Safety interim analysis (SIA) of atractib: A phase 2 trial of first-line (1L) atezolizumab (A) in combination with paclitaxel (P) and bevacizumab (B) in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC)

1084

Background: A substantial benefit from adding an immune checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy (CT) was reported in mTNBC patients (pts) with PD-L1+ tumors. However, many pts still have a poor outcome. ATRACTIB is exploring the synergism between A (anti-PD-L1 antibody) and B (a VEGF-targeted antibody) with P in mTNBC irrespective of PD-L1 status. We report results from protocol-specified SIA. Methods: ATRACTIB is an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial (NCT04408118). Pts aged ≥18 years, with unresectable locally advanced or mTNBC, ECOG performance status of 0–1, who had received no prior systemic therapy or ≥12 months since (neo)adjuvant taxane-based CT are eligible. Pts receive A (840 mg IV, days 1, 15) with P (90 mg/m2 IV, days 1, 8, 15), and B (10 mg/kg IV, days 1, 15) on each 28-day cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal. Primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) as per RECIST v.1.1. Secondary endpoints include objective response and clinical benefit rates, overall survival, and safety. The trial was designed to detect a treatment effect in terms of median PFS (H0: ≤7 months; H1: ≥9.5 months) and 100 pts are needed to attain 80% power at a nominal one-sided α level of 5%. One SIA was planned for evaluating safety as per CTCAE v.5.0 on the first 20 pts who had completed a 3-month follow-up or reached the end of study. Results: From Oct 5, 2020, through Nov 21, 2021, 34 pts were enrolled at 13 sites in Spain and Germany and received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Median age was 57.5 (range 40–84) years, 23 (67.6%) pts had received prior CT for early disease, and 19 (56.0%) had visceral disease. At data cutoff (Sep 30, 2021), 25 (71.4%) pts were still receiving the drug regimen. Adverse events (AEs) led to drug discontinuation in 3 (8.8%) pts. Mean relative dose intensity was 90.2% for A, 96.5% for P, and 95.7% for B. P dose reduction was reported in 7 (20.6%) pts. Five (14.7) pts required a dose delay due to AEs (11.8% for A, 11.8% for P, and 8.8% for B). The most common AEs of any grade (G) were fatigue (47.1%; 8.8% G≥3), diarrhea (38.2%; 0% G≥3), and neurotoxicity (35.3%; 8.8% G≥3). Anemia (20.6%; 0% G≥3) and neutropenia (17.6%; 8.8% G≥3) were the most frequent hematological AEs. AEs of clinical interest (AECI) for B were hypertension (17.6%; 5.9% G≥3) and pulmonary embolism (2.9%; 0% G≥3). AECI for A were pneumonitis (2.9%; 0% G≥3), autoimmune hepatitis (2.9%; 2.9% G≥3), and alanine aminotransferase increased (2.9%; 2.9% G≥3). No treatment-related deaths were reported. Conclusions: The addition of A to P and B as 1L therapy for mTNBC shows a tolerable safety profile which is consistent with known safety profile of each agent without a significant synergistic toxicity. Based on the independent data monitoring committee recommendation, patient recruitment is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT04408118.

Experience with eribulin in patients with metastatic breast cancer and associated hepatic impairment: case studies

Hepatic impairment in breast cancer arises from metastatic spread of tumor cells to the liver and signals a poor prognosis. Systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment. Three women with hepatic dysfunction secondary to breast cancer who were treated with eribulin are presented herein. In the first case, third-line eribulin at the time of acute liver failure due to metastases maintained response for up to 9 months with good tolerability. In the second case, a woman with secondary bone and liver disease had progression-free survival of 5 months to third-line eribulin and, upon rechallenge after a drug holiday, had almost four more months of stable disease. Last, a heavily pretreated patient with secondary bone and hepatic involvement showed a response to fourth-line eribulin.