Influence of pneumatic transportation on the stability of monoclonal antibodies

Pneumatic transportation systems (PTS) were recently proposed as a method to carry ready-for-injection diluted monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) from the pharmacy to the bedside of patients. This method reduces transportation time and improves the efficiency of drug distribution process. However, mAbs are highly sensitive molecules for which subtle alterations may lead to deleterious clinical effects. These alterations can be caused by various external factors such as temperature, pH, pressure, and mechanical forces that may occur during transportation. Hence, it is essential to ensure that the mAbs transported by PTS remain stable and active throughout the transportation process. This study aims to determine the safety profile of PTS to transport 11 routinely used mAbs in a clinical setting through assessment of critical quality attributes (CQA) and orthogonal analysis. Hence, we performed aggregation/degradation profiling, post-translational modifications identification using complementary mass spectrometry-based methods, along with visible and subvisible particle formation determination by light absorbance and light obscuration analysis. Altogether, these results highlight that PTS can be safely used for this purpose when air is removed from the bags during preparation.

Clinical Benefit, Price, and Uptake for Cancer Biosimilars vs Reference Drugs in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

The high cost of biologics used to treat cancer has been an increasing burden in the world. In China, the recent approval of cancer biosimilar drugs to resolve this problem is promising, but evidence of clinical benefits, price, and uptake for these drugs is still lacking.

Objectives

To compare characteristics of pivotal clinical trials in China and other countries for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab and investigate the efficacy or effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes of cancer biosimilars compared with reference drugs by meta-analysis.

Data Sources

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for published studies from database inception to February 1, 2023, using the search topics (cancers) AND (biosimilars).

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that included patients with cancer were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two authors independently extracted the outcome estimates and characteristics for each study. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to summarize the relative estimates with 95% CIs. This study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinical trial characteristics were collected for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. The relative estimates of efficacy or effectiveness (objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival), safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were analyzed for biosimilars vs reference drugs. The weighted average price and uptake rate were evaluated for biosimilars relative to their reference drugs between 2015 and 2022.

Results

A total of 39 RCTs (involving 18 791 patients) and 10 cohort studies (involving 1998 patients) were included. The biosimilars of bevacizumab (16 RCTs; risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01; P = .17), rituximab (12 RCTs; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .70), and trastuzumab (9 RCTs: RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P = .29) met equivalence with reference biologics in regard to the objective response rate. The results summarized from cohort studies were consistent with those from RCTs. In 2022, cancer biosimilars were priced at 69% to 90% of the costs for the reference drugs, and their uptake reached 54% to 83% in China.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that cancer biosimilars provided comparable clinical benefits at lower prices compared with reference drugs. These findings suggest the potential feasibility of expediting the transition from reference drugs to biosimilars to benefit more patients with cancer.

Safety and efficacy of trastuzumab biosimilar plus irinotecan or gemcitabine in patients with previously treated HER2 (ERBB2)-positive non-breast/non-gastric solid tumors: a phase II basket trial with circulating tumor DNA analysis

BACKGROUND

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) (ERBB2)-directed agents are standard treatments for patients with HER2-positive breast and gastric cancer. Herein, we report the results of an open-label, single-center, phase II basket trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab biosimilar (Samfenet®) plus treatment of physician's choice for patients with previously treated HER2-positive advanced solid tumors, along with biomarker analysis employing circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) sequencing.

METHODS

Patients with HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic non-breast, non-gastric solid tumors who failed at least one prior treatment were included in this study conducted at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. Patients received trastuzumab combined with irinotecan or gemcitabine at the treating physicians' discretion. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate as per RECIST version 1.1. Plasma samples were collected at baseline and at the time of disease progression for ctDNA analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were screened from 31 December 2019 to 17 September 2021, and 20 were enrolled in this study. Their median age was 64 years (30-84 years), and 13 patients (65.0%) were male. The most common primary tumor was hepatobiliary cancer (seven patients, 35.0%), followed by colorectal cancer (six patients, 30.0%). Among 18 patients with an available response evaluation, the objective response rate was 11.1% (95% confidence interval 3.1% to 32.8%). ERBB2 amplification was detected from ctDNA analysis of baseline plasma samples in 85% of patients (n = 17), and the ERBB2 copy number from ctDNA analysis showed a significant correlation with the results from tissue sequencing. Among 16 patients with post-progression ctDNA analysis, 7 (43.8%) developed new alterations. None of the patients discontinued the study due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Trastuzumab plus irinotecan or gemcitabine was safe and feasible for patients with previously treated HER2-positive advanced solid tumors with modest efficacy outcomes, and ctDNA analysis was useful for detecting HER2 amplification.

Comparison of Biosimilar Trastuzumab ABP 980 with Reference Trastuzumab in Neoadjuvant Therapy for HER2-positive Breast Cancer - an Analysis of a Large University Breast Cancer Centre

Background ABP 980 is a biosimilar antibody to reference trastuzumab (RTZ). Aim of the following study is to confirm the similarity of ABP 980 and RTZ in terms of clinical efficacy and safety in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC) undergoing neoadjuvant trastuzumab-containing chemotherapy in a clinical real-world situation that also includes patients receiving pertuzumab. Methods Patients with HER2-positive EBC, who were treated from 12/2010 to 03/2020 at the Department of Women's Health at Tuebingen University Hospital, Germany, with at least four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (+/- pertuzumab) in combination with ABP 980 or RTZ were included in a retrospective analysis. For efficacy analysis patients achieving a pathologic complete remission (pCR = no invasive tumor in breast and lymph nodes) were compared. Safety was evaluated by comparing the number of patients with a decrease in left ventricular function (LVEF) of > 10%. Results 124 patients were included of whom 46 (37.1%) have received ABP 980 and 77 (62.9%) were treated with RTZ. A pCR was found in 77 patients (62.1%). For patients treated with ABP 980 as compared to RTZ, there was no significant difference regarding efficacy (pCR-rates of 60.9% versus 62.8%, p = 0.829) or cardiac safety (LVEF decline in 6.5% versus 2.6%, p = 0.274). Conclusion Similarity of ABP 980 as compared to RTZ was confirmed in a real-world situation, including a large proportion of patients that have also received pertuzumab treatment.

Final analysis of the phase 3 randomized clinical trial comparing HD201 vs. referent trastuzumab in patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer treated in the neoadjuvant setting

BACKGROUND

The TROIKA trial established that HD201 and trastuzumab were equivalent in terms of primary endpoints (total pathological complete response) following neoadjuvant treatment. The objective of the present analysis was to compare survival outcomes and final safety.

METHODS

In the TROIKA trial, patients with ERBB2-positive early breast cancer were randomized and treated with either HD201 or the referent trastuzumab. Eligible patients received 8 cycles of either HD201 or referent trastuzumab (loading dose, 8 mg/kg; maintenance dose, 6 mg/kg) every 3 weeks in combination with 8 cycles of chemotherapy (4 cycles of docetaxel, 75 mg/m², followed by 4 cycles of epirubicin, 75 mg/m², and cyclophosphamide, 500 mg/m²) in the neoadjuvant setting. The patients then underwent surgery followed by 10 cycles of adjuvant HD201 or referent trastuzumab according to their initial randomization to complete one year of trastuzumab-directed therapy. Event-free and overall survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The hazard ratio for event-free survival was estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

The final analysis was performed after all patients completed the study at a median follow-up of 37.7 months (Q1-Q3, 37.3-38.1 months). A total of 502 randomized patients received either HD201 or the referent trastuzumab, and 474 (94.2%) were eligible for inclusion in the per-protocol set. In this population, the 3-year event-free survival rates were 85.6% (95% CI: 80.28-89.52) and 84.9% (95% CI: 79.54-88.88) in the HD201 and referent trastuzumab groups, respectively (log rank p = 0.938) (HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.63-1.63; p = 0.945). The 3-year overall survival rates were comparable between the HD201 (95.6%; 95% CI: 91.90-97.59) and referent trastuzumab treatment groups (96.0%, 95% CI: 92.45-97.90) (log rank p = 0.606). During the posttreatment follow-up period, adverse events were reported for 64 (27.4%) and 72 (29.8%) patients in the HD201 and the reference trastuzumab groups, respectively. Serious adverse events were rare and none of which were related to the study treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This final analysis of the TROIKA trial further confirms the comparable efficacy and safety of HD201 and trastuzumab.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03013504.

Axillary Downstaging and the Impact of Clinical Axillary Status on Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Therapy for HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Lymph node downstaging and the achievement of total-pCR (ypT0/is ypN0) after neoadjuvant therapy are of great importance in HER-2 positive breast cancer. We aim to provide an overall review of neoadjuvant regimens for lymph node downstaging and to indirectly compare the total-pCR by various neoadjuvant regimens with network meta-analysis in HER2-positive patients according to their clinical lymph node status. Methods: Five English databases were searched comprehensively and systematically for relevant RCTs and case-control studies. The data extracted from the included studies were analyzed with the use of Review Manager 5.3 or STATA 15.0 software. Results: A total of 1508 published manuscripts were identified, and 17 studies including 4747 patients were finally included in our analysis. The network meta-analysis of total-pCR showed that dual-target therapy is significantly better than single-target therapy in clinically node-positive patients, and carboplatin performed significantly better than anthracycline in single-target condition. Lapatinib performed poorly in clinically node-positive patients. However, lapatinib in combination with trastuzumab was ranked at the top in the clinically node-negative group, and pertuzumab showed dissatisfied performance in contrast to the primacy of pertuzumab in clinically node-positive groups. Conclusion: In summary, different lymph node statuses led to the diverse first choice of neoadjuvant regimen. We highly recommended TCbHP as the first choice for the neoadjuvant treatment in clinically node-positive HER-2 positive breast cancer. Since lapatinib with trastuzumab ranked top in the clinically node-negative group, we looked forward to discovering the potential value of TKI in clinically node-negative patients, which needs further analysis in the future.

Factors associated with the uptake of biosimilars for breast cancer treatment from the perspectives of physicians and patients-Evidence from China

Objective: To investigate the factors associated with the treatment of breast cancer with biosimilars from the perspectives of physicians and patients, and to generate evidence for promoting the uptake of biosimilars. Methods: This study targeted trastuzumab and its indicated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive breast cancer and included female HER2 positive breast cancer patients under treatment of trastuzumab at a provincial oncology medical center in southern China from 1 January 2021, to 31 December 2021. The study extracted patients' demographic, socioeconomic and clinical information and the basic information of their attending physicians from the hospital information system. We performed a bivariate multiple logistic regression analysis of predictive factors of the use of trastuzumab biosimilar. Results: A total of 446 patients (aged ranging between 26 and 74, 51.4 ± 9.06) were included in the analysis, and 19.1% chose biosimilar trastuzumab. Older patients, patients enrolled in the urban and rural resident health insurance program compared with those enrolled in the urban employee health insurance program, patients who initiated treatment after January 2021 when biosimilar entered clinical use compared with those who initiated treatment before, patients with female attending physicians, younger attending physicians and with chief attending physicians compared with deputy chief attending physicians were more likely to adopt biosimilar trastuzumab for treatment (p < 05). Controlling the other factors unchanged, when the patient's attending physician was deputy chief physician, increasing 1 year age of the patient was associated with an increased probability of adopting biosimilar by .8% (dy/dx = .008, 95%CI: .002-.01, p = .01). When the patient was aged between 26 and 60, the probability of adopting biosimilar for the patient whose attending physician was a chief physician was higher than for those whose attending physician was a deputy chief physician, and the gap was the largest when the patient was at the age of 45 (dy/dx = .20, 95%CI: .13-.27, p < .01). Conclusion: The uptake rate of biosimilars is still low at its initial development stage in China. Educational policies and physicians making recommendations to the indicated patients at the initiation stage of treatment are helpful to avoid reduced willingness to switch to biosimilars due to non-clinical reasons. Patients with lower ability-to-pay will have better accessibility to biologic regimens through the uptake of biosimilars. Official guidelines and professional training are critical to enhancing physicians' willingness and confidence in adopting biosimilars.

Prescriber Perspectives on Biosimilar Adoption and Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology: A Workshop Summary

The approval and adoption of biosimilar products are essential to contain increasing healthcare costs and provide more affordable choices for patients. Despite steady progress in the number of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) biosimilar approvals over the years, biosimilar adoption in the United States has been slow and gradual, largely driven by payers rather than clinicians. In order to better understand the barriers to biosimilar adoption in the clinic, the University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI) and the FDA jointly hosted a virtual workshop on April 13, 2022, titled "Biosimilars: A Decade of Experience and Future Directions - Strategies for Improving Biosimilar Adoption and the Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology." This summary documents the experiences of four leading academic clinicians with specialties in oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology and their perspectives on how to increase biosimilar adoption, including the role of clinical pharmacology. Besides systemic changes in pricing and reimbursement, there is a need for additional education of a broad range of providers, including advanced care practitioners, and patients themselves. Educational efforts highlighting the rigor of the studies that support the approval of biosimilars-including the clinical pharmacology studies-and the benefits of biosimilars, can play a major role in improving biosimilar acceptance.

Trastuzumab biosimilars vs trastuzumab originator in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women and ranks second among causes for cancer related death in women. Trastuzumab originator (Herceptin) is a monoclonal antibody used as a standard treatment for breast and metastatic gastric cancer when the cancer cells over-express human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2). As the patent of Trastuzumab has now expired, biosimilars are moving into the market. It is still controversial to chose which trastuzumab biosimilar has the best treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer patients. We conducted this network meta-analysis to explore the best trastuzumab biosimilar in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane library databases, China National Knowledge infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang database up to November 2021 were systematically searched. The following search terms were used: 'trastuzumab originator', and 'trastuzumab biosimilar'. No language restriction was imposed. The reference lists of all retrieved articles were also reviewed to identify additional articles missed by using these search terms.

RESULTS

We got 10 studies to conduct network meta-analysis to evaluate efficacy and serious adverse reactions among various trastuzumab biosimilars and trastuzumab originator. The overall response rate (ORR) and pathological complete response (pCR) of SB3 were worse than trastuzumab originator significantly, while the ORR and pCR of other trastuzumab biosimilars had not yet reached statistical differences compared with each other. The cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability indicated that the ORR from best to worst was CT-P6, Herceptin, HLX02, PF-05280014, R-TPR-016, BCD-022, MYL-1401O, SB3, and the pCR from best to worst was PF-05280014, CT-P6, Herceptin, ABP-980, SB3. The serious adverse events (SAEs) of CT-P6 were more than Herceptin and MYL-1401O significantly, while the SAEs of other trastuzumab biosimilars had not statistical differences. The SUCRA probability indicated that the SAEs from best to worst was MYL-1401O, Herceptin, PF-05280014, SB3, HLX02, BCD-22, CT-P6.

CONCLUSION

There was no statistical difference in both ORR and pCR of various trastuzumab biosimilars and Herceptin except SB3. The ORR and pCR of SB3 were worse than Herceptin. Both CT-P6 and PF-05280014 are better in the overall curative effect, but CT-P6 had the highest serious adverse reactions when compared with others. The PF-05280014 might be a better trastuzumab biosimilar in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer patients.

Effectiveness and Safety of Zercepac and Reference Trastuzumab in the Neoadjuvant Setting for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Aim

Since the high cost of reference trastuzumab limits its clinical application, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of the Zercepac and reference product trastuzumab in neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer.

Methods

This study retrospectively collected clinical data of patients with early-stageHER2-positive breast cancer, who received trastuzumab, pertuzumab, docetaxel, and platinum as neoadjuvant therapy from November 2020 to July 2021. Patients were divided into the Zercepac and reference trastuzumab groups. Reduction in tumor size, clinical response based on RECIST1.1 criteria, pathological complete response (pCR), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to adjust confounders.

Results

A total of 105 patients were included in the study, among them, 65 were in the Zercepac group and 40 were in the reference trastuzumab group. The percentage of tumor shrinkage from baseline was comparable between the Zercepac and reference trastuzumab group (47.6 ± 18.6% vs. 43.0 ± 19.9%, p = 0.235). Clinical partial response rate was similar between the two groups (81.5% vs. 70.0%, p = 0.172). There were 28 cases of pCR (70.0%) in the reference trastuzumab group and 46 cases of pCR (70.8%) in the Zercepac group (p = 0.933). The choice of Zercepac or reference trastuzumab was not significantly associated with pCR (OR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.41-2.28, p = 0.933). Adverse events (AEs) were observed in all patients, and the incidence of ≥3 grade AEs was comparable between the two groups (81.5% vs. 70.0%, p = 0.172).

Conclusion

Zercepac has similar effectiveness and safety profile compared with reference trastuzumab in neoadjuvant therapy, which provides treatment options for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Comparing efficacy and safety of P013, a proposed pertuzumab biosimilar, with the reference product in HER2-positive breast cancer patients: a randomized, phase III, equivalency clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading reason for cancer-related death among women. Neoadjuvant treatment with dual-HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) blockade has shown promising effects in this regard. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of a proposed pertuzumab biosimilar with the reference pertuzumab.

METHODS

This randomized, phase III, multicenter, equivalency clinical trial was conducted on chemotherapy-naive women with HER2-positive breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive six cycles of either P013 (CinnaGen, Iran) or the originator product (Perjeta, Roche, Switzerland) along with trastuzumab, carboplatin, and docetaxel every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified by cancer type (operable, locally advanced, inflammatory) and hormone receptor status. The primary endpoint was breast pathologic complete response (bpCR). Secondary endpoints included comparisons of total pCR, overall response rate (ORR), breast-conserving surgery (BCS), safety, and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

Two hundred fourteen patients were randomized to treatment groups. bpCR rate in the per-protocol population was 67.62% in the P013 and 71.57% in the reference drug groups. Based on bpCR, P013 was equivalent to the reference pertuzumab with a mean difference of - 0.04 (95% CI: - 0.16, 0.09). Secondary endpoints were also comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed biosimilar P013 was equivalent to the reference product in terms of efficacy. The safety of both medications was also comparable.

Systematic Review on the Use of Biosimilars of Trastuzumab in HER2+ Breast Cancer

Trastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody used in the treatment of breast cancer in cases where the tumor overexpresses the HER2 receptor, a cell membrane receptor activated by the epidermal growth factor. Intravenous and subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab have comparable clinical and pharmacological characteristics, but trastuzumab biosimilars are currently only available in intravenous form. Trastuzumab biosimilars are ultimately preferred by a proportion of patients, especially in cases where co-administration of other chemotherapeutic agents, such as trastuzumab and tucatinib, a small molecule of tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is required in patients with HER-positive metastatic breast cancer. Oncologists should be well-aware of the advantages of intravenously administered trastuzumab biosimilars over subcutaneous administration, certainly also taking into account the patient’s preferences. Further cost-effectiveness analyses will be very important, along with expectations regarding successful concomitant subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab with other anticancer drugs, such as pertuzumab. This systematic review describes and analyzes the so-far published studies concerning the use of the available trastuzumab biosimilars in HER-positive early and metastatic breast cancer in terms of efficacy, safety, and cost–benefit ratio. An attempt was also made to draw some conclusions and to comment on future needs and perspectives.

A randomized, double-blind, phase III, non-inferiority clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of TA4415V (a proposed Trastuzumab biosimilar) and Herceptin (Trastuzumab reference product) in HER2-positive early-stage breast Cancer patients

Background

This study compared efficacy and safety of TA4415V, a trastuzumab biosimilar, with reference trastuzumab in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2-positive) early-stage breast cancer treated in the neoadjuvant setting in Iran.

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant TA4415V or reference trastuzumab concurrently with docetaxel (TH phase) for 4 cycles after treatment with 4 cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC phase). Chemotherapy was followed by surgery. The primary endpoint was the comparison of pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in the per-protocol population. Secondary endpoints included comparisons of overall response rate (ORR), breast-conserving surgery (BCS), safety, and immunogenicity.

Results

Ninety-two participants were analyzed in the per-protocol population (TA4415V, n = 48; reference trastuzumab, n = 44). The pCR rates were 37.50% and 34.09% with TA4415V and reference drug, respectively. The 95% CI of the estimated treatment outcome difference (− 0·03 [95% CI − 0.23 to 0.16]) was within the non-inferiority margin. No statistically significant difference was observed between the groups for other efficacy variables in the ITT population: ORR (89.13% vs. 83.33%; p = 0.72) and BCS (20.37% vs. 12.96%; p = 0.42) in the TA4415V and reference drug group, respectively.

At least one grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 27 (50%) patients in the TA4415V group versus 29 (53.70%) in the reference trastuzumab group (p = 0.70). The decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), as an adverse event of special interest (AESI) for trastuzumab, was compared between treatment groups in TH phase. Results demonstrated an LVEF decrease in 7 (12.96%) and 9 (16.67%) patients in TA4415V and reference trastuzumab groups, respectively (p = 0.59). Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) were not detected in any samples of groups.

Conclusions

Non-inferiority for efficacy was demonstrated between TA4415V and Herceptin based on the ratio of pCR rates in HER2-positive early breast cancer patients. In addition, ORR and BCS, as secondary endpoints, were not significantly different. Safety profile and immunogenicity were also comparable between the two groups.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40360-022-00599-x.

A Review of Trastuzumab Biosimilars in Early Breast Cancer and Real World Outcomes of Neoadjuvant MYL-1401O versus Reference Trastuzumab

The reduced cost of trastuzumab biosimilars has led to increased adoption for HER2-positive breast cancer. This review of trastuzumab biosimilars encompasses this development and real world clinical data in early breast cancer. In addition, we present a retrospective study evaluating the total pathological complete response (tpCR) rates (lack of residual invasive cancer in resected breast tissue and axillary nodes), of MYL-1401O to reference trastuzumab (TRZ) in the neoadjuvant setting for HER2+ early breast cancer (EBC) in Alberta, Canada. Neoadjuvant patients with HER2+ EBC treated with TRZ from November 2018–October 2019 and MYL-1401O from December 2019–September 2020 were identified. Logistic regression was used to control for variables potentially associated with tpCR: trastuzumab product, age, pre-operative T- and N-stage, grade, hormone receptor (HR)-status, HER2-status, chemotherapy regimen, and chemotherapy completion. tpCR was 35.6% in the MYL-1401O group (n = 59) and 40.3% in the TRZ (n = 77) group, p = 0.598. After controlling for clinically relevant variables, there was no significant difference in the odds of achieving tpCR in patients treated with TRZ versus MYL-1401O (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.5–2.4, p = 0.850). tpCR rates were similar for patients treated with MYL-1401O compared to trastuzumab in our real world study of HER2+ neoadjuvant EBC and comparable to pivotal phase 3 trials.

Efficacy of HD201 vs Referent Trastuzumab in Patients With ERBB2-Positive Breast Cancer Treated in the Neoadjuvant Setting: A Multicenter Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The drug HD201 is a biosimilar candidate for breast cancer treatment as the reference trastuzumab.

Objective

To compare the efficacy of HD201 with referent trastuzumab.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial (TROIKA) included 502 women with ERBB2-positive early breast cancer treated with either HD201 or referent trastuzumab. It was conducted across 70 centers in 12 countries, including Western and Eastern Europe and Asian countries. Randomization was stratified by tumor hormone receptor status, clinical stage, and geographic region of recruitment. This analysis was conducted on February 12, 2021, after the completion of the adjuvant phase at a median of 31 months (IQR, 28-33 months) of follow-up.

Interventions

Patients with ERBB2-positive early breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive HD201 or referent trastuzumab in the neoadjuvant setting for 8 cycles, concurrently with 4 cycles of docetaxel, which was followed by 4 cycles of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. Patients then underwent surgery, which was followed by treatment with 10 cycles of adjuvant HD201 or referent trastuzumab.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary end point was the total pathological complete response (tpCR) assessed after neoadjuvant treatment. Equivalence was concluded if the 95% CI of the absolute difference in tpCR between arms in the per-protocol set was within the margin of more or less than 15%. Other objectives included the breast pathological complete response, overall response, event-free and overall survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity.

Results

A total of 502 female patients (mean [range] age, 53 [26-82] years) were randomized to receive either HD201 or referent trastuzumab, and 474 (94.2%) were eligible for inclusion in the per-protocol set. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 2 arms; 195 tumors (38.8%) were hormone receptor-negative , and 213 patients (42.4%) had clinical stage III disease. The tpCR rates were 45% and 48.7% for HD201 and referent trastuzumab, respectively. The difference between the 2 groups was not significant at -3.8% (95% CI, -12.8% to 5.4%) and fell within the predefined equivalence margins. The ratio of the tpCR rates between the 2 arms was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.12). A total of 433 patients (86.1%) presented with 2232 treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest for trastuzumab during the entire treatment period, with 220 (88.0%) and 213 (84.5%) patients in the HD201 and referent trastuzumab groups, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this randomized clinical trial found that HD201 demonstrated equivalence to referent trastuzumab in terms of efficacy for the end point of tpCR, with a similar safety profile.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03013504.

First-Line Treatment of HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer With Dual Blockade Including Biosimilar Trastuzumab (SB3): Population-Based Real-World Data From the DBCG

Purpose

Dual blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in combination with chemotherapy is the recommended first-line therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC). The purpose of this retrospective study is to examine the clinical outcomes of the trastuzumab biosimilar SB3 in first-line dual blockade treatment using real-world data of patients with HER-positive mBC.

Methods

In Denmark, all women with breast cancer are registered in the database of the Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG). From this prospective observational registry, we extracted information on primary diagnosis and treatment of all women with HER2-positive mBC who received first-line treatment with SB3 and pertuzumab from September 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020. Retrospectively collected data from the DBCG database included information concerning treatment start, end, and reason for discontinuation. The primary endpoints for the study were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

The study included 117 women who received first-line treatment with SB3 and pertuzumab for their HER2-positive mBC. The study population had a mean age of 60 years. A total of 71 patients (61%) had recurrent disease and 46 patients (39%) presented with de novo mBC. The median follow-up was 11.1 and 15.4 months for PFS and OS, respectively. At 12 months, OS was 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78-91), whereas the median OS was not reached. The median PFS was 12.7 months (95% CI, 11.1-16.2). Median time on treatment was 8.7 months (95% CI, 7.6-11.4); 36 patients (31%) were still on treatment at end of study.

Conclusions

This retrospective real-world, nationwide study demonstrated comparable median PFS to the historical data of using reference trastuzumab and pertuzumab as first-line dual blockade.

Characteristics of Clinical Trials Evaluating Biosimilars in the Treatment of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Biologics account for almost half of US drug spending but may be subject to competitive pricing pressures by US Food and Drug Administration-approved biosimilars. The extent of the preapproval clinical testing that is needed and how these biosimilars compare with the originator biologic products remain critical issues in establishing a vibrant biosimilar market.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the design of cancer biosimilar efficacy studies compared with the reference drug pivotal trials and provide summary risk ratio estimates for each cancer type drug subgroup.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was performed of articles and abstracts published using Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated April 18, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies or abstracts in English comparing a disease-modifying cancer biologic and its biosimilar and reporting efficacy or surrogate efficacy results were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Outcome estimates and study characteristics were extracted from each study. Among biosimilar efficacy studies, random-effects meta-analyses were performed for each cancer type molecule outcome subgroup, calculating pooled relative estimates and 95% CIs.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Study characteristics, such as population size, blinding, and randomization, were compared between biosimilar trials and those of reference drugs. Risk ratio estimates for relative change to surrogate measures (eg, progression-free survival) were collected for biosimilars and their reference products.

RESULTS

A total of 31 cancer biosimilar studies of 3 reference products involving 12 310 patients were included. In all 7 subgroups, the biosimilars analyzed were indistinguishable from their reference drug on surrogate efficacy. Six reference drug trials were included, involving 1811 patients. On average, biosimilar studies involved more patients than reference drug trials (mean number of patients, 397 vs 302), were more likely to be randomized clinical trials rather than single-group or observational studies (100% [31 of 31] vs 50% [3 of 6]), and were more likely to be double blind rather than open label (84% [26 of 31] vs 17% [1 of 6]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the biosimilars for the cancer drugs in this sample were subjected to rigorous clinical evaluations, and the results were statistically indistinguishable from those of original products across drugs, cancer types, and outcome measures.

Trastuzumab in breast cancer treatment: the Era of biosimilars

BACKGROUND

The discovery of trastuzumab as anti-HER2 therapy markedly improved disease control and the survival rates of patients with HER2+ breast cancer. However, as trastuzumab is considered a complex molecule, the cost of production is usually elevated, which significantly affects health budgets and limits the treatment access for patients who live in underdeveloped countries. Recently, trastuzumab production became more accessible and sustainable due to the patents' expiration, allowing biosimilar versions of trastuzumab to be developed.

OBJECTIVE

Our main goal was to shed more light on the uses of biosimilars in breast cancer treatment, emphasizing trastuzumab.

METHOD

An integrative review was carried out in the PubMed, Scielo, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases using the terms "biosimilar," "breast cancer," "monoclonal antibody," and "trastuzumab." The time range included scientific articles published from 2015 to 2021.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The bibliographic survey showed the complexities in biological medicine manufacturing and how the monoclonal antibody's therapy with trastuzumab improved the patients' life expectancy, revolutionizing HER2+ breast cancer treatment. Nonetheless, despite its benefits, trastuzumab generates certain restrictions, especially from the economic perspective. Trastuzumab biosimilars have high selectivity and rarely cause adverse effects compared to conventional chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that trastuzumab biosimilars improve patients' accessibility to breast cancer treatment through a safe and effective therapy compared to the drug reference.

Use of Biosimilar Medications in Oncology

PURPOSE

The increased number and expanded utilization of biosimilars raise important considerations for their safe and appropriate use in oncology practice. This report provides an update on currently approved oncology biosimilars and identifies current knowledge gaps in the management of patients with cancer.

METHODS

An Expert Panel was convened to review the medical literature and to provide a practical summary of currently approved biosimilar therapeutics for cancer treatment or supportive care in the United States.

RESULTS

A total of 17 cancer or cancer-related biosimilar products have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 2015. Despite years of clinical experience with oncology biosimilars, variance in their use persists. ASCO supports that biosimilars and reference products are considered equally efficacious for the purpose of inclusion in ASCO clinical practice guideline recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The use of biosimilars might provide competitive, lower-cost alternatives to biologics used in cancer care, and specific mention in ASCO guidelines and other evidence products is supported where appropriate.

Discontinuation of tyrosine kinase inhibitors based on BCR-ABL1 monitoring by digital droplet PCR in pediatric chronic myeloid leukemia

Lifelong treatment of pediatric chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) can affect their growth and development. For these reasons, clinical trials have explored the feasibility of TKI discontinuation in children with a sufficient TKI response. We evaluated the analytical performance of digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) to quantify BCR-ABL1 and compared the results with reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). We further investigated whether ddPCR could be used to determine TKI discontinuation in a clinical setting. Performance of ddPCR was evaluated using standard materials for BCR-ABL1, and a total of 197 clinical samples from 45 pediatric CML patients was included for comparison with RT-qPCR. ddPCR showed excellent analytical sensitivity with 0.001% international scale (IS) and linearity with R ² > 0.99 in log scale. BCR-ABL1 % IS results correlated well with those of RT-qPCR (R ² = 0.9435), however, they showed a moderate strength for agreement with a Cohen's kappa of 0.41 due to higher sensitivity of ddPCR. Among 45 pediatric CML patients, 42 were treated with first-line TKIs including imatinib (n = 27, 64%) and dasatinib (n = 12, 29%), and three patients that were started with imatinib were switched to dasatinib. When we evaluated whether follow-up samples fulfilled ABL1 copies ≥ 10,000 required for deep molecular response (DMR), all samples were acceptable by ddPCR, whereas 18% by RT-qPCR did not reached acceptable ABL1 copies. Moreover, 52 and 13% reached ABL1 copies ≥ 32,000 required for MR4.5 by ddPCR and RT-qPCR, respectively. Seven patients discontinued TKI and the median TKI treatment duration was 73 months prior to discontinuation. Prior to discontinuation, the median duration of sustained undetected BCR-ABL1 was 60 months. Two patients experienced loss of major MR (MMR) during follow-up and restarted dasatinib 5 months after discontinuation. They achieved MMR again and maintained better than DMR afterward. Results from those patients demonstrated that RT-qPCR did not match the need for adequate ABL1 copies for MR4.5 while majority of ddPCR could. Therefore, ddPCR was technically more acceptable to decide and monitor pediatric CML patients before and after TKI discontinuation.

TROIKA-1: A double-blind, randomized, parallel group, study aimed to demonstrate the equivalent pharmacokinetic profile of HD201, a potential biosimilar candidate to trastuzumab, versus EU-Herceptin® and US-Herceptin® in healthy male subjects

Prestige Biopharma Ltd (Singapore) has developed HD201, a proposed biosimilar to reference product trastuzumab. As a part of the stepwise approach to ensure comparability between the biosimilar candidate and the reference medicinal product, a phase I study in healthy subjects was conducted to demonstrate the pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence (NCT03776240). The primary objective of the study was to demonstrate (PK) equivalence of HD201, EU-Herceptin® , and US-Herceptin® given at 6 mg/kg as a 90-min i.v. infusion to healthy male subjects. A pairwise comparisons based on the primary endpoint AUC0-inf and secondary PK endpoints, AUC0-last and Cmax were undertaken. PK equivalence was to be concluded if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means for each criterion were within the equivalence margin of 80% to 125%. Secondary objectives included assessment of other PK parameters, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity in the three arms. A total of 105 healthy male subjects (35/treatment) were randomized in this study. The 90% CI for the ratios of AUC0-inf , Cmax and AUC0-last , were within 80%-125% for the comparisons of HD201 to EU-Herceptin® or US-Herceptin® and EU-Herceptin® to US-Herceptin® . The frequency of subjects with TEAEs of special interest was slightly lower in the HD201 group (20.0%) compared to the other treatment groups (EU-Herceptin® : 34.3%; US-Herceptin® : 31.4%). Only 1 subject (EU-Herceptin® group) developed anti-drug antibodies prior to dosing. Overall, HD201 demonstrates PK similarity to both EU-Herceptin® and US-Herceptin® . The three study drugs also demonstrated similar safety profiles.

Targeting HER2 in Breast Cancer: Latest Developments on Treatment Sequencing and the Introduction of Biosimilars

Approximately 20% of all breast cancers overexpress the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Targeting breast cancer through this vital oncogenic protein has been a major step towards improved patient outcomes. Today, several anti-HER2 agents are in clinical use including: the monoclonal antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab; the small molecule inhibitors lapatinib, neratinib, and tucatinib; and the antibody-drug conjugates ado-trastuzumab emtansine and trastuzumab deruxtecan, in some jurisdictions. In addition, several trastuzumab biosimilars have recently been granted regulatory approval in North America and the EU, and are enhancing patient access to HER2-directed therapy. The various agents differ greatly in their side-effect profiles and approved indications, from neoadjuvant and adjuvant use in early disease, to first- and later-line use in metastatic disease. This review discusses the current treatment recommendations for the use of anti-HER2 agents alone and in combination, examines the latest advances in HER2-targeted drugs and how they may be best applied in clinical practice, and provides guidance on optimal sequencing of the growing array of therapeutic options for HER2-positive breast cancer.

Progress in oncology biosimilars till 2020: Scrutinizing comparative studies of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies

Stupendous elevation in the healthcare costs has followed with the inception of the current unconventional options of treatment available for cancer patients. There is a dire need of innovative financing approaches to lessen the financial load on healthcare system. Biosimilars are biological drugs consisting of an active ingredient from a reference biological drug that has a great potential of relieving financial load. Strict requirements from regulatory point of view are required as biosimilars are exceedingly similar to but not identical to the reference product. This provides with a certainty that no consequential differences from clinical point of view as compared to the respective biologics exists with regards to efficacy, safety and purity. Safety and effectiveness of biosimilars have been disclosed since more than 10 years of affirmations. However, there is a need to educate the healthcare professionals to abolish potential misconceptions and coalesce biosimilars into regular clinical practice. The present review focuses on providing an overview of regulatory aspects and requirements for biosimilars, the main challenges in the selection and development of biosimilars and the economic impact and financial savings observed in recent studies carried out in different parts of the world. In addition, we have discussed the different successful comparative studies which have been done in different parts of the world to depict the biosimilarity for monoclonal antibodies such as bevacizumab, trastuzumab and rituximab.

Uptake of Trastuzumab Biosimilars for the Treatment of HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Real-World Experience from a Cancer Center

Background: The introduction of trastuzumab biosimilars in clinical practice plays an important role in promoting the sustainability of healthcare systems. By contrast, the switching process can be challenging to the clinics. This survey describes the switching process at a National Cancer Institute over a period of 2 years. Methods: Data regarding all trastuzumab-based regimens for breast cancer (BC) from 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020 were extracted from both adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reporting systems and electronic systems involved in inventory management, prescribing, dispensing, and administration. Both patients under monotherapy and combination treatment regimens were included. There were no exclusion criteria. Results and Conclusions: Overall 354 patients received at least one trastuzumab-based regimen for a total of 493 lines of treatment and 5769 administrations. Biosimilar were used in 34.3% of trastuzumab-based treatments. No differences between biosimilars and reference drug have been observed in terms of ADRs. The effective cost-saving of the first 2 years is greater than EUR 800,000 and it is estimated to increase over time.

Current state and comparison of the clinical development of bevacizumab, rituximab and trastuzumab biosimilars

Monoclonal antibodies are highly complex, large and biologic products with a substantial impact on the clinical management of a variety of diseases including cancer. The expiry of patents for essential monoclonal antibodies in cancer care such as bevacizumab, rituximab and trastuzumab, has prompted the global development of biosimilars to balance the biologics market. However, an understanding of the different approach of biosimilar development compared with its reference medicinal product, especially in the context of clinical trial design and end point selection may help oncologists integrating biosimilars into clinical practice. Herein, we reviewed the clinical development of biosimilars in oncology comparing the available clinical data of proposed biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab and trastuzumab.

Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of HLX02 Compared with Reference Trastuzumab in Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Equivalence Trial

BACKGROUND

HLX02 is an approved biosimilar of trastuzumab.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluated the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of HLX02 compared with reference trastuzumab in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, phase III study was conducted at 89 centers in China, the Philippines, Poland, and Ukraine. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to receive HLX02 or European Union (EU)-sourced trastuzumab (initial dose of 8 mg/kg, followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 12 months) in combination with docetaxel intravenously. The primary endpoint was overall response rate up to week 24 (ORR₂₄). Equivalence was declared if the 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference was within ± 13.5%. Safety and immunogenicity were evaluated in patients who received at least one dose of study medication.

RESULTS

Between 11 November 2016 and 10 July 2019, a total of 649 patients were enrolled. The ORR₂₄ was 71.3 and 71.4% in the HLX02 (n = 324) and EU-trastuzumab (n = 325) groups, with a difference of - 0.1% (95% CI - 7 to 6.9), which fell entirely in the predefined equivalence margins. No statistically significant differences were observed in all secondary efficacy analyses. Safety profiles and immunogenicity were comparable in HLX02 and EU-trastuzumab groups. In total, 98.8% of patients in each group experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), 23.8 and 24.9% experienced serious TEAEs, and 0.6% in each group had antidrug antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with HER2-positive recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, HLX02 demonstrated equivalent efficacy and similar safety and immunogenicity to reference trastuzumab.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinadrugtrials.org CTR20160526 (12 September 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03084237 (20 March 2017), EudraCT 2016-000206-10 (27 April 2017).

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive early breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

Aims:

Currently, there are many approaches available for neoadjuvant therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer that improve therapeutic efficacy but are also controversial. We conducted a two-step Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare odds ratios (ORs) for pathologic complete response (PCR) and safety endpoints.

Methods:

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and online abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium were searched comprehensively and systematically. Phase II/III randomised clinical trials for targeted therapy in at least one arm were included.

Results:

A total of 9779 published manuscripts were identified, and 36 studies including 10,379 patients were finally included in our analysis. The NMA of PCR showed that dual-target therapy is better than single-target therapy and combination chemotherapy is better than monochemotherapy. However, anthracycline did not bring extra benefits, whether combined with dual-target therapy or single-target therapy. On the other hand, the addition of endocrine therapy in the HER2-positive, hormone receptor (HR)-positive subgroup might have additional beneficial effects but without significant statistical difference. By performing a conjoint analysis of the PCR rate and safety endpoints, we found that ‘trastuzumab plus pertuzumab’ and ‘T-DM1 containing regimens’ were well balanced in terms of efficacy and toxicity in all target regimens.

Conclusion:

In summary, trastuzumab plus pertuzumab-based dual-target therapy with combination chemotherapy regimens showed the highest efficacy of all optional regimens. They also achieved the best balance between efficacy and toxicity. As our study showed that anthracycline could be replaced by carboplatin, we strongly recommended TCbHP as the preferred choice for neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. We also look forward to the potential value of T-DM1 in improving outcomes, which needs further study in future trials.

Trastuzumab immunogenicity development in patients' sera and in laboratory animals

Background

Immunogenicity is a major challenge in drug development and patient care. Clinicians and regulators are familiar with immunogenicity concerns of monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapeutics, growth factors and enzyme replacements. Although most small therapeutic molecules are unlikely to trigger undesirable immunogenic responses against themselves upon their administration, the biological therapeutic agents are likely to induce such kind of immunogenicity. This imparts a problem that has to be considered upon judging their risk–benefit ratio. In this article, we tested the immunogenicity developed in patients’ sera due to the use of trastuzumab and that developed in laboratory animals injected with this recombinant humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody.

Methods

We studied trastuzumab immunogenicity by: I in vitro detection of anti-trastuzumab antibody (Ab) levels in patient’s serum samples withdrawn at different points during trastuzumab treatment course; I.1 using an Affinity Capture Elution (ACE) assay, the assay is both sensitive and highly tolerant to free drug; I.2 using MTT cytotoxicity method against MCF-7 cell line as confirmatory method used in sample showed high level of anti-trastuzumab Ab and to determine neutralizing activity of the anti-trastuzumab Ab. II in vivo immunogenicity testing of trastuzumab in lab animals.

Results

In vitro analysis of patients’ sera for antibodies developed against trastuzumab revealed that this monoclonal antibody has low immunogenicity since most samples showed low levels of anti-trastuzumab antibodies that decreased progressively along the treatment course. Only 1% of samples showed high levels of anti-trastuzumab antibodies which might affect treatment course. In vivo immunogenicity testing in mice showed also low immunogenicity of trastuzumab that could support the in vitro clinical assessment applied in our study.

Conclusions

The study gives an evidence for the low trastuzumab immunogenicity when assessed in Egyptian patients under treatment with this biological therapeutic agent. This supports its prescription and continuous use across the approved indications as biological therapeutic agent.

Feasibility of HER2-Targeted Therapy in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: A Prospective Pilot Study of Trastuzumab Biosimilar in Combination with Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin

The prognosis of advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) is poor with the standard gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) regimen. Given that the rates of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positivity in BTC reaches around 15%, HER2-targeted therapy needs further investigation. This study aims to evaluate the preliminary efficacy/safety of first-line trastuzumab-pkrb plus GemCis in patients with advanced BTC. Patients with unresectable/metastatic HER2-positive BTC received trastuzumab-pkrb (on day 1 of each cycle, 8 mg/kg for the first cycle and 6 mg/kg for subsequent cycles), gemcitabine (1000 mg/m² on day 1 and 8) and cisplatin (25 mg/m² on day 1 and 8) every 3 weeks. Of the 41 patients screened, 7 had HER2-positive tumours and 4 were enrolled. The median age was 72.5 years (one male). Primary tumour locations included extrahepatic (N = 2) and intrahepatic (N = 1) bile ducts, and gallbladder (N = 1). Best overall response was a partial response in two patients and stable disease in two patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.1 months and median overall survival (OS) was not reached. The most common grade 3 adverse event was neutropenia (75%), but febrile neutropenia did not occur. No patient discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Trastuzumab-pkrb with GemCis showed promising preliminary feasibility in patients with HER2-positive advanced BTC.

Safety and Clinical Evaluation of Dual Inhibition with Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab Biosimilar SB3 in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients

<b><i>Background:</i></b> The addition of trastuzumab to standard chemotherapy has improved survival in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer in neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings. In higher tumor stages, the addition of pertuzumab is now a standard of care and associated with a favorable toxicity profile. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the trastuzumab biosimilar SB3 in combination with pertuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer patients. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Seventy-eight patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated at the Division of Oncology at the Medical University of Graz were included. Summary measures are reported as medians (25th to 75th percentile) for continuous variables and as absolute frequencies (%) for count data. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Thirty-five patients received a median of 4 (3–7) cycles of trastuzumab biosimilar SB3 plus pertuzumab. All patients had a normal baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; &#x3e;50%) prior to the initiation of SB3 plus pertuzumab treatment with a median LVEF of 60% (60–65). Twenty-one patients had a median absolute LVEF decline of 1% (–5 to 0). Two patients (5.7%) had a LVEF reduction ≤50%, but none ≥10%. There were no unexpected adverse events. Twenty-two of 35 patients (63%) were treated with trastuzumab biosimilar SB3 and pertuzumab in the neoadjuvant setting and 11 patients (50%) achieved a pathological complete response. The safety and the efficacy in this setting was comparable to the trastuzumab plus pertuzumab combination in neoadjuvantly treated matched samples. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> In this series of HER2-positive breast cancer patients, the combination of SB3 plus pertuzumab was consistent with the known safety and efficacy profile of trastuzumab and pertuzumab combination.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HER2 dual blockade including biosimilar trastuzumab (SB3) for HER2-positive early breast cancer: Population based real world data from the Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG)

BACKGROUND

Dual blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been increasingly used for HER2-positive tumours >2 cm and/or with positive axillary lymph nodes in order to evaluate pathologic response and obtain better surgical management. SB3 is a registered biosimilar trastuzumab approved following a phase III trial demonstrating similar efficacy in the neoadjuvant setting as trastuzumab. However, the study was done without pertuzumab.

METHOD

The database of the Danish Breast Cancer Group was used to extract data on all patients who started NACT with SB3 and pertuzumab between September 1, 2018 and August 31, 2019. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR) rate.

RESULTS

In total 215 patients received NACT and dual blockade. The median age was 55 (24-81). NACT used was cyclophosphamide and epirubicin followed by weekly paclitaxel (62% on six cycles, 35% on eight cycles) or other chemotherapy followed by weekly paclitaxel (3%). Overall, 56% of patients achieved pCR. 60 of 88 node-positive patients pre-NACT achieved ypN0(i-) after neoadjuvant treatment. pCR rate was significantly associated with estrogen receptor status and malignancy grade. An association with CEP17/HER2-ratio was assessed.

CONCLUSION

Real world data on dual blockade with SB3 and pertuzumab in combination with NACT in a nationwide population-based study show a pCR rate comparable to that seen in previous clinical studies.

A randomized, double-blind, parallel pharmacokinetic study comparing the trastuzumab biosimilar candidate, AryoTrust®, and reference trastuzumab in healthy subjects

BACKGROUND

AryoTrust® (AryoGen Pharmed Co., Iran) is a biosimilar candidate for the EU-sourced reference trastuzumab, Herceptin®. This study was designed to evaluate the bioequivalence between AryoTrust® and Herceptin®.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this double-blind, parallel study, 60 healthy male subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive a single dose of AryoTrust® or Herceptin® (6 mg/kg) as intravenous infusion. The primary endpoint of the study was the area under the concentration versus time to infinity (AUC_0-inf), and the main secondary endpoints were maximum measured concentration (C_max), area under the concentration versus time from zero to the last quantifiable concentration time (AUC_0-last), immunogenicity, and safety.

RESULTS

Sixty subjects were enrolled in the study and baseline demographics were similar between the two groups. The two groups demonstrated similar pharmacokinetic parameters and the 90% confidence interval (CI) for primary and secondary endpoints were within the bioequivalence acceptance range (80.00%-125.00%). No serious adverse event or immunogenicity was reported, and all of the adverse events reported were mild and similar between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

AryoTrust® was well tolerated, had a similar safety profile to reference trastuzumab, and its pharmacokinetic bioequivalence was confirmed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered at Indian Trials Registry (CTRI/2019/03/018218).

Real-world intensive safety monitoring of biosimilars rituximab and trastuzumab in a Portuguese oncology hospital

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the safety profiles of two biosimilar medicines (rituximab and trastuzumab) in the treatment of cancer patients within a Portuguese oncology hospital.

METHODS

This hospital-based prospective observational study followed a cohort event monitoring approach focused on signalling suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Patients undergoing treatment with rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 (Truxima®) or trastuzumab biosimilar CT-P6 (Herzuma®) were recruited over an 11-month and a 6-month period, respectively. Clinicians identified eligible patients and used paper-based forms to report all ADRs associated with biosimilar medicines. ADR case reports were assessed for seriousness, expectedness and causality in the Pharmacovigilance Unit of Coimbra.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients received biosimilar medicines (rituximab, n = 35; trastuzumab, n = 59). Of those, 4 patients (11.4%) experienced 16 ADRs with rituximab and 1 patient (1.7%) experienced 5 ADRs with trastuzumab. All case reports contained serious and expected ADRs that were at least probably related with biosimilar medicines under study. Based on the MedDRA PT coding, the most reported ADR for rituximab CT-P10 was chest discomfort (n = 4; 19.1%), followed by odynophagia (n = 2; 9.5%). Trastuzumab CT-P6 was associated with back pain, headache, pain in extremity, tachypnoea and tremor (each, n = 1; 4.8%).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that using biosimilar rituximab and biosimilar trastuzumab to treat cancer patients in the real-world clinical setting is associated with acceptable safety profiles. No new safety problems were identified.

Methodological aspects of superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials

Depending on the scientific hypothesis to be addressed, randomized-controlled trials (RCT) are accordingly designed. RCTs that aim to determine whether a novel, experimental therapeutic intervention (either a drug or a treatment) is superior to a placebo or control intervention, are called superiority trials. Less common are the non-inferiority RCTs, designed to assess whether a new intervention is not unacceptably worse than an already existing reference intervention. An equivalence RCT is designed to investigate whether a novel treatment is equivalently effective to another, already existing, control intervention. In equivalence and non-inferiority RCTs, the efficacy of the reference intervention (active comparator) is already established, and therefore, an untreated control group would not be ethical. In this review, using a series of examples derived from equivalence and non-inferiority/superiority RCTs, we describe the main differences and methodological aspects among these three different types of RCTs.

Biologic Drug Quality Assurance to Optimize HER2 + Breast Cancer Treatment: Insights from Development of the Trastuzumab Biosimilar SB3

SB3 is a biosimilar of trastuzumab that has been approved for use in the treatment of human epidermal growth factor 2-positive breast cancer and human epidermal growth factor 2-positive gastric cancer. Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity is one of several critical quality attributes of trastuzumab. Data from the development of SB3 support the hypothesis of a relationship between antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity activity and clinical outcomes in terms of the response rate and long-term survival. Current analytic methods utilizing advanced technology allow the detection of small changes in other quality attributes that influence antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, such as glycosylation and FcγRIIIa binding. Use of such methods to monitor batch-to-batch consistency enables production of trastuzumab biosimilars with consistent quality. Trastuzumab biosimilars such as SB3 therefore have the potential to increase accessibility to trastuzumab-based therapy without compromising efficacy or safety.

A Clinical Review of Biosimilars Approved in Oncology

Objective

To summarize and review the clinical data of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biosimilars for use in treatment of cancer and the current challenges health care institutions face when implementing a newly approved biosimilar.

Data Sources

A literature search of the following databases was performed between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019: PubMed, Google, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Search terms included the words biosimilar, bevacizumab, rituximab, and/or trastuzumab.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Only primary literature on biosimilars with an ongoing or completed phase 3 trial and/or FDA approval were included in the final analysis. Primary literature consisted of peer-reviewed publications, published abstracts, and any results posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

Data Synthesis

Clinical trials of FDA-approved biosimilars for bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab showed no significant differences with respect to efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics when compared with their reference products.

Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice

The anticipated growth of biologics in oncology and the recent introduction of biosimilars over the past few years have placed a lot of emphasis on biosimilars as a significant source of cost savings for the health care system. Our article compiles and analyzes existing data on biosimilar efficacy, safety, and financial impact.

Conclusions

The major concerns of biosimilars revolve around their long-term efficacy and safety. Even with many questions to be answered, biosimilars have the potential for significant cost savings in the US health care system.

Totality of Scientific Evidence in the Development of ABP 980, a Biosimilar to Trastuzumab

ABP 980 was developed as a biosimilar to trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), that is indicated for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, early breast cancer (EBC), and metastatic gastric cancer. ABP 980 is approved in the United States, European Union, and Japan for all the indications of trastuzumab, based on the totality of evidence (TOE) gathered by the systematic step-wise accumulation of comparative analytical, preclinical, and clinical (pharmacokinetics [PK], efficacy, safety and immunogenicity) data for ABP 980 and trastuzumab reference product (RP). As a key first step of the ABP 980 biosimilar program, comprehensive analytical characterization of critical quality attributes established that ABP 980 is structurally and functionally similar to trastuzumab RP. Complementing these data, results of non-clinical pharmacology, toxicology, and toxicokinetic studies supported similarity between ABP 980 and trastuzumab RP. A randomized study in healthy subjects demonstrated clinical PK equivalence of ABP 980 relative to trastuzumab RP in these subjects. In the final clinical evaluation step, a randomized comparative study (LILAC) confirmed the lack of clinically meaningful differences between ABP 980 and trastuzumab RP in efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in women with HER2-positive EBC in the neoadjuvant–adjuvant setting. Neoadjuvant EBC represented a sensitive homogenous population for biosimilar demonstrations, and the primary endpoint of pathologic complete response served as a sensitive surrogate endpoint. An important aspect of the LILAC study design is that it is the only study that evaluated the effect of switching from the trastuzumab RP to a trastuzumab biosimilar during the adjuvant phase. No new or unexpected safety signals emerged in the clinical evaluations, with the safety profile of ABP 980 consistent with that previously described for trastuzumab. Overall, the TOE data generated for ABP 980 support the conclusion that it is highly similar to trastuzumab RP, thus providing the scientific justification for extrapolation to all the approved indications of trastuzumab.

Quality of adverse event reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of breast and colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Background

Clinical trial reports often emphasize efficacy over harms, leading to misinterpretation of the risk‐to‐benefit ratio of new therapies. Clear and sufficiently detailed reporting of methods and results is especially important in the abstracts of trial reports, as readers often base their assessment of a trial on such information. In this study, we evaluated the quality of adverse event (AE) reporting and abstract quality in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic therapies in breast and colorectal cancer.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of RCTs, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from November 2005 to September 2018. Phase III RCTs evaluating systemic therapies in breast or colorectal cancer were included. Each article was independently reviewed by two investigators using a standardized data extraction form based on guidelines developed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariable linear regression were used to analyze data. All statistical tests were two‐sided.

Results

Of 166 RCTs identified, 99.4% reported harms in the manuscript body, and 59.6% reported harms in the abstract. Reporting was restricted to severe harms in 15.6% of RCTs. Statistical comparison of AE rates went unreported in 59.0% of studies. Information regarding AEs leading to dose reductions, treatment discontinuations, or study withdrawals went unreported in 59.3%, 18.7%, and 86.8% of studies, respectively. Recently published RCTs (P = .009) and those sponsored at least partially by for‐profit companies (P = .003) had higher abstract quality scores.

Conclusions

Breast and colorectal cancer phase III RCTs inadequately report CONSORT‐compliant AE data. Improved guideline adherence and abstract reporting is required to properly weigh benefits and harms of new oncologic therapies.

Systematic Review Registration Number

CRD42019140673.

Assessment of the Molecular Mechanism of Action of SB3, a Trastuzumab Biosimilar

Background

SB3, a biosimilar of Herceptin^® (trastuzumab, hereinafter referred to as reference product) is currently approved in the EU, Korea, Australia, the USA, and Brazil for the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) 2-positive early and metastatic breast cancer and HER2-positive metastatic gastric cancer. Previously, the biological similarity of SB3 to EU- or US-sourced reference product was assessed using various cell-based and binding assays.

Objective

In this paper, as a part of its similarity assessment, SB3 was evaluated for additional characteristics related to its molecular mechanism of action (MoA).

Methods

For extracellular effects of SB3, HER2-overexpressing cancer cell lines were used to assess expression of surface HER2, shedding of the extracellular domain of HER2, and antibody-dependent cell-mediated phagocytosis (ADCP) activity. For intracellular effects, Akt phosphorylation and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) release were assessed. Additionally, in vitro docetaxel or pertuzumab combination experiments were performed for further characterization; anti-proliferation, HER2/HER3 dimerization inhibition, apoptosis, and antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) assays were used.

Results

It was confirmed that SB3 is highly similar to the reference products on quality attributes related to extracellular/intracellular efficacy. This similarity was also confirmed during combination studies with docetaxel and pertuzumab.

Conclusion

Overall, the equivalence of SB3 with reference product in MoA-related qualities in in vitro mono- and combination therapy experiments may support clinical bioequivalence of the two substances.

Understanding the Role of Comparative Clinical Studies in the Development of Oncology Biosimilars

Biosimilars have the potential to broaden patient access to biologics and provide cost savings for health care systems. During the development of a biosimilar, data that directly compare the proposed biosimilar with the reference product are required. Such comparative data are generated in a stepwise hierarchical process that begins with extensive laboratory-based structural analyses and functional assays. This initial analytical phase serves as the foundation for the demonstration of biosimilarity and is followed by nonclinical in vivo testing (if required) and then clinical evaluation, including a comparative pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics study that is usually conducted in healthy volunteers. The development program typically culminates with a comparative clinical efficacy study. The aim of this study is to confirm clinical equivalence of the potential biosimilar and reference product on the basis of prespecified margins, using a study population and efficacy end point that are sufficiently sensitive for detecting potential product-related differences. Such studies also include detailed analyses of safety as well as evaluation of immunogenicity. As biosimilars become more widely available in oncology, especially with recent regulatory approvals of rituximab, trastuzumab, and bevacizumab biosimilars, it is critically important that clinicians understand how the comparative clinical study differs from a traditional phase III efficacy and safety study in the development of a novel biologic originator product. Here, we review the role of comparative clinical studies in biosimilar development, with a focus on trials conducted to support approved trastuzumab biosimilars. We discuss the study populations and end points used, extrapolation of indications, and the confirmatory nature of these studies within the totality of evidence supporting biosimilarity.

[Biosimilars antibodies: positioning compared to originators - the experience in rheumatology and the biosimilars of trastuzumab in oncology]

Biosimilars have demonstrated their equivalence with biologic originators, according to rigorous specifications imposed by the regulatory agencies, the FDA and the EMA. Their development is justified by the very high cost of biopharmaceuticals, and strong incentives for their prescription lead us to hope substantial savings, allowing to finance other innovative molecules. Trastuzumab marked history of the treatment of breast cancer. Four biosimilars of trastuzumab are available for routine use and we will detail the key points of their development.

Biosimilars for breast cancer: a review of HER2-targeted antibodies in the United States

The utilization of trastuzumab biosimilar medications is of particular interest in HER2-positive breast cancer as these drugs have the potential for cost savings and increased utilization/access to HER2 targeted therapy in both early stage and metastatic HER2-positive breast cancers. Five trastuzumab biosimilars: MYL-1401O (Ogivri), CT-P6 (Herzuma), SB3 (Ontruzant), PF-05280014 (Trazimera), and ABP980 (Kanjinti), have now been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in HER2-positive breast cancers. This review provides an overview of these agents with special consideration of the development and approval process, including available clinical data results for these trastuzumab biosimilars. Adoption in the clinic will depend on the degree of comfort with the overall evidence.

The rise of oncology biosimilars: from process to promise

Biosimilars are biologic products that are highly similar to, and have no clinically meaningful differences from, the approved originator molecule. They are poised to play an increasingly central role in cancer treatment, helping to improve access by driving down costs. Regulatory bodies have set out robust mechanisms for the approval of biosimilars, based on comprehensive and rigorous analytical and nonclinical comparisons with the originator. Product attributes (e.g., post-translational modifications) that are important to the function of the molecule must be similar between biosimilar and originator. This should be followed by a robust clinical development program, assessing pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. Equivalence in one indication might allow extrapolation across all the indications of the originator biologic. The recent approval of several trastuzumab biosimilars provides an example of how this process can work in practice for the benefit of patients, clinicians and payers.

Are Biosimilars the Future of Oncology and Haematology?

Biological drugs are vital but often high-cost components of cancer treatment. Several biosimilar versions of these drugs have been approved in Europe and/or the USA, with many more in development. However, there is some disconnect between the biosimilars that are approved for use and those accessible in clinical practice, with availability impacted by factors including patent litigation and complex healthcare insurance policies, particularly in the USA. Provided the barriers to widespread uptake can be overcome, biosimilars offer potential benefits including cost savings and improved patient access versus the reference product (RP). This article provides an up-to-date and focused perspective on the development and use of biosimilars in the haemato-oncology setting. European and US regulatory pathways governing biosimilar licensing demand that there are no clinically meaningful differences between a biosimilar and its RP. Pathways are rigorously enforced and involve comprehensive non-clinical evaluations and clinical trials in selected indications to establish the equivalence or non-inferiority of efficacy, and the comparability of safety, of the biosimilar versus its RP. 'Indication extrapolation' is only permitted if scientifically justifiable considering mechanism(s) of action, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity and safety in relevant patient populations. Switching treatment from RP to biosimilar is supported by most available data, predominantly from indications other than cancer, and post-marketing pharmacovigilance programmes are warranted. Notably, the potential benefits of biosimilar cancer treatment may extend beyond direct cost savings: for example, the availability of biosimilars of common regimen components may help incentivise the evaluation and/or clinical use of new treatment approaches and novel drugs.

A Roundtable Discussion of the Breast Cancer Therapy Expert Group (BCTEG): Clinical Developments and Practice Guidance on Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2)-positive Breast Cancer

Expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in breast cancer defines a subset of patients (∼15%-20%) who are candidates for anti-HER2 therapies, most notably, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, antibody drug conjugates (eg, T-DM1), and tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) drugs (eg, lapatinib and neratinib), all of which have dramatically changed the prognosis for this aggressive subtype of breast cancer. A roundtable meeting of the Breast Cancer Therapy Expert Group (BCTEG) was convened in March 2018 in an effort to discuss and clarify, from the perspective of the practicing community oncologist, recent developments in the diagnosis and treatment of HER2-positive (HER2⁺) breast cancer. Members of the group selected 4 key topics for discussion prior to the meeting, including diagnosis of HER2⁺ disease, and its treatment in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings. Approved testing methods, such as immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization, are used to demonstrate overexpression and/or amplification of HER2 in breast tumors, and established clinical guidelines are used to appropriately define treatment plans for patients with HER2⁺ disease. The panel acknowledges a range of treatment options now available for treatment of HER2⁺ breast cancer in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and advanced/metastatic settings, although it is noted that many controversies remain, including the optimal sequence of therapies, the most appropriate treatment(s) for subsets of patients with HER2⁺ disease (eg, hormone receptor-negative or -positive/HER2⁺), and uncertainties surrounding the diagnosis and definition of HER2⁺ disease. The current report summarizes the discussion of the BCTEG panel on this topic.