+ All Categories
Home > Education > Update on Management of Triple Negative Breast Cancer

Update on Management of Triple Negative Breast Cancer

Date post: 09-Jan-2017
Category:
Upload: spa718
View: 2,373 times
Download: 1 times
Share this document with a friend
47
Update on Management of Triple Negative Breast Cancer Banu Arun, M.D. Professor, Breast Medical Oncology Co-Director Clinical Cancer Genetics The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center August, 2015
Transcript

Update on Management of Triple Negative Breast Cancer

Banu Arun, M.D. Professor, Breast Medical Oncology Co-Director Clinical Cancer Genetics

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

August, 2015

Basal-like 1: cell cycle, DNA repair and proliferation genes

Basal-like 2: Growth factor signaling (EGFR, MET, Wnt, IGF1R)

IM: immune cell processes (medullary breast cancer)

M: Cell motility and differentiation, EMT processes

MSL: similar to M but growth factor signaling, low levels of proliferation genes (metaplastic cancers)

LAR: Androgen receptor and downstream genes, luminal features

TNBC is Not One Disease

Lehmann et al. J Clin Invest 2011

Characteristics of TNBC

• At least 15% of breast cancers

• Higher incidence in AA and Hispanic women

• Germline BRCA mutation rate 11-37%

• Etiologic risk factors not known (except BRCA1 germline mutations carriers and ? AA women who did not breastfed)

• Sensitive to standard chemotherapy (pCR 35-40%)- but ↓DFS/OS

• Early relapse (2-3 yrs); after relapse time to death shorter • Significantly heterogeneous disease

• No targeted therapy currently available

Lehmann et al. J Clin Invest 2011, Kwon & Arun JCO 2010

Clinical Questions

• Specific type of chemotherapy? – Metastatic – Neoadjuvant, adjuvant

• BRCA-associated breast cancer, role of HRD assay in

sporadic TNBC (BRCAness)

• Role of antiangiogenic agents? • What are the targets in subsets of TNBC?

How does TNBC respond to available

chemotherapeutic agents?

-Anthracyclines

-Taxanes

-Capecitabine

-Ixabepilone

-Eribulin

Anthracyclines for TNBC

Trial Phase/no. TNBC pts

Setting Regimen Outcome in TNBC

Di Leo (2008) Meta-analysis

III (n=157) Adjuvant Anthracycline vs CMF

23% reduction in risk of relapse

Bidard (2008) II (n=120) Neoadjuvant CEF x 4-6 pCR: 17%

Gluz (2008) III (n=66) Neoadjuvant DD EC or CMF vs HD EC-ECThiotepa

5-yr EFS with HD 71% vs 26% with DD

Hudis C A , and Gianni L The Oncologist 2011;16:1-11

• Meta-analysis, stage IV, first-line trials

• Taxane-based vs anthracycline-based

• Results: Taxane better, ER-negative ~ ER-positive – HER2 not evaluated

TNBC and Taxanes

Piccart-Gebhart et al, JCO 2008

28-day cycle: Paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 D1, 8, and

15. Bevacizumab 10 mg/kg D1 and

15.

Paclitaxel +/- Bevacizumab as First-Line Therapy for Locally Recurrent or Metastatic Breast

Cancer (E2100)

R A N D OM I Z E

Paclitaxel+ Bevacizumab

Paclitaxel

Miller et al. N Engl J Med 2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

Months

Pro

gres

sio

n-f

ree

surv

ival

est

imat

e

0 10 20 30 40

6.7 13.3

HR=0.48; p<0.0001 13.3

6.7

99% increase

in median PFS

Med

ian

PFS

(m

onth

s)

15

10

5

0 bevacizumab +

paclitaxel

Paclitaxel

Paclitaxel (n=354)

bevacizumab + paclitaxel (n=368)

HR = hazard ratio; bevacizumab Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC)

Progression-free survival

Miller et al. N Engl J Med 2007

Paclitaxel +/- Bevacizumab as First-Line Therapy for Locally Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer (E2100)

Miller et al. N Engl J Med 2007

CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H Randomized phase III Trial, first-Line therapy for locally recurrent

or metastatic breast cancer

Rugo H et al, ASCO 2012

Paclitaxel vs nab-paclitaxel vs Ixabepilone

- -

Control

1

Exp 2

N = 799 Untreated Stage IV Strata: Adj taxanes ER/PR status

nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 weekly + bevacizumab 10 mg/kg q 2 wks2

ixabepilone 16 mg/m2 weekly +

bevacizumab 10 mg/kg q 2 wks3

Restage q 2 cycles until

disease progression

paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 weekly + bevacizumab 10 mg/kg q 2 wks1

CALGB 40502 Subset Analyses

Triple Negative Disease

Months From Study Entry

Pro

port

ion A

live

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

PacNabIxa

Triple Negative Disease

Comparison HR P-value 95% CI

nab vs. pac 0.93 0.7354 0.62 – 1.40

ixa vs. pac 1.46 0.0647 0.98 – 2.18

Pro

po

rtio

n P

rog

ressio

n F

ree

paclitaxel nab-paclitaxel ixabepilone

• 40502 overall findings: - Weekly paclitaxel > ixabepilone - Weekly paclitaxel less toxic

than either (in general)

• TNBC Subset: - No real difference from

parent trial - 98% received bevacizumab

• Women who underwent BRCA genetic testing and were treated with NST for breast cancer between 1997 and 2009

• 25% were positive for BRCA mutations

• Treatment with T+A or A, or T only

Arun et al JCO 2011

Arun et al JCO 2011

pCR: BRCA 1+: 46% Negative: 22.4%

Pathologic Complete Response

Arun et al JCO 2011

Further improvement with PARP inhibitors, Platinums?

Efficacy of Eribulin in Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of two Phase 3 Studies

Twelves Breast Can Res Treat 2014

TNBC: BRCA Germline associated vs BRCAness

• Sporadic TNBC (without germline BRCA mutations), shares clinical and molecular features with BRCA-associated cancers including defective DNA repair: – methylation-induced silencing of BRCA

– mutations in other genes that encode proteins involved in DNA repair

• Opportunity for DNA damaging agents: Platinums

• DNA repair inhibitors: PARPi

Foulkes NEJM 2010; Lips BrJ Ca 2013; Maxwell KN JCO a1510, 2014; Turner N Nat Rev Can 2004; Lehmann BD JCO 2011

TNBC and Platinums in Stage IV

Stage IV Trials Population Results

Control arm BALI-1 (CDDP) Sporadic TNBC 10% RR

Control arm Phase III iniparib (Gem/carbo) Sporadic TNBC 30% RR

TBCRC 001 (Cetuximab/Carbo) Sporadic TNBC 17% RR

TBCRC 009 (Carboplatin or Cisplatin) Sporadic TNBC 30% RR

Baselga, ESMO’10; O’Shaughnessy, ASCO’11; Carey et al, JCO’12; Isakoff, ASCO’11

Platinums:

Reasonable in sporadic TNBC – but what line?

TNT: Phase III Carboplatin versus Docetaxel in Metastatic TNBC or BRCA1/2 Breast Cancer

Institute of Cancer Research, UK

Tutt et al. SABCS 2014

Tutt et al. SABCS 2014

Trial Type n Drugs Population pCR

DFCI1 Single arm Ph 2 21 CDDP x 4 TNBC 21%

DFCI2 Single arm Ph 2 51 CDDP+bev TNBC 15%

Polish Retrospective 13 CDDP x 4 BRCA+ 83%

GEICAM Randomized Ph 2 94 EC-D EC-D+carbo

Basal-like (IHC) 30% 35%

GeparSixto Randomized Ph 3 315 wP/LDox/bev +/- Carbo

TNBC (subset) 43% 57%

PreCOG0105 Single arm Ph 2 80 G/Carbo/iniparib TNBC 36%

CALGB 40603 Randomized Ph 2 455 T-AC(bev) T/carbo-AC(bev)

TNBC 41% 54%

Neodjuvant Platinum in TNBC

Silver et al, JCO’12; Ryan et al, ASCO’09; Byrski et al, JCO’10; Alba et al, BCRT’12; von Minckwitz et al, Lancet Oncol ‘14; Telli et al, ASCO a 1003’13; Sikov et al, SABCS’13

Schema of randomized phase II CALGB 40603 Trial

Sikov W M et al. JCO 2015;33:13-21

©2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Pathologic complete response in breast

and breast/axilla

©2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Sikov W M et al. JCO 2015;33:13-21

Sikov W M et al. JCO 2015;33:13-21

Do we add carboplatin to every TNBC?

• Addition of either carboplatin or bevacizumab to NACT increased pCR rates; ↑DFS/OS??

• Given results from recently reported adjuvant trials, further investigation of bevacizumab in this setting is unlikely

• Role of carboplatin could be evaluated in definitive studies in biologically defined patient subsets most likely to benefit from this agent (BRCA?)

• Decreased rate of completing all taxol and all AC cycles

Antiangiogenic Drugs Added to Chemotherapy?

Bevacizumab and Response in Metastatic HER2-Negative Breast Cancer

Trial Regimen RR Bev arm RR placebo

Initial Ph 3 Capecitabine + B 20%* 9%

E2100 Paclitaxel + B 37%* 21%

AVADO Docetaxel + B 64%* 46%

RIBBON-1 Chemotherapy + B 35%* 24%

RIBBON-2 (TNBC subset)

Chemotherapy + B 41%* 18%

Miller et al, JCO‘05; Miller et al, NEJM‘07; Miles et al, JCO’10; Robert et al, JCO’11 Brufsky et al, BCRT’12

*statistically significant

Bevasuzumab: Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant in TNBC

Trial Setting Outcome P value

Gepar-Quinto Neoadjuvant pCR:33% → 43% 0.007

NSABP-B40 Neoadjuvant pCR:47% → 52% NS

BEATRICE Adjuvant No DFS benefit

E5103 Adjuvant No DFS benefit

Von Minckwithz NEJM 2012; Bear NEJM 2014, Cameron Lancet Oncol 2013; Miller JCO 2014)

• Metastatic setting: increases RR when added to chemotherapy, but has no impact on OS- therefore, when response is the endpoint, adding Bev is an option

• Neoadjuvant setting: Increase pCR; but DFS/OS impact is unknown

• Adjuvant setting: No impact on DFS and OS

Bevacizumab: Practical Conclusions

PARP Inhibitors

Principles of Cancer Biology: DNA Repair

Adapted from Carey L. Oncologist 2010 (In Press)

Chemo, XRT and Other Insults

DNA DAMAGE

Normal cell BRCA loss PARP deficient BRCA loss + PARP deficient

VIABLE VIABLE VIABLE DEAD

HR BER HR BER HR BER HR BER

HR: Homologous Recombination BER: Base Excision Repair

X X X X

“Synthetic Lethality”

PARP Inhibitor Trials – Activity Seen Only in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers

Agent Author BRCA1/BRCA2 TNBC Response Rate

Olaparib (phase I; mixture tumor

types)

Fong 60 patients 37% -BRCA1/2

mutations

N/A 63% clinical benefit rate

(only in BRCA associated cancers)

Olaparib 400 mg po BID

Tutt 27 patients BRCA1 67% BRCA2 33%

50% 41%

ABT888 +temozolomide

Isakoff 41 patients BRCA1: 7.3% BRCA2: 12%

56% BRCA 1 and 2: 37.5%

No response in normal BRCA status

Fong et al. N Engl J Med 2009 Tutt et al. Lancet 2010 Isakoff et al. ASCO 2010

• Non-BRCA ovarian cancer responds to olaparib…Evidence of BRCAness.

Breast Cancer, Ovarian Cancer and PARPi

• Not seen with non-BRCA breast cancer.

– Triple negative

Gelmon K et al, Lancet Oncol 2011

Identifying BRCA Deficiency

• Major consequence is homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair defect

• Functional assays in development

Birkbak NJ et al. Cancer Discovery 2012

HRD score

Non-responders

BRCA1/2 intact responders

BRCA1/2 mutant responders

Telli M et al, SABCS 2012

What is next for TNBC? Targets Within Triple Negative Subsets?

Immunomodulatory TNBC

Lehmann et al. J Clin Invest 2011

IM: immune cell processes (medullary breast cancer)

• - 10-15% of TNBCs

• - enriched in immune

cell processes

• -medullary breast

cancers

• - ?BRCA1 carriers?

• - p53 mutant

Novel agents in clinical trials

Other targets for triple-negative breast cancer

Hudis C A , and Gianni L The Oncologist 2011;16:1-11 ©2011 by AlphaMed Press

MDACC Moonshot Triaging

Platform

Chemo-insensitive (prediction & interim imaging)

Vimentin + (mesenchymal)

AR+ Other (Enriched for Basal-like)

mTORi + chemo

Improved rate of pCR/RCB-I?

ARi + chemo

PDL-1i + chemo

*comparison to control ‘predictor unknown’ group

BRCA1/2 +

PARPi+ chemo

• Single arm phase II trials • pCR improvement: 5%20% • N=37 • Two stage design; close if

pCR/RCB-I not seen in >1 of 14 patients

EGFRi + chemo

• TNBC is heterogeneous

• Stage 4: Chemotherapy is mainstay and (at the moment) is the same as for other subtypes.

– First-line taxanes or platinum appropriate

– Second+ lines: Eribulin to other options

• Neoadjuvant: Platinums ? Toxicity- clinical benefit ratio? No ↑EFS, BCS rate- additional markers needed: HRD score, TILs….more studies ongoing

• Residual disease ?: EA1131 phase III ECOG-ACRIN: Evaluate platinum after Tax based NAST. Endpoint: EFS

• BRCA1-associated TNBC may be different:

Platinums, PARP inhibition

• Subtype specific studies and novel study designs are ongoing

Conclusion

Thank you


Recommended