuzumab plus docetaxel (group D). The primary endpoint, examined in the intention-to-treat population, was pathological complete response in the breast. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00545688. Findings Of 417 eligible patients, 107 were randomly assigned to group A, 107 to group B, 107 to group C, and 96 to group D. Patients given pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel (group B) had a significantly improved pathological complete response rate (49 of 107 patients; 45·8% 95% CI 36·1–55·7) compared with those given trastuzumab plus docetaxel (group A; 31 of 107; 29·0% 20·6–38·5; p=0·0141). 23 of 96 (24·0% 15·8–33·7) women given pertuzumab plus docetaxel (group D) had a pathological complete response, as did 18 of 107 (16·8% 10·3–25·3) given pertuzumab and trastuzumab (group C). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (61 of 107 women in group A, 48 of 107 in group B, one of 108 in group C, and 52 of 94 in group D), febrile neutropenia (eight, nine, none, and seven, respectively), and leucopenia (13, five, none, and seven, respectively). The number of serious adverse events was similar in groups A, B, and D (15–20 serious adverse events per group in 10–17% of patients) but lower in group C (four serious adverse events in 4% of patients). Interpretation Patients given pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel (group B) had a significantly improved pathological complete response rate compared with those given trastuzumab plus docetaxel, without substantial differences in tolerability. Pertuzumab and trastuzumab without chemotherapy eradicated tumours in a proportion of women and showed a favourable safety profile. These findings justify further exploration in adjuvant trials and support the neoadjuvant approach for accelerating drug assessment in early breast cancer. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche.
Summary Background For women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive early breast cancer, treatment with tamoxifen for 5 years substantially reduces the breast cancer mortality rate throughout the ...first 15 years after diagnosis. We aimed to assess the further effects of continuing tamoxifen to 10 years instead of stopping at 5 years. Methods In the worldwide Adjuvant Tamoxifen: Longer Against Shorter (ATLAS) trial, 12 894 women with early breast cancer who had completed 5 years of treatment with tamoxifen were randomly allocated to continue tamoxifen to 10 years or stop at 5 years (open control). Allocation (1:1) was by central computer, using minimisation. After entry (between 1996 and 2005), yearly follow-up forms recorded any recurrence, second cancer, hospital admission, or death. We report effects on breast cancer outcomes among the 6846 women with ER-positive disease, and side-effects among all women (with positive, negative, or unknown ER status). Long-term follow-up still continues. This study is registered, number ISRCTN19652633. Findings Among women with ER-positive disease, allocation to continue tamoxifen reduced the risk of breast cancer recurrence (617 recurrences in 3428 women allocated to continue vs 711 in 3418 controls, p=0·002), reduced breast cancer mortality (331 deaths vs 397 deaths, p=0·01), and reduced overall mortality (639 deaths vs 722 deaths, p=0·01). The reductions in adverse breast cancer outcomes appeared to be less extreme before than after year 10 (recurrence rate ratio RR 0·90 95% CI 0·79–1·02 during years 5–9 and 0·75 0·62–0·90 in later years; breast cancer mortality RR 0·97 0·79–1·18 during years 5–9 and 0·71 0·58–0·88 in later years). The cumulative risk of recurrence during years 5–14 was 21·4% for women allocated to continue versus 25·1% for controls; breast cancer mortality during years 5–14 was 12·2% for women allocated to continue versus 15·0% for controls (absolute mortality reduction 2·8%). Treatment allocation seemed to have no effect on breast cancer outcome among 1248 women with ER-negative disease, and an intermediate effect among 4800 women with unknown ER status. Among all 12 894 women, mortality without recurrence from causes other than breast cancer was little affected (688 deaths without recurrence in 6454 women allocated to continue versus 679 deaths in 6440 controls; RR 0·99 0·89–1·10; p=0·78). For the incidence (hospitalisation or death) rates of specific diseases, RRs were as follows: pulmonary embolus 1·87 (95% CI 1·13–3·07, p=0·01 including 0·2% mortality in both treatment groups), stroke 1·06 (0·83–1·36), ischaemic heart disease 0·75 (0·60–0·95, p=0·02), and endometrial cancer 1·74 (1·30–2·34, p=0·0002). The cumulative risk of endometrial cancer during years 5–14 was 3·1% (mortality 0·4%) for women allocated to continue versus 1·6% (mortality 0·2%) for controls (absolute mortality increase 0·2%). Interpretation For women with ER-positive disease, continuing tamoxifen to 10 years rather than stopping at 5 years produces a further reduction in recurrence and mortality, particularly after year 10. These results, taken together with results from previous trials of 5 years of tamoxifen treatment versus none, suggest that 10 years of tamoxifen treatment can approximately halve breast cancer mortality during the second decade after diagnosis. Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, AstraZeneca UK, US Army, EU-Biomed.
Summary Background We compared standard adjuvant anthracycline chemotherapy with anthracycline–taxane combination chemotherapy in women with operable node-positive breast cancer. Here we report the ...final, 10-year follow-up analysis of disease-free survival, overall survival, and long-term safety. Methods BCIRG 001 was an open label, phase 3, multicentre trial in which 1491 patients aged 18–70 years with node-positive, early breast cancer and a Karnofsky score of 80% or more were randomly assigned to adjuvant treatment with docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) or fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was stratified according to institution and number of involved axillary lymph nodes per patient (one to three vs four or more). Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint and was defined as the interval between randomisation and breast cancer relapse, second primary cancer, or death, whichever occurred first. Efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. BCIRG 001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00688740. Findings Enrolement took place between June 11, 1997 and June 3, 1999; 745 patients were assigned to receive TAC and 746 patients were assigned to receive FAC. After a median follow-up of 124 months (IQR 90–126), disease-free survival was 62% (95% CI 58–65) for patients in the TAC group and 55% (51–59) for patients in the FAC group (hazard ratio HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·68–0·93; log-rank p=0·0043). 10-year overall survival was 76% (95% CI 72–79) for patients in the TAC group and 69% (65–72) for patients in the FAC group (HR 0·74, 0·61–0·90; log-rank p=0·0020). TAC improved disease-free survival relative to FAC irrespective of nodal, hormone receptor, and HER2 status, although not all differences were significant in these subgroup analyses. Grade 3–4 heart failure occurred in 26 (3%) patients in the TAC group and 17 (2%) patients in the FAC group, and caused death in two patients in the TAC group and four patients in the FAC group. A substantial decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (defined as a relative decrease from baseline of 20% or more) was seen in 58 (17%) patients who received TAC and 41 (15%) patients who received FAC. Six patients who received TAC developed leukaemia or myelodysplasia, as did three patients who received FAC. Interpretation Our results provide evidence that the initial therapeutic outcomes seen at the 5-year follow-up with a docetaxel-containing adjuvant regimen are maintained at 10 years. However, a substantial percentage of patients had a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction, probably caused by anthracycline therapy, which warrants further investigation. Funding Sanofi.
Summary Background The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy improves progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer and pathological complete response rates in the neoadjuvant setting. ...Micrometastases are dependent on angiogenesis, suggesting that patients might benefit from anti-angiogenic strategies in the adjuvant setting. We therefore assessed the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting for women with triple-negative breast cancer. Methods For this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial we recruited patients with centrally confirmed triple-negative operable primary invasive breast cancer from 360 sites in 37 countries. We randomly allocated patients aged 18 years or older (1:1 with block randomisation; stratified by nodal status, chemotherapy with an anthracycline, taxane, or both, hormone receptor status negative vs low, and type of surgery) to receive a minimum of four cycles of chemotherapy either alone or with bevacizumab (equivalent of 5 mg/kg every week for 1 year). The primary endpoint was invasive disease-free survival (IDFS). Efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population, safety analyses were done on all patients who received at least one dose of study drug, and plasma biomarker analyses were done on all treated patients consenting to biomarker analyses and providing a measurable baseline plasma sample. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00528567. Findings Between Dec 3, 2007, and March 8, 2010, we randomly assigned 1290 patients to receive chemotherapy alone and 1301 to receive bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. Most patients received anthracycline-containing therapy; 1638 (63%) of the 2591 patients had node-negative disease. At the time of analysis of IDFS, median follow-up was 31·5 months (IQR 25·6–36·8) in the chemotherapy-alone group and 32·0 months (27·5–36·9) in the bevacizumab group. At the time of the primary analysis, IDFS events had been reported in 205 patients (16%) in the chemotherapy-alone group and in 188 patients (14%) in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio HR in stratified log-rank analysis 0·87, 95% CI 0·72–1·07; p=0·18). 3-year IDFS was 82·7% (95% CI 80·5–85·0) with chemotherapy alone and 83·7% (81·4–86·0) with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. After 200 deaths, no difference in overall survival was noted between the groups (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·64–1·12; p=0·23). Exploratory biomarker assessment suggests that patients with high pre-treatment plasma VEGFR-2 might benefit from the addition of bevacizumab (Cox interaction test p=0·029). Use of bevacizumab versus chemotherapy alone was associated with increased incidences of grade 3 or worse hypertension (154 patients 12% vs eight patients 1%), severe cardiac events occurring at any point during the 18-month safety reporting period (19 1% vs two <0·5%), and treatment discontinuation (bevacizumab, chemotherapy, or both; 256 20% vs 30 2%); we recorded no increase in fatal adverse events with bevacizumab (four <0·5% vs three <0·5%). Interpretation Bevacizumab cannot be recommended as adjuvant treatment in unselected patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Further follow-up is needed to assess the potential effect of bevacizumab on overall survival. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche.
Summary Background A subcutaneous formulation of trastuzumab has been developed, offering potential improvements in patient convenience and resource use compared with the standard intravenous ...infusion of the drug. We compared the pharmacokinetic profile, efficacy, and safety of the subcutaneous and intravenous formulations in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. Methods The HannaH study was a phase 3, randomised, international, open-label, trial in the (neo)adjuvant setting. Patients with HER2-positive, operable, locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer were randomly assigned to eight cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy administered concurrently with trastuzumab every 3 weeks either intravenously (8 mg/kg loading dose, 6 mg/kg maintenance dose) or subcutaneously (fixed dose of 600 mg); 1:1 ratio. Chemotherapy consisted of four cycles of docetaxel (75 mg/m2 ) followed by four cycles of fluorouracil (500 mg/m2 ), epirubicin (75 mg/m2 ), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2 ), every 3 weeks. After surgery, patients continued trastuzumab to complete 1 year of treatment. Coprimary endpoints were serum trough concentration (Ctrough ) at pre-dose cycle 8 before surgery (non-inferiority margin for the ratio between groups of 0·80) and pathological complete response (pCR; non-inferiority margin for the difference between groups of −12·5%), analysed in the per-protocol population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00950300. Findings 299 patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous trastuzumab and 297 to receive subcutaneous trastuzumab. The geometric mean presurgery Ctrough was 51·8 μg/mL (coefficient of variation 52·5%) in the intravenous group and 69·0 μg/mL (55·8%) in the subcutaneous group. The geometric mean ratio of Ctrough subcutaneous to Ctrough intravenous was 1·33 (90% CI 1·24–1·44). 107 (40·7%) of 263 patients in the intravenous group and 118 (45·4%) of 260 in the subcutaneous group achieved a pCR. The difference between groups in pCR was 4·7% (95% CI −4·0 to 13·4). Thus subcutaneous trastuzumab was non-inferior to intravenous trastuzumab for both coprimary endpoints. The incidence of grade 3–5 adverse events was similar between groups. The most common of these adverse events were neutropenia (99 33·2% of 298 patients in the intravenous group vs 86 29·0% of 297 in the subcutaneous group), leucopenia (17 5·7% vs 12 4·0%), and febrile neutropenia (10 3·4% vs 17 5·7%). However, more patients had serious adverse events in the subcutaneous group (62 21% of 297 patients) than in the intravenous group (37 12% of 298); the difference was mainly attributable to infections and infestations (24 8·1% in the subcutaneous group vs 13 4·4% in the intravenous group). Four adverse events led to death (one in the intravenous group and three in the subcutaneous group), all of which occurred during the neoadjuvant phase. Of these, two—both in the subcutaneous group—were deemed to be treatment related. Interpretation Subcutaneous trastuzumab, administered over about 5 min, has a pharmacokinetic profile and efficacy non-inferior to standard intravenous administration, with a similar safety profile to intravenous trastuzumab, and therefore offers a valid treatment alternative. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche.
Summary Background The randomised phase 3 TURANDOT trial compared two approved bevacizumab-containing regimens for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in terms of efficacy, safety, and quality of ...life. The interim analysis did not confirm non-inferior overall survival (stratified hazard ratio HR 1·04; 97·5% repeated CI RCI –∞ to 1·69). Here we report final results of our study aiming to show non-inferior overall survival with first-line bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. Methods In this multinational, open-label, randomised phase 3 TURANDOT trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2 and measurable or non-measurable HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had received no previous chemotherapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer were stratified and randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks of size six to either bevacizumab plus paclitaxel (bevacizumab 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 plus paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) or bevacizumab plus capecitabine (bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–14 every 3 weeks) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Stratification factors were oestrogen or progesterone receptor status, country, and menopausal status. The primary objective was to show non-inferior overall survival with bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel in the per-protocol population by rejecting the null hypothesis of inferiority (HR ≥1·33) using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00600340. Findings Between Sept 10, 2008, and Aug 30, 2010, 564 patients were randomised, representing the intent-to-treat population. The per-protocol population comprised 531 patients (266 in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group and 265 in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group). At the final overall survival analysis after 183 deaths (69%) in 266 patients receiving bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and 201 (76%) in 265 receiving bevacizumab plus capecitabine in the per-protocol population, median overall survival was 30·2 months (95% CI 25·6–32·6 months) versus 26·1 months (22·3–29·0), respectively. The stratified HR was 1·02 (97·5% RCI –∞ to 1·26; repeated p=0·0070), indicating non-inferiority. The unstratified Cox model (HR 1·13 97·5% RCI –∞ to 1·39; repeated p=0·061) did not support the primary analysis. Intent-to-treat analyses were consistent with the per-protocol results. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (54 19% of 284 patients in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group vs 5 2% of 277 patients in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group), hand–foot syndrome (1 <1% vs 43 16%), peripheral neuropathy (39 14% vs 1 <1%), leucopenia (20 7% vs 1 <1%), and hypertension (12 4% vs 16 6%). Serious adverse events were reported in 65 (23%) of 284 patients receiving bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and 68 (25%) of 277 receiving bevacizumab plus capecitabine. Deaths in two (1%) of 284 patients in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group were deemed by the investigator to be treatment-related. No treatment-related deaths occurred in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group. Interpretation Bevacizumab plus capecitabine represents a valid first-line treatment option for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, offering good tolerability without compromising overall survival compared with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel. Although progression-free survival with the bevacizumab plus capecitabine combination is inferior to that noted with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel, we suggest that physicians should consider possible predictive risk factors for overall survival, individual's treatment priorities, and the differing safety profiles. Funding Roche.
Summary Background Randomised phase 3 trials in metastatic breast cancer have shown that combining bevacizumab with either paclitaxel or capecitabine significantly improves progression-free survival ...and response rate compared with chemotherapy alone but the relative efficacy of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine has not been investigated. We compared the efficacy of the two regimens. Methods In this open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received no chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomised (by computer-generated sequence; 1:1 ratio; block size six; stratified by hormone receptor status, country, and menopausal status) to receive either intravenous bevacizumab (10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) plus intravenous paclitaxel (90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15) repeated every 4 weeks (paclitaxel group) or intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1) plus oral capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–14) repeated every 3 weeks (capecitabine group) until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Treatment allocation was not masked because of the differences in routes of administration and cycle lengths. The primary objective was to show non-inferior overall survival with bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel. We report results of an interim overall survival analysis, which was planned for after 175 deaths in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00600340. Findings Between Sept 10, 2008, and Aug 30, 2010, we randomised 564 patients (paclitaxel group n=285; capecitabine group n=279) from 51 centres in 12 countries. The per-protocol population consisted of 533 patients (paclitaxel group n=268; capecitabine group n=265). After median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 14·9–24·7), 181 patients in the per-protocol population had died (89 33% in the paclitaxel group; 92 35% in the capecitabine group). The hazard ratio HR for overall survival was 1·04 (97·5% repeated CI −∞ to 1·69; p=0·059); the non-inferiority criterion of the interim analysis (interim α=0·00105) was not met. More patients who received bevacizumab plus paclitaxel had an objective response than did those who received bevacizumab plus capecitabine (125 44% of 285 patients vs 76 27% of 279; p<0·0001). Similarly, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the paclitaxel group than in the capecitabine group (median progression-free survival 11·0 months 95% CI 10·4–12·9 vs 8·1 months 7·1–9·2; HR 1·36 95% CI 1·09–1·68, p=0·0052). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (51 18%), peripheral neuropathy (39 14%), and leucopenia (20 7%) in the paclitaxel group and hand-foot syndrome (44 16%), hypertension (16 6%), and diarrhoea (15 5%) in the capecitabine group. One treatment-related death occurred in the paclitaxel group; no deaths in the capecitabine group were deemed to be treatment-related. Interpretation In this planned interim analysis, the non-inferiority criterion was not met and overall survival results are inconclusive. Final results are expected in 2014. Progression-free survival was better, and more patients achieved an objective response, with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel than with bevacizumab plus capecitabine. Efficacy results in both groups were consistent with previous reports. Funding Central European Cooperative Oncology Group; Roche.
Summary Background Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has a crucial role in angiogenesis, and is a valid target in metastatic breast cancer. Motesanib is an investigational oral inhibitor of ...VEGF receptors. We aimed to determine whether treatment with motesanib plus paclitaxel is better than placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. Methods Between Dec 1, 2006, and July 4, 2008, patients with untreated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned (using a randomisation list created by personnel not associated with the study) in a 1:1:1 ratio to paclitaxel (90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks) plus either masked motesanib 125 mg orally once per day (n=91), masked placebo orally once per day (n=94), or open-label bevacizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle (n=97), after stratification according to adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (taxane-containing regimens vs other regimens vs none), number of metastatic sites (<3 vs ≥3), and hormone receptor status (positive vs negative). Placebo was provided as a replica of motesanib 25 mg tablets. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) based on the population as assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00356681. Findings ORRs for the motesanib group and the placebo group did not differ significantly (49% vs 41%; absolute difference 8% 95% CI −6 to 22; p=0·31). The ORR in the bevacizumab group (52%) was similar to that in the motesanib group. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events included diarrhoea (18 of 92 patients in the motesanib group, none of 89 patients in the placebo group, and four of 96 patients in the bevacizumab group), fatigue (11, eight, and six), hypertension (11, one, and seven), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (ten, seven, and 19). More patients in the motesanib group had serious adverse events than did those in the placebo or bevacizumab groups (34, 26, and 21 patients, respectively); the most common of these in the motesanib group were gastrointestinal in nature. Interpretation Data from this trial do not support the further investigation of motesanib at this dose and schedule in this population. Funding Amgen.
PDF
