Abstract
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1226-1238 |
Number of pages | 13 |
Journal | Lancet Oncol. |
Volume | 20 |
Issue number | 9 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2019 |
Keywords
- alanine aminotransferase
- amylase
- epidermal growth factor receptor 2
- estrogen receptor
- letrozole
- placebo
- taselisib
- triacylglycerol lipase
- abdominal pain
- acute heart failure
- adult
- aged
- arthralgia
- Article
- asthenia
- breast cancer
- breast disease
- colitis
- connective tissue disease
- controlled study
- dehydration
- dermatitis
- diabetes mellitus
- diarrhea
- double blind procedure
- drug efficacy
- drug eruption
- drug safety
- erysipelas
- erythema
- erythema multiforme
- fatigue
- female
- food poisoning
- gastroenteritis
- gastrointestinal disease
- gene
- gene mutation
- genital system disease
- healing impairment
- heart disease
- heart failure
- hematoma
- hemorrhagic colitis
- hemorrhoid
- hot flush
- human
- human tissue
- hyperglycemia
- hypertension
- hypertension encephalopathy
- hypertransaminasemia
- hypokalemia
- infection
- infectious diarrhea
- infestation
- influenza
- major clinical study
- mastalgia
- mediastinum disease
- mental disease
- metabolic disorder
- multicenter study
- musculoskeletal disease
- myalgia
- nausea
- neoadjuvant therapy
- neurologic disease
- nuclear magnetic resonance imaging
- nutritional disorder
- pancreatitis
- parallel design
- phase 2 clinical trial
- PIK3CA gene
- pneumonia
- postmenopause
- priority journal
- randomized controlled trial
- rash
- respiratory tract disease
- side effect
- skin disease
- stomatitis
- sudden death
- surgical infection
- thorax disease
- treatment response
- varicosis
- vascular disease
- wound infection
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Neoadjuvant letrozole plus taselisib versus letrozole plus placebo in postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer (LORELEI): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial: The Lancet Oncology'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS
Neoadjuvant letrozole plus taselisib versus letrozole plus placebo in postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer (LORELEI): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial : The Lancet Oncology. / Saura, C.; Hlauschek, D.; Oliveira, M. et al.
In: Lancet Oncol., Vol. 20, No. 9, 2019, p. 1226-1238.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Neoadjuvant letrozole plus taselisib versus letrozole plus placebo in postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer (LORELEI): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial
T2 - The Lancet Oncology
AU - Saura, C.
AU - Hlauschek, D.
AU - Oliveira, M.
AU - Zardavas, D.
AU - Jallitsch-Halper, A.
AU - de la Peña, L.
AU - Nuciforo, P.
AU - Ballestrero, A.
AU - Dubsky, P.
AU - Lombard, J.M.
AU - Vuylsteke, P.
AU - Castaneda, C.A.
AU - Colleoni, M.
AU - Santos Borges, G.
AU - Ciruelos, E.
AU - Fornier, M.
AU - Boer, K.
AU - Bardia, A.
AU - Wilson, T.R.
AU - Stout, T.J.
AU - Hsu, J.Y.
AU - Shi, Y.
AU - Piccart, M.
AU - Gnant, M.
AU - Baselga, J.
AU - de Azambuja, E.
N1 - Cited By :4 Export Date: 2 March 2020 CODEN: LOANB Correspondence Address: Saura, C.; Breast Cancer Unit, Vall d'Hebrón University HospitalSpain; email: csaura@vhio.net Chemicals/CAS: alanine aminotransferase, 9000-86-6, 9014-30-6; amylase, 9000-90-2, 9000-92-4, 9001-19-8; epidermal growth factor receptor 2, 137632-09-8; letrozole, 112809-51-5; taselisib, 1282512-48-4; triacylglycerol lipase, 9001-62-1 Tradenames: gdc 0032 Funding details: Novartis Farmacéutica Funding details: Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals Funding details: AstraZeneca Funding details: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals Funding details: Sanofi España Funding details: Pfizer Funding details: Eli Lilly and Company Funding details: Celgene Funding details: Genentech Funding details: Roche Funding text 1: The LORELEI study met one of its coprimary endpoints by showing that the addition of taselisib to letrozole significantly increased the proportion of patients achieving an objective response measured by centrally assessed MRI in ER-positive, HER2-negative postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer. The taselisib effect seemed to be more pronounced in patients whose tumour harboured a PIK3CA mutation, however, the 95% CIs overlap to a substantial degree and therefore further research is needed to confirm this. Conversely, we did not observe any difference between the treatments in the proportion of patients achieving a pathological complete response, which was low in both study groups. Overall, adverse events were manageable and consistent with the previously reported toxicity profile of taselisib and more tolerable than the toxicities observed with pan-PI3K inhibitors. 6–8 PI3K-mTOR inhibition combined with endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer has shown meaningful clinical benefit in several previous studies, but comparisons between trial outcomes are limited by differences in intrinsic activity and toxicity profiles of PI3K inhinitors, sample sizes, and heterogeneity in endocrine resistance and previous treatments received by the patients included. 6–11,13–15 Short neoadjuvant studies have accurately predicted the outcomes of larger studies in the advanced settings for endocrine and targeted therapies. 3,23 Everolimus plus letrozole as neoadjuvant treatment resulted in more objective responses compared with placebo plus letrozole, although this difference was not significant (68% vs 59%, p=0·062), 3 in line with an increase in median progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer when everolimus was added to exemestane (6·9 months vs 2·8 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0·43; 95% CI 0.35–0.54; p<0·001), 4 which led to the approval of this combination in advanced breast cancer. Similarly, the clinical benefit from the addition of taselisib to endocrine therapy, which increased the proportion of patients with an objective response in the LORELEI study is consistent with the longer progression-free survival with taselisib or placebo plus fulvestrant] reported in the SANDPIPER trial. 10 Hence, the neoadjuvant model might accelerate the development of drugs and could be a platform for biomarker validation and discovery of primary or acquired mechanisms of drug resistance in breast cancer. 3–5,23 The study met one of its coprimary endpoints for a significant improvement in objective responses measured by centrally assessed MRI with the addition of taselisib to letrozole in the overall population and in the subset of patients with PIK3CA -mutant tumours. In the taselisib group, objective responses and partial responses were higher in patients with tumours harbouring PIK3CA mutations than in those with wild-type PIK3CA status, which supports the idea that taselisib is potentially more active in PIK3CA -mutant tumours and is consistent with data reporting activity of PI3K inhibitors in postmenopausal patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer. Thus, in the phase 1 trial combining taselisib plus letrozole in this setting, the proportion of patients with PIK3CA -mutant tumours achieving an objective response was 40%, compared with just 14% of those with PIK3CA wild-type tumours. 14 Similarly, in a single group phase 2 trial of taselisib plus fulvestrant, the proportion of responders in patients with PIK3CA -mutant tumours was 42% and of patients with PIK3CA wild-type tumours was 14%. 15 The detection of a PIK3CA mutation either in plasma ctDNA collected just before the beginning of treatment 6,7 or in archival tumour tissue, or both, has been shown to be predictive of the efficacy of buparlisib combined with fulvestrant in postmenopausal patients resistant to aromatase inhibitors 6 or aromatase inhibitors and everolimus. 5 The SANDPIPER trial, a phase 3 study in ER-positive, HER2-negative, postmenopausal women, showed that addition of taselisib to fulvestrant resulted in the proportion of patients achieving objective responses from 12% to 28% (p=0·002) compared with placebo, and increased progression-free survival from 5·4 months to 7·4 months (HR 0·7 [95% CI 0·56–0·89], p=0·0037) in patients with tumours harbouring PIK3CA mutations. 10 The SOLAR-1 trial also showed that the PI3Kαspecific inhibitor alpelisib combined with fulvestrant obtains more objective responses than treatment with fulvestrant alone (36% vs 16%, p=0·0002), and also significantly improved progression-free survival in a PIK3CA -mutant, ER-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer population (11·0 months vs 5·7 months, HR 0·65 [95% CI 0·50–0·85]; p=0·00065). 11 We chose to use objective response by modified RECIST version 1.1 criteria measured by MRI as a coprimary endpoint in the LORELEI trial because MRI is highly accurate for assessing residual tumour size after neoadjuvant therapy compared with clinical palpation, ultrasound, and mammogram. 17,18 As per US Food and Drug Administration recommendations in phase 2 studies, centrally established objective response is preferred over investigator assessment. 24 In two studies with endocrine neoadjuvant therapy, the objective response by MRI varied from 54% 25 to 70%. 26 These results are higher than that those seen in LORELEI, but there were some differences in response criteria and the treatment period was longer (6 months vs 4 months in LORELEI), which might have an effect on response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. 27 Regarding the second coprimary endpoint, pathological complete response was established by local assessment because it is a more common endpoint in neoadjuvant studies and is routinely used in clinical practice. However, sites were asked to complete a pathological complete response evaluation sheet, which was centrally checked by the study pathologist for inconsistencies before a central pathological complete response status was assigned to each patient. Pathological complete responses in breast and axilla were low and owing to the small number of events, no conclusions can be drawn. Pathological complete response correlates with long-term outcomes such as event-free survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but with neoadjuvant endocrine therapy, pathological complete response evidence is anecdotal. 3 We aimed to explore whether the addition of taselisib to letrozole increased the proportion of patients with pathological complete responses with the consequent potential effect on long-term outcomes, on the basis of the sustained partial responses reported in trials which combined taselisib and letrozole or fulvestrant in the metastatic setting. 14,15 Hence, we split the overall alpha error within the two coprimary endpoints (16% for objective response and 4% for total pathological complete response) in order to detect only a large magnitude of benefit in pathological complete response and a smaller benefit in objective response. Importantly, 3–4 months of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy virtually never produces pathological complete responses 27 and one of the limitations of the LORELEI study was the inability to explore this endpoint after a longer period of at least 6 months of therapy. Reduction in Ki67 after neoadjuvant treatment with aromatase inhibitors is a surrogate marker of suppression of cellular proliferation and correlates with better relapse-free survival. 28 A composite score—the preoperative endocrine prognostic index score derived from Ki67, tumour size, number of axillary lymph nodes, and ER status measured in the surgical specimen after neoadjuvant endocrine therapy—can also be used to distinguish between sensitive and resistant disease as a function of the risk of relapse. 29 Changes in Ki67 at week 3 were higher in subset of patients with PIK3CA mutations, but no significant differences were observed between the taselisib and placebo groups. Most of the patients in the taselisib group with available Ki67 samples (126 [90%] of 140) had stopped taselisib more than 2 days before surgery. Taselisib's half-life is around 40 h, which might explain the increase of Ki67 at time of tissue collection at surgery compared with the week 3 value, and impedes interpretation of the centrally derived Preoperative Endocrine Prognostic Index score. This increase in Ki67 in surgery specimens has been described in other neoadjuvant approaches. The NeoPalAna study 30 was a phase 2 trial that aimed to establish the antiproliferative effect of the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib combined with anastrozole versus anastrozole alone in stage II–III ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Prevalence of cell cycle arrest (Ki67 ≤2·7%) was higher at 2 weeks of treatment in the palbociclib plus anastrozole group (87% vs 26%, p<0·001). Nevertheless, in patients who stopped palbociclib 1 month before surgery (median 29 days, IQR 8–49), Ki67 was increased at surgery to near baseline amounts, an effect that was reversed when palbociclib was reintroduced immediately before surgery. These observations emphasise the importance of identifying predictive biomarkers after neoadjuvant treatment. Adverse events were more frequent in the taselisib group than in the placebo group as expected, but the safety profile was generally good. The most common adverse events in the taselisib-treated group were consistent with previous trials with this drug. 10,14,15 Most cases of diarrhoea were grade 1–2 in severity, and were grade 3 in 5% of patients. Overall, diarrhoea was manageable and reversible with dose interruptions and reductions. The prevalence of grade 3 colitis was low at 2%, and no cases of grade 4 gastrointestinal toxicities were observed. Other class-related adverse events, such as hyperglycaemia, stomatitis, and rash, occurred infrequently. Importantly, the prevalence of grade 3 or worse adverse events did not exceed 5% in any case. Adverse events leading to taselisib reduction (8%) or discontinuation (10%) were acceptable and lower than dosing adjustments required in the SANDPIPER (37% and 17%) and SOLAR-1 (up to 62% and 25%) trials, as might be expected with a shorter exposure to treatment. No depression or anxiety were observed in the patients treated with taselisib, in contrast to what has been reported with other PI3K inhibitors. 6,7 A major limitation of this study is that it was not powered to detect a difference in relapse-free survival between groups. Even so, long-term follow-up is of finite value to assess whether or not the benefit obtained in the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response by MRI translates to better relapse-free survival in ER-positive, HER2-negative populations. Another limitation was the duration of 16 weeks of treatment. This period was chosen on the basis of safety data available at the time of the study design, but a greater benefit might have been obtained with longer exposure to treatment. 27 In conclusion, this study showed that taselisib increased the efficacy of letrozole in the treatment of newly diagnosed, ER-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer, in terms of objective response as measured by centrally reviewed MRI, especially in those patients with PIK3CA -mutant tumours. The safety profile of the combination is acceptable, and toxicity in the taselisib group was consistent with historical data. Comprehensive biomarker analyses will provide further insight into patient and tumour profiles and correlation with response. Taken together, our results support future investigation of specific PI3K inibitors plus endocrine treatment in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, especially in patients with PIK3CA -mutant tumours. Contributors All authors have contributed to a greater or lesser extent to the design of the trial, recruitment of patients, data collection, results interpretation, as well as writing the manuscript. Declaration of interests CS reports grants to her institution from Roche–Genentech, Macrogenics, Pfizer, Piqur Therapeutics, Puma Biotechnology, Synthon Biopharmaceuticals, and Novartis; and personal fees from Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Genomyc Health, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Synthon Biopharmaceuticals. DH and AJ-H report donations for trial funding from Roche–Genentech to their institution. MO reports grants from Roche–Genentech and grants from Philips Healthcare to their institution; and personal fees from Roche–Genentech, GSK, Puma Biotechnology, Novartis, Pierre Fabré, GP Pharma, and Grunenthal Group. DZ reports grants from Roche, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, and Pfizer. PN reports personal fees from Bayer, MSD, and Novartis. JML reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, and personal fees from Roche. PV reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, MSD, Novartis, BMS, Lilly, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, and Pharmamar. MC reports advisory board consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, OBI Pharma, Puma Biotechnology, and Celldex; and honoraria from Novartis. EC reports personal fees from Roche; and personal fees from Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Celgene, and Novartis. MF reports consulting fees from Agendia and Eisai. KB reports personal fees from Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, and Novartis. AB reports a research grant from Biothernostics; and declares consultancy–advisory board services from Roche–Genentech, Immunomedics, Novartis, Prizer, Merck, Pfizer, Radius Health, Spectrum Pharma, Taiho Pharm, and Sanofi. TRW is an employee of Genentech and has stocks in Roche. JYH is an employee of Genentech with company stock and options. MP reports grants to her institution from Roche–Genentech and GSK–Novartis; and personal fees from Roche–Genentech and GSK–Novartis. MG reports personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, Celgene, Medison, and Eli Lilly; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer; personal fees from NanoString Technology; grants and personal fees from Roche; non-financial support from Ipsen; and an immediate family member employed by Sandoz. JB reports non-financial support from Roche–Genentech (reasonable reimbursement for travel and advisory board consulting); personal fees and stock as member of the board of directors from Aura Biosciences, Northern Biologics (f/k/a Mosaic Biomedicals), Infinity Pharmaceuticals, ApoGen Biotechnologies, PMV Pharma, Juno Therapeutics, TANGO (f/k/a Synthetic Lethal), GRAIL, Varian Medical Systems, Seragon, and Venthera; stock as member of the board of directors from Foghorn Therapeutics; personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis and Eli Lilly; and personal fees and full time employee of Astra Zeneca from January, 2019; in addition, JB reports a patent for combination therapy using PDK1 and PI3K inhibitors pending, a patent for use of phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors for treatment of vascular malformations licensed, and a patent for inhibition of KMT2D for the treatment of breast cancer pending for Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. EdA reports grants from Roche–Genentech to his Institution; personal fees from Roche–Genentech; and travel grants from Roche–Genentech and GSK/Novartis. Ldl-P, PD, CAC, G-B, AB, TJS, and YS declare no competing interests. Acknowledgments The sponsor (Genentech) provided financial support for all study-related activities. The sponsor had no access to the full database before the release of the results by the Steering Committee. We acknowledge the contribution of all investigators, sites, groups (ie, Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group, Solid Tumors Intensive Therapy–Grupo Español de Estudio y Tratamiento de Intensificación de Tumores Sólidos, Breast International Group, Chilean Cooperative Group for Oncologic Research, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast Cancer Trials, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Grupo de Estudios Clinicos Oncologicos Peruano, Gruppo Oncologico Italiano di Ricerca, and Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group), patients, and their families. We acknowledge Roche Molecular Diagnostics (Pleasanton, CA, USA) for development of the Cobas PIK3CA Mutation Test (research use only). References: Miller, T.W., Rexer, B.N., Garrett, J.T., Arteaga, C.L., Mutations in the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase pathway: role in tumor progression and therapeutic implications in breast cancer (2011) Breast Cancer Res, 13, p. 224; AACR Project GENIE: powering precision medicine through an international consortium (2017) Cancer Discov, 7, pp. 818-831; Baselga, J., Semiglazov, V., van Dam, P., Phase II randomized study of neoadjuvant everolimus plus letrozole compared with placebo plus letrozole in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (2009) J Clin Oncol, 27, pp. 2630-2637; Baselga, J., Campone, M., Piccart, M., Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone receptor positive ER positive breast cancer (2012) N Engl J Med, 366, pp. 520-529; Hortobagyi, G.N., Chen, D., Piccart, M., Correlative analysis of genetic alterations and everolimus benefit in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer: results from BOLERO-2 (2016) J Clin Oncol, 34, pp. 419-426; Baselga, J., Im, S.A., Iwata, H., Buparlisib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (BELLE-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (2017) Lancet Oncol, 18, pp. 904-916; Di Leo, A., Johnston, S., Lee, K.S., Buparlisib plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer progressing on or after mTOR inhibition (BELLE-3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (2018) Lancet Oncol, 19, pp. 87-100; Krop, I.E., Mayer, I.A., Ganju, V., Pictilisib for oestrogen receptor-positive, aromatase inhibitor-resistant, advanced or metastatic breast cancer (FERGI): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial (2016) Lancet Oncol, 17, pp. 811-821; Mayer, I.A., Abramson, V.G., Formisano, L., A phase Ib study of alpelisib (BYL719), a PI3Kα-specific inhibitor, with letrozole in ER+/HER2-metastatic breast cancer (2017) Clin Cancer Res, 23, pp. 26-34; Baselga, J., Dent, S.F., Cortés, J., Phase III study of taselisib (GDC-0032) + fulvestrant (FULV) v FULV in patients (pts) with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, PIK3CA-mutant (MUT), locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC): primary analysis from SANDPIPER (2018) Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol, 36. , abstr LBA1006; André, F., Ciruelos, E.M., Rubovszky, G., Alpelisib (ALP) + fulvestrant (FUL) for advanced breast cancer (ABC): results of the phase III SOLAR-1 trial (2018) Ann Oncol, 29. , abstr; Ndubaku, C.O., Heffron, T.P., Staben, S.T., Discovery of 2-{3-[2-(1-Isopropyl-3-methyl-1 H-1,2–4-triazol-5-yl)-5,6-dihydrobenzo[f]imidazo[1,2-d][1,4]oxazepin-9-yl]-1 H-pyrazol-1-yl}-2-methylpropanamide (GDC-0032): a β-sparing phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor with high unbound exposure and robust in vivo antitumor activity (2013) J Med Chem, 56, pp. 4597-4610; Juric, D., Krop, I., Ramanathan, R.K., Phase I dose-escalation study of taselisib, an oral pi3k inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors (2017) Cancer Discov, 7, pp. 704-715; Saura, C., Sachdev, J., Patel, M.R., Abstract PD5-2: Ph1b study of the PI3K inhibitor taselisib (GDC-0032) in combination with letrozole in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (2015) Cancer Res, 75 (9). , PD5-2; Dickler, M.N., Saura, C., Richards, D.A., A phase II study of the PI3K inhibitor taselisib (GDC-0032) combined with fulvestrant (F) in patients (pts) with HER2-negative (HER2-), hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer (BC) (2016) Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol, 34 (15), p. 520; Cortazar, P., Zhang, L., Untch, M., Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis (2014) Lancet, 384, pp. 164-172; Croshaw, R., Shapiro-Wright, H., Svensson, E., Erb, K., Julian, T., Accuracy of clinical examination, digital mammogram, ultrasound, and MRI in determining postneoadjuvant pathologic tumor response in operable breast cancer patients (2011) Ann Surg Oncol, 18, pp. 3160-3163; Hylton, N.M., Blume, J.D., Bernreuter, W.K., Locally advanced breast cancer: MR imaging for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy—results from ACRIN 6657/I-SPY TRIAL (2012) Radiology, 263, pp. 663-672; Hylton, N.M., Gatsonis, C.A., Rosen, M.A., Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: functional tumor volume by MR imaging predicts recurrence-free survival—results from the ACRIN 6657/CALGB 150007 I-SPY 1 TRIAL (2016) Radiology, 279, pp. 44-55; Hammond, M.E.H., Hayes, D.F., Dowsett, M., American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (2010) Arch Pathol Lab Med, 134, pp. 907-922; Wolff, A.C., Hammond, M.E.H., Hicks, D.G., Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Update (2013) J Clin Oncol, 31, pp. 3997-4013; Dowsett, M., Nielsen, T.O., A'Hern, R., Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group (2011) J Natl Cancer Inst, 103, pp. 1656-1664; Guerrero-Zotano, A.L., Arteaga, C.L., Neoadjuvant trials in ER+ breast cancer: a tool for acceleration of drug development and discovery (2017) Cancer Discov, 7, pp. 561-574; Clinical trial imaging endpoint process standards: guidance for industry (2018), https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/clinical-trial-imaging-endpoint-process-standards-guidance-industry; Lerebours, F., Rivera, S., Mouret-Reynier, M.-A., Randomized phase 2 neoadjuvant trial evaluating anastrozole and fulvestrant efficacy for postmenopausal, estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer patients: results of the UNICANCER CARMINA 02 French trial: neoadjuvant anastrozole and fulvestrant (2016) Cancer, 122, pp. 3032-3040; Fontein, D.B.Y., Charehbili, A., Nortier, J.W.R., Efficacy of six-month neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients – a phase II trial (2014) Eur J Cancer, 50, pp. 2190-2200; Dixon, J.M., Renshaw, L., Macaskill, E.J., Increase in response rate by prolonged treatment with neoadjuvant letrozole (2009) Breast Cancer Res Treat, 113, pp. 145-151; Dowsett, M., Smith, I.E., Ebbs, S.R., Short-term changes in Ki-67 during neoadjuvant treatment of primary breast cancer with anastrozole or tamoxifen alone or combined correlate with recurrence-free survival (2005) Clin Cancer Res, 11, pp. 951-958; Ellis, M.J., Tao, Y., Luo, J., Outcome prediction for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer based on postneoadjuvant endocrine therapy tumor characteristics (2008) J Natl Cancer Inst, 100, pp. 1380-1388; Ma, C.X., Gao, F., Luo, J., NeoPalAna: neoadjuvant palbociclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, and anastrozole for clinical stage 2 or 3 estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (2017) Clin Cancer Res, 23, pp. 4055-4065
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - Background: Endocrine therapy-based neoadjuvant treatment for luminal breast cancer allows efficient testing of new combinations before surgery. The activation of the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) pathway is a known mechanism of resistance to endocrine therapy. Taselisib is an oral, selective PI3K inhibitor with enhanced activity against PIK3CA-mutant cancer cells. The LORELEI trial tested whether taselisib in combination with letrozole would result in an increased proportion of objective responses and pathological complete responses. Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-cohort, placebo-controlled phase 2, study, we enrolled postmenopausal women (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed, oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative, stage I–III, operable breast cancer, from 85 hospitals in 22 countries worldwide. To be eligible, patients had have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0–1, adequate organ function, and had to have evaluable tumour tissue for PIK3CA genotyping. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of a permuted block algorithm (block size of four) via an interactive voice or web-based response system, to receive letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally, continuously) with either 4 mg of oral taselisib or placebo (on a 5 days-on, 2 days-off schedule) for 16 weeks, followed by surgery. Randomisation was stratified by tumour size and nodal status. Site staff, patients, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. Coprimary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response by centrally assessed breast MRI and a locally assessed pathological complete response in the breast and axilla (ypT0/Tis, ypN0) at surgery in all randomly assigned patients and in patients with PIK3CA-mutant tumours. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02273973, and is closed to accrual. Findings: Between Nov 12, 2014, and Aug 12, 2016, 334 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive letrozole and placebo (n=168) or letrozole and taselisib (n=166). Median follow-up was 4·9 months (IQR 4·7–5·1). The study met one of its primary endpoints: the addition of taselisib to letrozole was associated with a higher proportion of patients achieving an objective response in all randomly assigned patients (66 [39%] of 168 patients in the placebo group vs 83 [50%] of 166 in the taselisib group; odds ratio [OR] 1·55, 95% CI 1·00–2·38; p=0·049) and in the PIK3CA-mutant subset (30 [38%] of 79 vs 41 [56%] of 73; OR 2·03, 95% CI 1·06–3·88; p=0·033). No significant differences were observed in pathological complete response between the two groups, either in the overall population (three [2%] of 166 in the taselisib group vs one [1%] of 168 in the placebo group; OR 3·07 [95% CI 0·32–29·85], p=0·37) or in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort (one patient [1%) vs none [0%]; OR not estimable, p=0·48). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the taselisib group were gastrointestinal (13 [8%] of 167 patients), infections (eight [5%]), and skin–subcutaneous tissue disorders (eight [5%]). In the placebo group, four (2%) of 167 patients had grade 3 or worse vascular disorders, two (1%) had gastrointestinal disorders, and two (1%) patients had grade 3 or worse infections and infestations. There was no grade 4 hyperglycaemia and grade 3 cases were asymptomatic. Serious adverse events were more common in the taselisib group (eight [5%] patients with infections and seven [4%] with gastrointestinal effects) than in the placebo group (one [1%] patient each with grade 3 postoperative wound and haematoma infection, grade 4 hypertensive encephalopathy, grade 3 acute cardiac failure, and grade 3 breast pain). One death occurred in the taselisib group, which was not considered to be treatment-related. Interpretation: The increase in the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response from the addition of taselisib to endocrine therapy in a neoadjuvant setting is consistent with the clinical benefit observed in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer. Funding: Genentech and F Hoffmann-La Roche. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd
AB - Background: Endocrine therapy-based neoadjuvant treatment for luminal breast cancer allows efficient testing of new combinations before surgery. The activation of the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) pathway is a known mechanism of resistance to endocrine therapy. Taselisib is an oral, selective PI3K inhibitor with enhanced activity against PIK3CA-mutant cancer cells. The LORELEI trial tested whether taselisib in combination with letrozole would result in an increased proportion of objective responses and pathological complete responses. Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-cohort, placebo-controlled phase 2, study, we enrolled postmenopausal women (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed, oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative, stage I–III, operable breast cancer, from 85 hospitals in 22 countries worldwide. To be eligible, patients had have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0–1, adequate organ function, and had to have evaluable tumour tissue for PIK3CA genotyping. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of a permuted block algorithm (block size of four) via an interactive voice or web-based response system, to receive letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally, continuously) with either 4 mg of oral taselisib or placebo (on a 5 days-on, 2 days-off schedule) for 16 weeks, followed by surgery. Randomisation was stratified by tumour size and nodal status. Site staff, patients, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. Coprimary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response by centrally assessed breast MRI and a locally assessed pathological complete response in the breast and axilla (ypT0/Tis, ypN0) at surgery in all randomly assigned patients and in patients with PIK3CA-mutant tumours. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02273973, and is closed to accrual. Findings: Between Nov 12, 2014, and Aug 12, 2016, 334 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive letrozole and placebo (n=168) or letrozole and taselisib (n=166). Median follow-up was 4·9 months (IQR 4·7–5·1). The study met one of its primary endpoints: the addition of taselisib to letrozole was associated with a higher proportion of patients achieving an objective response in all randomly assigned patients (66 [39%] of 168 patients in the placebo group vs 83 [50%] of 166 in the taselisib group; odds ratio [OR] 1·55, 95% CI 1·00–2·38; p=0·049) and in the PIK3CA-mutant subset (30 [38%] of 79 vs 41 [56%] of 73; OR 2·03, 95% CI 1·06–3·88; p=0·033). No significant differences were observed in pathological complete response between the two groups, either in the overall population (three [2%] of 166 in the taselisib group vs one [1%] of 168 in the placebo group; OR 3·07 [95% CI 0·32–29·85], p=0·37) or in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort (one patient [1%) vs none [0%]; OR not estimable, p=0·48). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the taselisib group were gastrointestinal (13 [8%] of 167 patients), infections (eight [5%]), and skin–subcutaneous tissue disorders (eight [5%]). In the placebo group, four (2%) of 167 patients had grade 3 or worse vascular disorders, two (1%) had gastrointestinal disorders, and two (1%) patients had grade 3 or worse infections and infestations. There was no grade 4 hyperglycaemia and grade 3 cases were asymptomatic. Serious adverse events were more common in the taselisib group (eight [5%] patients with infections and seven [4%] with gastrointestinal effects) than in the placebo group (one [1%] patient each with grade 3 postoperative wound and haematoma infection, grade 4 hypertensive encephalopathy, grade 3 acute cardiac failure, and grade 3 breast pain). One death occurred in the taselisib group, which was not considered to be treatment-related. Interpretation: The increase in the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response from the addition of taselisib to endocrine therapy in a neoadjuvant setting is consistent with the clinical benefit observed in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer. Funding: Genentech and F Hoffmann-La Roche. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd
KW - alanine aminotransferase
KW - amylase
KW - epidermal growth factor receptor 2
KW - estrogen receptor
KW - letrozole
KW - placebo
KW - taselisib
KW - triacylglycerol lipase
KW - abdominal pain
KW - acute heart failure
KW - adult
KW - aged
KW - arthralgia
KW - Article
KW - asthenia
KW - breast cancer
KW - breast disease
KW - colitis
KW - connective tissue disease
KW - controlled study
KW - dehydration
KW - dermatitis
KW - diabetes mellitus
KW - diarrhea
KW - double blind procedure
KW - drug efficacy
KW - drug eruption
KW - drug safety
KW - erysipelas
KW - erythema
KW - erythema multiforme
KW - fatigue
KW - female
KW - food poisoning
KW - gastroenteritis
KW - gastrointestinal disease
KW - gene
KW - gene mutation
KW - genital system disease
KW - healing impairment
KW - heart disease
KW - heart failure
KW - hematoma
KW - hemorrhagic colitis
KW - hemorrhoid
KW - hot flush
KW - human
KW - human tissue
KW - hyperglycemia
KW - hypertension
KW - hypertension encephalopathy
KW - hypertransaminasemia
KW - hypokalemia
KW - infection
KW - infectious diarrhea
KW - infestation
KW - influenza
KW - major clinical study
KW - mastalgia
KW - mediastinum disease
KW - mental disease
KW - metabolic disorder
KW - multicenter study
KW - musculoskeletal disease
KW - myalgia
KW - nausea
KW - neoadjuvant therapy
KW - neurologic disease
KW - nuclear magnetic resonance imaging
KW - nutritional disorder
KW - pancreatitis
KW - parallel design
KW - phase 2 clinical trial
KW - PIK3CA gene
KW - pneumonia
KW - postmenopause
KW - priority journal
KW - randomized controlled trial
KW - rash
KW - respiratory tract disease
KW - side effect
KW - skin disease
KW - stomatitis
KW - sudden death
KW - surgical infection
KW - thorax disease
KW - treatment response
KW - varicosis
KW - vascular disease
KW - wound infection
U2 - 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30334-1
DO - 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30334-1
M3 - Article
SN - 1470-2045
VL - 20
SP - 1226
EP - 1238
JO - Lancet Oncol.
JF - Lancet Oncol.
IS - 9
ER -