•Everolimus plus exemestane is an established treatment for NSAI-resistant MBC.•New everolimus-based combinations under investigation will expand treatment options.•Everolimus remains an important ...treatment in a changing MBC landscape.
Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is the leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality among women worldwide. Endocrine therapy is the standard of care for the most common subtype of MBC, hormone-receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) disease. Advances in treating this type of MBC have focused on improving the efficacy of endocrine therapy by adding agents that target specific molecular pathways of breast cancer cell growth and survival. The combination of the aromatase inhibitor exemestane and the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, everolimus, more than doubled median progression-free survival compared with exemestane alone (7.8 vs 3.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio 0.45 95% confidence interval 0.38–0.54; log rank P < 0.0001) in the BOLERO-2 study in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2− locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that had recurred or progressed on prior non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy. In addition, everolimus plus exemestane was associated with a manageable safety profile. The results of BOLERO-2 led to regulatory approval of everolimus plus exemestane. Additional everolimus-based combinations have been or are under investigation in the HR+, HER2− MBC setting, including combinations with letrozole, fulvestrant, ribociclib, tamoxifen, and chemotherapy. This review summarizes key data on everolimus-based combinations focusing on efficacy, safety, biomarkers, quality of life, and health economic outcomes. These data are discussed in the context of the changing MBC treatment algorithm to provide insights into the clinical relevance of everolimus-based combinations.
In an earlier analysis of this phase 3 trial, ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than fulvestrant alone in postmenopausal patients with ...hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. Here we report the results of a protocol-specified second interim analysis of overall survival.
Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either ribociclib or placebo in addition to fulvestrant as first-line or second-line treatment. Survival was evaluated by means of a stratified log-rank test and summarized with the use of Kaplan-Meier methods.
This analysis was based on 275 deaths: 167 among 484 patients (34.5%) receiving ribociclib and 108 among 242 (44.6%) receiving placebo. Ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a significant overall survival benefit over placebo plus fulvestrant. The estimated overall survival at 42 months was 57.8% (95% confidence interval CI, 52.0 to 63.2) in the ribociclib group and 45.9% (95% CI, 36.9 to 54.5) in the placebo group, for a 28% difference in the relative risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92; P = 0.00455). The benefit was consistent across most subgroups. In a descriptive update, median progression-free survival among patients receiving first-line treatment was 33.6 months (95% CI, 27.1 to 41.3) in the ribociclib group and 19.2 months (95% CI, 14.9 to 23.6) in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed.
Ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a significant overall survival benefit over placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. (Funded by Novartis; MONALEESA-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02422615.).
Resistance to endocrine therapy in breast cancer is associated with activation of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) intracellular signaling pathway. In early studies, the mTOR inhibitor ...everolimus added to endocrine therapy showed antitumor activity.
In this phase 3, randomized trial, we compared everolimus and exemestane versus exemestane and placebo (randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio) in 724 patients with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who had recurrence or progression while receiving previous therapy with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in the adjuvant setting or to treat advanced disease (or both). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included survival, response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed by an independent data and safety monitoring committee after 359 progression-free survival events were observed.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two study groups. The median age was 62 years, 56% had visceral involvement, and 84% had hormone-sensitive disease. Previous therapy included letrozole or anastrozole (100%), tamoxifen (48%), fulvestrant (16%), and chemotherapy (68%). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were stomatitis (8% in the everolimus-plus-exemestane group vs. 1% in the placebo-plus-exemestane group), anemia (6% vs. <1%), dyspnea (4% vs. 1%), hyperglycemia (4% vs. <1%), fatigue (4% vs. 1%), and pneumonitis (3% vs. 0%). At the interim analysis, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with everolimus plus exemestane and 2.8 months with placebo plus exemestane, according to assessments by local investigators (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.43; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.35 to 0.54; P<0.001). Median progression-free survival was 10.6 months and 4.1 months, respectively, according to central assessment (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.47; P<0.001).
Everolimus combined with an aromatase inhibitor improved progression-free survival in patients with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer previously treated with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. (Funded by Novartis; BOLERO-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00863655.).
Treatment with an aromatase inhibitor for 5 years as up-front monotherapy or after tamoxifen therapy is the treatment of choice for hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer in postmenopausal ...women. Extending treatment with an aromatase inhibitor to 10 years may further reduce the risk of breast-cancer recurrence.
We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the effect of the extended use of letrozole for an additional 5 years. Our primary end point was disease-free survival.
We enrolled 1918 women. After a median follow-up of 6.3 years, there were 165 events involving disease recurrence or the occurrence of contralateral breast cancer (67 with letrozole and 98 with placebo) and 200 deaths (100 in each group). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 95% (95% confidence interval CI, 93 to 96) with letrozole and 91% (95% CI; 89 to 93) with placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or the occurrence of contralateral breast cancer, 0.66; P=0.01 by a two-sided log-rank test stratified according to nodal status, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, the interval from the last dose of aromatase-inhibitor therapy, and the duration of treatment with tamoxifen). The rate of 5-year overall survival was 93% (95% CI, 92 to 95) with letrozole and 94% (95% CI, 92 to 95) with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.97; P=0.83). The annual incidence rate of contralateral breast cancer in the letrozole group was 0.21% (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.32), and the rate in the placebo group was 0.49% (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.67) (hazard ratio, 0.42; P=0.007). Bone-related toxic effects occurred more frequently among patients receiving letrozole than among those receiving placebo, including a higher incidence of bone pain, bone fractures, and new-onset osteoporosis. No significant differences between letrozole and placebo were observed in scores on most subscales measuring quality of life.
The extension of treatment with an adjuvant aromatase inhibitor to 10 years resulted in significantly higher rates of disease-free survival and a lower incidence of contralateral breast cancer than those with placebo, but the rate of overall survival was not higher with the aromatase inhibitor than with placebo. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00003140 and NCT00754845.).
Summary Background Stomatitis is a class effect associated with the inhibition of mTOR and is associated with everolimus therapy for breast cancer. Topical steroids might reduce stomatitis incidence ...and severity, and the need for dose reductions and interruptions of everolimus. Anecdotal use of topical steroid oral prophylaxis has been reported in patients with breast cancer. We aimed to assess dexamethasone-based mouthwash for prevention of stomatitis in patients with breast cancer. Methods This US-based, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 prevention study enrolled women aged 18 years and older with postmenopausal status who had histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Beginning on day 1 of cycle 1, patients received everolimus 10 mg plus exemestane 25 mg daily, with 10 mL of alcohol-free dexamethasone 0·5 mg per 5 mL oral solution (swish for 2 min and spit, four times daily for 8 weeks). After 8 weeks, dexamethasone mouthwash could be continued for up to eight additional weeks at the discretion of the clinician and patient. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade 2 or worse stomatitis by 8 weeks assessed in the full analysis set (patients who received at least one dose of everolimus and exemestane and at least one confirmed dose of dexamethasone mouthwash) versus historical controls from the BOLERO-2 trial (everolimus and exemestane treatment in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who were not given dexamethasone mouthwash for prevention of stomatitis). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02069093. Findings Between May 28, 2014, and Oct 8, 2015, we enrolled 92 women; 85 were evaluable for efficacy. By 8 weeks, the incidence of grade 2 or worse stomatitis was two (2%) of 85 patients (95% CI 0·29–8·24), versus 159 (33%) of 482 patients (95% CI 28·8–37·4) for the duration of the BOLERO-2 study. Overall, 83 (90%) of 92 patients had at least one adverse event. The most frequently reported grade 3 and 4 adverse events in the safety set were hyperglycaemia (seven 8% of 92 patients), rash (four 4%), and dyspnoea (three 3%). Serious adverse events were reported in 20 (22%) patients; six (7%) were deemed treatment related, with dyspnoea (three 3%) and pneumonia (two 2%) reported most frequently. 12 (13%) of 92 patients had adverse events suspected to be related to treatment that led to discontinuation of everolimus and exemestane (the most common were rash, hyperglycaemia, and stomatitis, which each affected two 2% patients). Interpretation Prophylactic use of dexamethasone oral solution substantially reduced the incidence and severity of stomatitis in patients receiving everolimus and exemestane and could be a new standard of oral care for patients receiving everolimus and exemestane therapy. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
Summary Background Patients with melanoma harbouring Val600 BRAF mutations benefit from treatment with BRAF inhibitors. However, no targeted treatments exist for patients with BRAF wild-type tumours, ...including those with NRAS mutations. We aimed to assess the use of MEK162, a small-molecule MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with NRAS -mutated or Val600 BRAF -mutated advanced melanoma. Methods In our open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 study, we assigned patients with NRAS -mutated or BRAF -mutated advanced melanoma to one of three treatment arms on the basis of mutation status. Patients were enrolled at university hospitals or private cancer centres in Europe and the USA. The three arms were: twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for NRAS -mutated melanoma, twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for BRAF -mutated melanoma, and twice-daily MEK162 60 mg for BRAF -mutated melanoma. Previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors was permitted, but previous MEK inhibitor therapy was not allowed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had an objective response (ie, a complete response or confirmed partial response). We report data for the 45 mg groups. We assessed clinical activity in all patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 and in patients assessable for response (with two available CT scans). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01320085 , and is currently recruiting additional patients with NRAS mutations (based on a protocol amendment). Findings Between March 31, 2011, and Jan 17, 2012, we enrolled 71 patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 45 mg. By Feb 29, 2012 (data cutoff), median follow-up was 3·3 months (range 0·6–8·7; IQR 2·2–5·0). No patients had a complete response. Six (20%) of 30 patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma had a partial response (three confirmed) as did eight (20%) of 41 patients with BRAF -mutated melanoma (two confirmed). The most frequent adverse events were acneiform dermatitis (18 60% patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and 15 37% patients with the BRAF -mutated melanoma), rash (six 20% and 16 39%), peripheral oedema (ten 33% and 14 34%), facial oedema (nine 30% and seven 17%), diarrhoea (eight 27% and 15 37%), and creatine phosphokinase increases (11 37% and nine 22%). Increased creatine phosphokinase was the most common grade 3–4 adverse event (seven 23% and seven 17%). Four patients had serious adverse events (two per arm), which included diarrhoea, dehydration, acneiform dermatitis, general physical deterioration, irregular heart rate, malaise, and small intestinal perforation. No deaths occurred from treatment-related causes. Interpretation To our knowledge, MEK162 is the first targeted therapy to show activity in patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and might offer a new option for a cancer with few effective treatments. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals.
A multicenter, randomized phase II trial, RECORD-3, was conducted to compare first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib at progression with the standard sequence of first-line sunitinib followed by ...everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
RECORD-3 used a crossover treatment design. The primary objective was to assess progression-free survival (PFS) noninferiority of first-line everolimus compared with first-line sunitinib. Secondary end points included combined PFS for each sequence, overall survival (OS), and safety.
Of 471 enrolled patients, 238 were randomly assigned to first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib, and 233 were randomly assigned to first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus. The primary end point was not met; the median PFS was 7.9 months for first-line everolimus and 10.7 months for first-line sunitinib (hazard ratio HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8). Among patients who discontinued first-line, 108 (45%) crossed over from everolimus to second-line sunitinib, and 99 (43%) crossed over from sunitinib to second-line everolimus. The median combined PFS was 21.1 months for sequential everolimus then sunitinib and was 25.8 months for sequential sunitinib then everolimus (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.7). The median OS was 22.4 months for sequential everolimus and then sunitinib and 32.0 months for sequential sunitinib and then everolimus (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.6). Common treatment-emergent adverse events during first-line everolimus or sunitinib were stomatitis (53% and 57%, respectively), fatigue (45% and 51%, respectively), and diarrhea (38% and 57%, respectively).
Everolimus did not demonstrate noninferiority compared with sunitinib as a first-line therapy. The trial results support the standard treatment paradigm of first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus at progression.
Postmenopausal breast cancer (BC) patients receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy are at risk of progressive bone loss and fractures. Zoledronic acid inhibits osteoclastic bone resorption, is ...effective in maintaining bone health, and may therefore be beneficial in this setting.
Overall, 602 postmenopausal women with early, hormone receptor-positive BC receiving adjuvant letrozole were randomized (301 each group) to receive upfront or delayed-start zoledronic acid (4 mg intravenously every 6 months) for 5 years. The primary endpoint was the change in lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) at month 12. Secondary endpoints included changes in LS BMD, total hip BMD, and bone turnover markers at 2, 3, and 5 years; fracture incidence at 3 years; and time to disease recurrence.
At month 61, the adjusted mean difference in LS and total hip BMDs between the upfront and delayed groups was 8.9% and 6.7%, respectively (P < .0001, for both). Approximately 25% of delayed patients received zoledronic acid by month 61. Only 1 patient experienced grade 4 renal dysfunction; no confirmed cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were reported. Fracture rates (upfront, 28 9.3%; delayed, 33 11%; P = .3803) and Kaplan-Meier disease recurrence rates (upfront, 9.8 95% confidence interval (CI), 6.0-10.3; delayed, 10.5 95% CI, 6.6-14.4; P = .6283) were similar at month 61.
Upfront zoledronic acid seems to be the preferred treatment strategy versus delayed administration, as it significantly and progressively increases BMD in postmenopausal women with early BC receiving letrozole for 5 years, and long-term coadministration of letrozole and zoledronic acid is well tolerated.
Patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma have a poor prognosis and limited second-line treatment options. Evidence suggests a role for the Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducer and activator ...of transcription pathway in the pathogenesis and clinical course of pancreatic cancer.
In this double-blind, phase II study, patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who had experienced treatment failure with gemcitabine were randomly assigned 1:1 to the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (15 mg twice daily) plus capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily) or placebo plus capecitabine. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival, clinical benefit response, objective response rate, and safety. Prespecified subgroup analyses evaluated treatment heterogeneity and efficacy in patients with evidence of inflammation.
In the intent-to-treat population (ruxolitinib, n = 64; placebo, n = 63), the hazard ratio was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.53 to 1.18; P = .25) for OS and was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.52 to 1.10; P = .14) for progression-free survival. In a prespecified subgroup analysis of patients with inflammation, defined by serum C-reactive protein levels greater than the study population median (ie, 13 mg/L), OS was significantly greater with ruxolitinib than with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.85; P = .011). Prolonged survival in this subgroup was supported by post hoc analyses of OS that categorized patients by the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score, a systemic inflammation-based prognostic system. Grade 3 or greater adverse events were observed with similar frequency in the ruxolitinib (74.6%) and placebo (81.7%) groups. Grade 3 or greater anemia was more frequent with ruxolitinib (15.3%; placebo, 1.7%).
Ruxolitinib plus capecitabine was generally well tolerated and may improve survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and evidence of systemic inflammation.
PDF
