Article Tools
ORIGINAL REPORTS
Breast Cancer
Article Tools
Neratinib Plus Capecitabine Versus Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine in HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated With ≥ 2 HER2-Directed Regimens: Phase III NALA Trial
Abstract
NALA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01808573) is a randomized, active-controlled, phase III trial comparing neratinib, an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), plus capecitabine (N+C) against lapatinib, a reversible dual TKI, plus capecitabine (L+C) in patients with centrally confirmed HER2-positive, metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with ≥ 2 previous HER2-directed MBC regimens.
Patients, including those with stable, asymptomatic CNS disease, were randomly assigned 1:1 to neratinib (240 mg once every day) plus capecitabine (750 mg/m2 twice a day 14 d/21 d) with loperamide prophylaxis, or to lapatinib (1,250 mg once every day) plus capecitabine (1,000 mg/m2 twice a day 14 d/21 d). Coprimary end points were centrally confirmed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). NALA was considered positive if either primary end point was met (α split between end points). Secondary end points were time to CNS disease intervention, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), clinical benefit rate, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
A total of 621 patients from 28 countries were randomly assigned (N+C, n = 307; L+C, n = 314). Centrally reviewed PFS was improved with N+C (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.93; stratified log-rank P = .0059). The OS HR was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.07; P = .2098). Fewer interventions for CNS disease occurred with N+C versus L+C (cumulative incidence, 22.8% v 29.2%; P = .043). ORRs were N+C 32.8% (95% CI, 27.1 to 38.9) and L+C 26.7% (95% CI, 21.5 to 32.4; P = .1201); median DoR was 8.5 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74; P = .0004). The most common all-grade adverse events were diarrhea (N+C 83% v L+C 66%) and nausea (53% v 42%). Discontinuation rates and HRQoL were similar between groups.
Systemic treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may include trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1),1,2 which demonstrated efficacy in the CLEOPATRA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00567190),3 EMILIA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00829166),4 and TH3RESA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01419197)5 studies. Lapatinib, a reversible, dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), plus capecitabine (L+C) was superior to capecitabine in the EGF100151 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00078572),6 which led to approval of L+C for HER2-positive MBC in patients who received prior anthracycline, a taxane, and trastuzumab.7 Neratinib (Nerlynx; Puma Biotechnology, Los Angeles, CA) is an irreversible pan-HER (HER1, HER2, and HER4) TKI,8 which demonstrated preliminary efficacy in combination with capecitabine (N+C) in MBC.9,10 Neratinib was approved by the European Medicines Agency for extended adjuvant treatment of early-stage, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-positive breast cancer11 and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for extended adjuvant treatment of early-stage, HER2-positive breast cancer12 on the basis of the phase III ExteNET trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00878709).13 On the basis of results described herein, the FDA approved neratinib in combination with capecitabine for patients with advanced/metastatic disease after ≥ 2 prior lines of HER2-directed therapy in MBC.14 The primary toxicity associated with neratinib is diarrhea. In the NEfERT-T trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00915018), which did not mandate primary diarrhea prophylaxis, 30% of patients had grade 3 diarrhea15; prophylaxis or dose-escalation regimens reduced grade 3 diarrhea to as little as 15% in the extended adjuvant CONTROL trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02400476).16
Key Objective
The NALA trial (N = 621) was designed to compare neratinib plus capecitabine (N+C) versus lapatinib plus capecitabine (L+C) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who received ≥ 2 HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, including those with asymptomatic or stable (treated or untreated) CNS metastases.
Knowledge Generated
N+C was superior to L+C in NALA: there was a statistically significant benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) favoring N+C (hazard ratio, 0.76; 1-year PFS, N+C 29% v L+C 15%), translating to a 2.2-month mean improvement in PFS. Significantly fewer patients treated with N+C required intervention for CNS disease, suggesting prevention of—or delayed time to development of—CNS disease compared with L+C.
Relevance
NALA is the first study to demonstrate superiority of one HER2-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitor over another in MBC. N+C is an appropriate treatment option for patients with HER2-positive MBC progressing after ≥ 2 lines of HER2-directed treatment.
Although overall survival (OS) has improved dramatically in HER2-positive MBC in the past decade, it remains much higher for de novo MBC than relapsed disease,17 and other challenges continue, including de novo and acquired resistance to HER2-targeted antibody therapy.5,18 Furthermore, pertuzumab or T-DM1 efficacy in MBC is unknown after adjuvant treatment with either agent, and few agents have demonstrated activity in reducing the incidence of CNS metastases.19 Although CNS recurrence is a particular challenge in breast cancer,20,21 the LANDSCAPE study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00967031) reported a CNS response rate of 66% with lapatinib in HER2-positive MBC and previously untreated brain metastases,22 and EGF100151 reported numerically fewer CNS metastases with L+C versus capecitabine in HER2-positive advanced breast cancer.6
Neratinib has demonstrated activity in preventing and treating brain metastases in HER2-positive MBC. In NEfERT-T, CNS recurrences were lower (relative risk, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.79; P = .002) and time to CNS metastases delayed (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.78; P = .004) with neratinib plus paclitaxel versus trastuzumab plus paclitaxel.15 In TBCRC 022 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01494662), N+C was also active against refractory, HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastases, with composite CNS overall response rates of 49% in lapatinib-naïve patients and 33% in lapatinib-pretreated patients.10
On the basis of prior phase I/II safety and efficacy results for N+C in HER2-positive MBC,9 the NALA trial was designed to compare N+C versus L+C in patients with HER2-positive MBC who received ≥ 2 HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, including those with asymptomatic CNS metastases.
NALA is a randomized, active-controlled, phase III trial comparing N+C and L+C in HER2-positive MBC. Eligible patients were age ≥ 18 years, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1, centrally confirmed HER2-positive MBC,23 and ≥ 2 previous HER2-directed therapies for MBC. Patients with brain metastases were eligible unless they had symptomatic or unstable brain metastases (Data Supplement). Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to N+C or L+C. The randomization sequence was stratified by: hormone receptor status (hormone receptor positive [estrogen or progesterone receptor positive or both; positivity defined per DAKO test kit24] v hormone receptor negative [estrogen and progesterone receptor negative]), number of previous HER2-directed therapies for MBC (2 or ≥ 3), geographic region (North America or Europe [including Israel] or rest of world), and visceral disease (yes/no).
The protocol was approved by national/institutional ethics committees at participating sites and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients provided written informed consent.
This was an open-label study; central assessments were performed by independent reviewers blinded to patients’ treatment assignments. The sponsor’s statisticians were blinded to assignments until unblinding at time of primary progression-free survival (PFS) and OS analyses.
Patients were randomly assigned to N+C (neratinib 240 mg orally once daily continuously in 21-day cycles with no break between cycles, plus capecitabine 1,500 mg/m2 orally daily in 2 evenly spaced doses [750 mg/m2 twice a day] on days 1-14 of 21-day cycles) or L+C (lapatinib 1,250 mg orally once daily continuously, plus capecitabine 2,000 mg/m2 orally daily in 2 evenly spaced doses [1,000 mg/m2 twice a day] on days 1-14 of 21-day cycles). The capecitabine dose in N+C was based on that used in the phase I/II trial of N+C in HER2-positive MBC9 (maximum tolerated dose, 1,500 mg/m2/d in combination with neratinib). Prophylactic antidiarrheal medication was mandated in N+C for the duration of cycle 1 (Appendix, online only). The L+C doses and the decision to not include mandatory antidiarrheal prophylaxis in L+C was based on the prescribing information.25 Concurrent endocrine therapy was not permitted.
Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0). Patient assessments are detailed in the Appendix.
Coprimary end points were independently adjudicated PFS (the interval from date of random assignment until first date on which progression [per RECIST; version 1.1] or death due to any cause was documented, censored at the last assessable evaluation or at initiation of new anticancer therapy; blinded central review) and OS (time from random assignment to death due to any cause). Tumor assessments were performed every 6 weeks using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Baseline MRI and screening for CNS metastases were not mandated. Secondary end points were: time to intervention for metastatic CNS disease (included radiotherapy, surgery, or CNS-directed concomitant medications), investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), and clinical benefit rate (CBR; complete response + partial response + stable disease lasting ≥ 24 weeks; Appendix).
Other secondary end points included safety and health-related quality of life (HRQoL; assessed every 6 weeks), measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; version 3), EORTC breast cancer–specific module (QLQ-BR23), and EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L) health status questionnaire.
Coprimary end points were analyzed using an overall type I error rate of 0.01 for PFS and 0.04 for OS. It was estimated that 419 PFS events and 378 OS events were required to obtain 85% power to detect an HR (control v treatment) of 0.70 for PFS and 0.725 for OS. The primary analysis of each end point was event driven. The trial was considered positive if either PFS or OS were statistically significant at the split α level. Approximately 600 patients were to be enrolled and randomly assigned equally between the 2 groups. No interim analyses were performed.
Primary efficacy end points were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were conducted for all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of investigational treatment. The primary analysis method was stratified log-rank test for hypothesis testing and stratified Cox proportional hazards model to estimate HRs and 95% CIs. Differences between treatment groups were examined using a log-rank test statistic stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and disease location. If the proportional hazards assumption was not met, a prespecified supportive analysis on the basis of restricted means was added and performed with restrictions at 24 months for PFS and 48 months for OS. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to represent time-to-event end points.
Time to intervention for CNS disease was analyzed after PFS and OS end points were met using a competing risk model, with death considered a competing risk. Patients with no intervention for CNS metastases and still alive were censored on the date last known to be alive. The stratified Gray’s test was used to assess equality of cumulative incidence functions between groups. Subgroup analyses by demographic variables and randomization stratification factors were presented using forest plots.
ORR and CBR were analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ2 tests on the basis of patients with measurable disease at baseline. Investigator-assessed PFS and DoR (for patients with an objective response) were analyzed using similar methods to the primary efficacy end points. Analyses were performed using SAS (version 9.1; SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
An Independent Data Monitoring Committee acted in an advisory capacity concerning patient safeguarding, assessing interim safety data, and monitoring overall study conduct.
NALA is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01808573).
Data are available on request from the corresponding author (Cristina Saura).
Between May 29, 2013 and July 21, 2017, 621 patients (618 women, 3 men) were enrolled at 203 sites in 28 countries in Europe, North and South America, Asia, and Australia. Patients randomly assigned to study treatment constituted the intention-to-treat population (N+C, n = 307; L+C, n = 314; Fig 1). At the analysis cutoff date (September 28, 2018), the safety population included 614 patients (N+C, n = 303; L+C, n = 311). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between treatment groups (Table 1).
FIG 1. NALA trial profile. Screening failures were as follows: 251 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria, 118 of whom did not have centrally assessed HER2 overexpression of gene-amplified tumor; 152 patients were ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria; 11 patients were ineligible on the basis of both inclusion and exclusion criteria; and the reason for screen failure was not given for 2 patients. There could have been > 1 reason for each patient to have failed screening. (*) No previous treatment with capecitabine, neratinib, lapatinib, or other HER2-directed TKI was permitted. Patients were excluded if they had received previous treatment resulting in an anthracycline dose equivalent to a cumulative doxorubicin dose > 450 mg/m2. Patients with symptomatic or unstable CNS metastatic disease were not eligible; patients with asymptomatic CNS metastases (treated or untreated) were eligible. Patients undergoing treatment for asymptomatic CNS metastases had to be on a stable dose of corticosteroids for ≥ 14 days before randomization. Patients with diarrhea as a major symptom of a significant chronic GI disorder were excluded.
|
At the cutoff date, there were 433 PFS events on the basis of central review and 410 deaths. The median follow-up duration was 29.9 months (interquartile range [IQR], 21.9-40.6 months). Treatment with N+C significantly improved PFS as assessed by central review (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.93; stratified log-rank P = .0059; Fig 2A). Although a numerical difference favoring N+C was observed for OS, statistical significance was not reached (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.07; stratified log-rank P = .2086; Fig 2B). Kaplan-Meier curves for PFS overlapped during the first 24 weeks and clearly separated after 24 weeks. The shape of the PFS curves indicated the proportional hazards assumption was violated, which was confirmed by statistical testing. The restricted means analysis (P = .0003) was performed and was supportive of the primary analysis, demonstrating a mean PFS difference of 2.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 3.3) months in favor of N+C (Table 2; Appendix Table A1, online only).
FIG 2. Kaplan-Meier curves for (A) centrally assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and (B) overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population.
|
Most prespecified subgroup analyses of PFS showed a neratinib benefit: most point estimates for HRs were < 1.0 (Appendix Fig A1A, online only). Two factors had interaction P values < .05: hormone receptor status (P < .001) and disease location (P = .007; Kaplan-Meier curves for PFS shown in Appendix Figs A2 and A3, online only).
Subgroups were also examined for OS, but the interaction test was not significant for the subgroups analyzed (Appendix Fig A1B); Kaplan-Meier OS curves according to hormone receptor status and disease location are shown in Appendix Figures A4 and A5, online only.
The overall cumulative incidence of intervention for CNS disease was 22.8% (95% CI, 15.5% to 30.9%) for neratinib versus 29.2% (95% CI, 22.5% to 36.1%) for lapatinib (Gray’s test for equality, P = .043; Fig 3). Overall, 130/621 patients had interventions for CNS disease, 55 (17.9%) in the neratinib group and 75 (23.9%) in the lapatinib group (Appendix Table A2, online only).
FIG 3. Intervention for CNS disease.
The confirmed ORR in patients with measurable disease at screening was 32.8% (84/256 patients; 95% CI, 27.1% to 38.9%) for N+C and 26.7% (72/270 patients; 95% CI, 21.5% to 32.4%) for L+C (P = .1201; Table 2). The median DoR was 8.5 (95% CI, 5.6 to 11.2) months for neratinib versus 5.6 (95% CI, 4.2 to 6.4) months for lapatinib (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74; P = .0004; Appendix Fig A6, online only). A larger proportion of N+C patients had responses lasting ≥ 12 months versus L+C (36.9% v 16.8%). The CBR was higher in patients treated with N+C versus L+C (45% v 36%; P = .0328; Table 2).
Median treatment duration was 5.7 (IQR, 2.7-10.4) months for neratinib and 4.4 (IQR, 2.3-7.1) months for lapatinib (Appendix Table A3, online only). The safety population included 614 patients (neratinib, n = 303; lapatinib, n = 311): 611 patients had treatment-emergent AEs of any grade, 196 had a serious treatment-emergent AE (N+C, n = 103 [34.0%]; L+C, n = 93 [29.9%]), and 588 had treatment-related AEs (N+C, n = 289 [95.4%]; L+C, n = 299 [96.1%]; Appendix Table A4, online only).
Diarrhea, nausea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, and vomiting were the most common treatment-emergent AEs of any grade in the overall population (Table 3). Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in 74 patients (24.4%) with neratinib and 39 patients (12.5%) with lapatinib; there was no grade 4 diarrhea. Grade 3 diarrhea was most prevalent during the first cycle (N+C 16%, L+C 5%; Appendix Table A5, online only).
|
Diarrhea resulted in dose reduction of study drug in 16 patients (5.3%) with neratinib and 13 patients (4.2%) with lapatinib; mean capecitabine dose intensity was 929 mg/m2/d for N+C and 1,143 mg/m2/d for L+C (Appendix Table A3, online only). Diarrhea resulted in permanent discontinuation in 8 (2.6%) N+C and 7 (2.3%) L+C patients. Antidiarrheal medication was used by 298 patients in N+C (98.3%) and 193 patients (62.1%) in L+C. Loperamide (54% overall; N+C 77%; L+C 31%), loperamide hydrochloride (30% overall; N+C 30%; L+C 30%), and diphenoxylate and atropine combination (8% overall; N+C 10%; L+C 6%) were the most commonly used antidiarrheals.
There were no new safety concerns for cardiac events. The incidence of cardiac arrhythmia was 3.3% for N+C and 3.5% for L+C. The incidence of ischemic heart disease was 0.7% for N+C and 0.6% for L+C. The incidence of QT prolongation was 2.3% for N+C and 3.9% for L+C and of left ventricular ejection fraction decrease was 4.3% for N+C and 2.3% for L+C.
Patients were included in the HRQoL population if they had received study treatment and had a baseline assessment and ≥ 1 postbaseline assessment (up to last dose day + 28 days) for that scale. Higher scores (range, 0-100) represent higher levels of functioning; a 10-point difference was considered the minimum important difference.26 Questionnaire completion rates were 91% for patients in the HRQoL population (EORTC QLQ-C30). Mean QLQ-C30 summary score and Global Health Status/QoL subscale scores were similar between the arms over time (Fig 4). None of the observed changes over time or between groups at individual time points were greater than the minimum important difference.26
FIG 4. Changes over time in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (A) Quality of Life Questionnaire core module (QLQ-C30) summary score, and (B) QLQ-C30 Global Health Status score. Higher scores represent higher quality of life/levels of functioning. CxDy, cycle x day y.
The NALA trial demonstrated superiority of N+C over L+C after ≥ 2 lines of HER2-directed therapies in the metastatic setting. There was a statistically significant benefit in PFS favoring N+C (HR, 0.76; 1-year PFS, N+C 29% v L+C 15%), translating to a 2.2-month mean PFS improvement without a significant benefit in OS. Significantly fewer patients in N+C versus L+C required intervention for CNS disease, suggesting prevention of—or delayed time to development of—CNS disease.
DoR was significantly prolonged in patients treated with N+C versus L+C (8.5 v 5.6 months, respectively). This DoR was promising, considering patients’ prior treatment load in the metastatic setting (99.7% trastuzumab, 41.7% pertuzumab, 54.3% T-DM1) and may explain the clear separation of PFS curves beyond 24 weeks. The largely indistinguishable PFS curves up until 24 weeks suggest a group of patients resistant to HER2-directed therapies, capecitabine, or both, with patients having received ≥ 2 lines of HER2-directed therapies in the metastatic setting. Ongoing biomarker analysis may help identify patients likely to benefit from N+C.
Patients in NALA who had hormone receptor–negative disease derived the greatest PFS benefit from N+C, consistent with the neoadjuvant I-SPY study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01042379)27 but in contrast to the extended adjuvant ExteNET trial, which showed a greater benefit in hormone receptor–positive disease.13 Although these differences may simply be spurious findings due to the exploratory nature of the subgroup analyses, they are more likely explained by HER2 and estrogen-receptor crosstalk.28,29 The existence of bidirectional crosstalk between HER2 and estrogen-receptor pathways30 means that estrogen-receptor signaling may be activated with inhibition of HER2 alone.28 The ExteNET study in the early-disease setting permitted endocrine therapy in hormone receptor–positive patients,13 whereas NALA and I-SPY,27 which combined neratinib with a chemotherapeutic agent, did not include concomitant endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive disease, as this is not recommended in the advanced setting.
The CNS is a frequent site of progression in HER2-positive MBC, with 30% to 55% of patients developing CNS metastases.19 Patients with asymptomatic or stable CNS brain metastases (treated or untreated) were eligible for NALA, including those on stable corticosteroid doses. Although baseline scans were not mandated, 16% (101/621) of included patients had known brain disease at baseline. Fewer patients in N+C versus L+C required intervention for CNS metastases (cumulative incidence of intervention, 22.8% v 29.2%, respectively). This is consistent with findings from NEfERT-T, which reported a benefit for neratinib in patients with CNS metastases,15 and TBCRC 022, which showed activity against refractory HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastases.10
FDA approval of neratinib in third-line MBC on the basis of NALA14 follows approval of trastuzumab deruxtecan in the same setting (DS-8201; Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca).31 The single-arm DESTINY-Breast01 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03248492) demonstrated a 60.9% ORR and median PFS duration of 16.4 (95% CI, 12.7 to not reached) months; interstitial lung disease, reported in 13.6% of the patients, was fatal in 2.2%.32 The antibody–drug conjugate mechanism of action of DS-8201 clearly distinguishes this agent from neratinib and other TKIs like tucatinib. The HER2Climb trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02614794) compared the tucatinib-trastuzumab-capecitabine triplet versus placebo-trastuzumab-capecitabine (ie, dual HER2 control in the treatment arm versus a single HER2 agent in the control arm). The trial demonstrated a significant PFS benefit for tucatinib versus placebo (HR, 0.54; 1-year PFS: tucatinib-capecitabine-trastuzumab, 33.1% v placebo-capecitabine-trastuzumab, 12.3%), translating to a 2.2-month median PFS benefit and significant OS benefit.33 HER2Climb mandated scans at baseline and enrolled a substantial proportion of patients with brain metastases (47.5% overall). The 3 trials differed in design: DESTINY-Breast01 included a single arm, HER2Climb compared adding a TKI versus placebo to the trastuzumab and capecitabine combination, and NALA compared 2 TKIs in combination with capecitabine.
Safety data in NALA were consistent with previous studies. Diarrhea was managed with mandatory prophylaxis in cycle 1 and loperamide as needed thereafter and was less severe than observed previously (24% grade 3 diarrhea with N+C in NALA v 30% in NEfERT-T15 and 40% in ExteNET13). The duration of grade 3 diarrhea and rate of diarrhea-related discontinuations (N+C 2.6% v L+C 2.3%) were similar between groups. HRQoL was generally maintained, supporting the use of neratinib with appropriate management strategies.
Limitations of the study exist. N+C used a lower capecitabine dose (1,500 mg/m2 days 1-14 every 3 weeks) than L+C (2,000 mg/m2 days 1-14 every 3 weeks); only 35% of patients in NALA received previous treatment with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and T-DM1, which may be considered standard of care for MBC; and HER2 status was largely determined from primary tumor tissue (63%). Furthermore, the presence of CNS disease at baseline was not confirmed with MRI.
In conclusion, NALA is the first study to demonstrate superiority of one HER2-directed TKI over another in MBC and provides evidence for the efficacy and tolerability of N+C in this setting. The primary end point of centrally assessed PFS was significantly improved with N+C versus L+C, and there were favorable outcomes across secondary end points, including DoR and time to intervention for CNS disease. N+C is an appropriate treatment option for patients with HER2-positive MBC progressing after ≥ 2 lines of HER2-directed treatment.
Presented in part at the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, May 31-June 4, 2019, Chicago, IL.
Supported by Puma Biotechnology. Puma Biotechnology funded the provision of editorial support provided by Miller Medical Communications Ltd.
Conception and design: Cristina Saura, Beverly Moy, Suzette Delaloge, Ming-Feng Hou, Richard Bryce, Adam Brufsky
Financial support: Daniele Fagnani
Administrative support: Shang-Wen Chen, Hong-Tai Chang
Provision of study material or patients: Cristina Saura, Mafalda Oliveira, Yin-Hsun Feng, Ming-Shen Dai, Shang-Wen Chen, Sara A. Hurvitz, Sung-Bae Kim, Beverly Moy, Norikazu Masuda, Yoon Sim Yap, Yu-Min Yeh, Hong-Tai Chang, Hans Wildiers, Barbara Haley, John Crown, Johnson Lin, Takaaki Fujii, Adam Brufsky
Collection and assembly of data: Cristina Saura, Mafalda Oliveira, Yin-Hsun Feng, Ming-Shen Dai, Shang-Wen Chen, Sara A. Hurvitz, Sung-Bae Kim, Suzette Delaloge, Norikazu Masuda, Marketa Palacova, Maureen E. Trudeau, Johanna Mattson, Yoon Sim Yap, Ming-Feng Hou, Michelino De Laurentiis, Yu-Min Yeh, Hong-Tai Chang, Thomas Yau, Barbara Haley, Daniele Fagnani, Yen-Shen Lu, John Crown, Johnson Lin, Masato Takahashi, Toshimi Takano, Miki Yamaguchi, Takaaki Fujii, Bin Yao, Judith Bebchuk, Kiana Keyvanjah, Adam Brufsky
Data analysis and interpretation: Cristina Saura, Mafalda Oliveira, Sung-Bae Kim, Beverly Moy, Suzette Delaloge, William Gradishar, Norikazu Masuda, Maureen E. Trudeau, Hans Wildiers, Yen-Shen Lu, John Crown, Masato Takahashi, Bin Yao, Judith Bebchuk, Kiana Keyvanjah, Richard Bryce, Adam Brufsky
Manuscript writing: All authors
Final approval of manuscript: All authors
Accountable for all aspects of the work: All authors
The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.
Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).
Consulting or Advisory Role: Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Genomic Health, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Synthon, PIQUR Therapeutics, BMS, Philips Healthwork, MSD, Sanofi
Research Funding: Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Roche (Inst), Macrogenics (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Synthon (Inst), PIQUR Therapeutics (Inst)
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Puma Biotechnology
Honoraria: Roche, Novartis, Seattle Genetics
Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Puma Biotechnology, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics
Research Funding: Philips Healthcare (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Cascadian Therapeutics (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Celldex Therapeutics (Inst), Bayer (Inst), PIQUR Therapeutics (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Zenith Epigenetics (Inst)
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Novartis, Grünenthal Group, Pierre Fabre, GP Pharm, Eisai
Research Funding: Kirin
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Takeda, Roche, Pfizer
Research Funding: Genentech/Roche (Inst), Novartis (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Amgen (Inst), OBI Pharma (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Dignitana (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Biomarin (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Merrimack (Inst), Cascadian Therapeutics (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Macrogenics (Inst), Ambryx (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Pieris (Inst), Radius (Inst), Arvinas (Inst)
Other Relationship: Roche, Pfizer
Honoraria: DAE HWA Pharmaceutical, ISU Abxis
Consulting or Advisory Role: Eli Lilly (Inst), AstraZeneca, DAE HWA Pharmaceutical, ISU Abxis
Research Funding: Novartis (Inst), Dongkook Pharma (Inst), Genzyme (Inst), Kyowa Kirin (Inst)
Consulting or Advisory Role: Motus (I)
Research Funding: Puma Biotechnology (Inst)
Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca
Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Puma (Inst), Eli Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Sanofi (Inst)
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche
Consulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Puma
Leadership: Japan Breast Cancer Research Group Association
Honoraria: Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Takeda, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo
Research Funding: Chugai Pharma (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Kyowa Hakko Kirin (Inst), MSD (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Eli Lilly (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst)
Stock and Other Ownership Interests: RNA Diagnostics
Research Funding: Roche Canada (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Eisai (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Genomic Health (Inst)
Honoraria: Takeda, Pfizer
Honoraria: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eisai
Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eisai
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Roche, Novartis
Honoraria: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Amgen, Celgene, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, MSD
Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Celgene, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Eisai
Speakers' Bureau: Novartis
Research Funding: Novartis, Roche, Puma Biotechnology, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Macrogenics, Bristol-Myers Squibb
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bayer
Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology
Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb
Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche (Inst), Eli Lilly (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Sirtex (Inst), Orion (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Biocartis (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst)
Research Funding: Roche (Inst), Novartis (Inst)
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Roche (Inst)
Research Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Eli Lilly (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Roche (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Sanofi (Inst)
Honoraria: Pfizer, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Eli Lily
Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Eli Lily
Research Funding: Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst)
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis
Employment: OncoMark
Stock and Other Ownership Interests: OncoMark
Honoraria: Eisai, Amgen, Puma Biotechnology, Seattle Genetics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Vertex, Genomic Health, Roche, MSD Oncology, Novartis Ireland
Consulting or Advisory Role: Eisai, Puma Biotechnology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Vertex, Roche, Seattle Genetics, G1 Therapeutics
Speakers' Bureau: Pfizer, Eisai, Genomic Health
Research Funding: Roche (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst)
Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: WO2020011770 (A1)—A method of predicting response to treatment in patients with cancer
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Novartis Ireland
Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Chugai, Nippon Kayaku
Research Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Kyowa Hakko Kirin (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Nippon Kayaku (Inst)
Honoraria: Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Chugai, Kyowa Kirin, Celltrion Healthcare
Research Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), MSD (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Chugai (Inst)
Research Funding: Kyowa Kirin (Inst)
Speakers' Bureau: Chugai Pharma, Pfizer
Employment: Puma Biotechnology
Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Puma Biotechnology
Employment: Puma Biotechnology
Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Puma Biotechnology
Employment: Puma Biotechnology
Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Puma Biotechnology
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Puma Biotechnology
Employment: Puma Biotechnology
Leadership: Puma Biotechnology
Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Puma Biotechnology
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Puma Biotechnology
Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Agendia, Celgene, Novartis, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Biotheranostics, NanoString Technologies, Genomic Health, Puma Biotechnology, Bioarray Therapeutics, Merck, Myriad Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Immunomedics, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo/Eli Lilly
No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.
Central confirmation of HER2 overexpression or gene amplification according to DAKO (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA) kit guidelines23 was required. Patients had to have ≥ 1 measurable lesion as defined by RECIST (version 1.1) and adequate organ function.
Patients with CNS disease were eligible for enrollment unless they had symptomatic or unstable brain metastases. Asymptomatic patients with metastatic brain disease who were on a stable dose of corticosteroids for CNS metastases, including high-dose corticosteroids, were eligible so long as the dose was constant for at least 2 weeks before enrollment.
Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to neratinib plus capecitabine (N+C) or lapatinib plus capecitabine (L+C) through an interactive voice and web-response system. The randomization sequence was generated with permuted blocks (block size 4; 24 strata; 150 blocks per stratum). One list was created with 14,400 randomization numbers (600 numbers per stratum). The randomization sequence was stratified by: hormone receptor status (hormone receptor positive [defined as estrogen or progesterone receptor positive or both; estrogen or progesterone receptor positivity was defined per DAKO test kit guidelines24] v hormone receptor negative [defined as estrogen and progesterone receptor negative]), number of previous HER2-directed therapies for metastatic breast cancer (2 or ≥ 3), geographic region (North America or Europe [including Israel] or rest of the world), and visceral disease (yes or no).
Cardiac monitoring was performed at the start of cycles 3 and 6, and every 6 cycles thereafter.
Progression-free survival was defined as the interval from the date of randomization until the first date on which recurrence, progression (per RECIST; version 1.1), or death due to any cause was documented, censored at the last assessable evaluation or at the initiation of new anticancer therapy.
Overall survival was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause.
The objective response rate was defined as the proportion of patients demonstrating either a complete or partial response according to RECIST (version 1.1) as their best overall response during the study.
The duration of response was measured from the time at which measurement criteria were first met for complete or partial response (whichever status was recorded first) until the first date on which recurrence, progressive disease, or death was objectively documented, taking as a reference for progressive disease the smallest measurements recorded since enrollment, according to RECIST.
Clinical benefit rate was defined as the proportion of patients who achieved overall tumor response (complete or partial response) or stable disease lasting at least 24 weeks. Stable disease was measured from enrollment until the criteria for disease progression or response were met, per RECIST.
Time to intervention for metastatic CNS disease was defined as the date of initiation of intervention or therapy for CNS disease determined by the investigator to be due to CNS metastasis. This could include brain, leptomeningeal, or epidural metastases, including epidural spinal cord compression arising from tumor growth in the epidural space.
Study drug treatment was continued for as long as it was tolerated and while there was no disease progression. Patients who discontinued study therapy were followed during the long-term follow-up phase. If a patient discontinued study therapy because of toxicity, tumor assessments continued every 6 weeks until documented disease progression, death, or withdrawal of consent. Patients were also contacted every 12 weeks for survival status and to collect details of additional anticancer therapy. The long-term follow-up phase continued until the patient’s death or withdrawal of consent.
Physical examinations were performed at baseline and at the start of every cycle from cycle 2 onward. Screening activities were conducted within 21 days before randomization. Tumor scans (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) were performed within 28 days before randomization, and preferably no more than 28 days before the start of treatment. Screening for CNS metastases was not required/mandated at baseline. Tumor imaging assessments were performed at the start of every second cycle until documented disease progression or death. Baseline MRI scans were not mandated. Cardiac monitoring was performed at the start of cycles 3 and 6 and every 6 cycles thereafter using single standard 12-lead digital electrocardiogram evaluations and multiple-gated acquisition scans or echocardiograms to determine the left ventricular ejection fraction.
Patients who ended therapy for any reason other than radiologically confirmed disease progression (eg, for “clinical” progression, adverse events or intolerance, or withdrawal of consent for therapy) continued to be imaged every 6 weeks until radiologically confirmed progression was documented.
Loperamide, the recommended standard antidiarrheal therapy, was administered with the first dose of neratinib (initial dose, 4 mg), followed by 2 mg every 4 hours for the first 3 days. Thereafter, loperamide 2 mg was taken every 6-8 hours until the end of the first cycle, regardless of whether the patient experienced diarrhea or not. Second-line antidiarrheal treatments and adjunctive therapies were also recommended for use when appropriate. Antidiarrheal medication use was not specified in the lapatinib Summary of Product Characteristics (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/tyverb-epar-product-information_en.pdf) at the time of treatment initiation; however, antidiarrheal prophylaxis beyond cycle 1 was at the discretion of the treating physician, irrespective of treatment group.
FIG A1. Subgroup analyses of (A) centrally assessed progression-free survival, and (B) overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. C, capecitabine; HR, hazard ratio; L, lapatinib; N, neratinib.
FIG A2. Kaplan-Meier analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) according to hormone receptor status: patients with (A) hormone receptor–negative and (B) hormone receptor–positive disease. HR, hazard ratio.
FIG A3. Kaplan-Meier analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) according to disease location: (A) visceral disease, and (B) nonvisceral disease. HR, hazard ratio.
FIG A4. Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival (OS) according to hormone receptor status: patients with (A) hormone receptor–negative, and (B) hormone receptor–positive disease. HR, hazard ratio.
FIG A5. Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival (OS) according to disease location: (A) visceral disease, and (B) nonvisceral disease. HR, hazard ratio; NE, not estimable.
FIG A6. Kaplan-Meier analysis of response duration. HR, hazard ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank the Independent Data Monitoring Committee, study investigators, research staff, clinical research organizations, and other vendors, as well as the patients who participated in the NALA trial. We would like to acknowledge statistical support provided by Bo Zhang and Feng Xu (Puma Biotechnology) and statistical programming support provided by Yan Yan, Fauzia Ihsanullah, and Dan DiPrimeo (Puma Biotechnology). We also thank Bethann Hromatka (Puma Biotechnology) for review and revision of the manuscript, and Lee Miller and Deirdre Carman (Miller Medical Communications Ltd) for writing/editorial support.
| 1. | Cardoso F, Senkus E, Costa A, et al: 4th ESO-ESMO international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC 4). Ann Oncol 29:1634-1657, 2018 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 2. | National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Breast cancer (version 2.2020), 2020. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf Google Scholar |
| 3. | Swain SM, Baselga J, Kim SB, et al: Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 372:724-734, 2015 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 4. | Verma S, Miles D, Gianni L, et al: Trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 367:1783-1791, 2012 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 5. | Krop IE, Kim SB, Martin AG, et al: Trastuzumab emtansine versus treatment of physician’s choice in patients with previously treated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (TH3RESA): Final overall survival results from a randomised open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 18:743-754, 2017 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 6. | Geyer CE, Forster J, Lindquist D, et al: Lapatinib plus capecitabine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 355:2733-2743, 2006 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 7. | Ryan Q, Ibrahim A, Cohen MH, et al: FDA drug approval summary: Lapatinib in combination with capecitabine for previously treated metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER-2. Oncologist 13:1114-1119, 2008 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 8. | Rabindran SK, Discafani CM, Rosfjord EC, et al: Antitumor activity of HKI-272, an orally active, irreversible inhibitor of the HER-2 tyrosine kinase. Cancer Res 64:3958-3965, 2004 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 9. | Saura C, Garcia-Saenz JA, Xu B, et al: Safety and efficacy of neratinib in combination with capecitabine in patients with metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 32:3626-3633, 2014 Link, Google Scholar |
| 10. | Freedman RA, Gelman RS, Anders CK, et al: TBCRC 022: A phase II trial of neratinib and capecitabine for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases. J Clin Oncol 37:1081-1089, 2019 Link, Google Scholar |
| 11. | European Medicines Agency: Neratinib: Summary of product characteristics, 2020. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/nerlynx Google Scholar |
| 12. | US Food & Drug Administration: Nerlynx: Highlights of prescribing information, 2020. https://nerlynx.com/pdf/full-prescribing-information.pdf Google Scholar |
| 13. | Martin M, Holmes FA, Ejlertsen B, et al: Neratinib after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer (ExteNET): 5-year analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 18:1688-1700, 2017 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 14. | US Food & Drug Administration: FDA approves neratinib for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-neratinib-metastatic-her2-positive-breast-cancer#:∼:text=On%20February%2025%2C%202020%2C%20the,regimens%20in%20the%20metastatic%20setting Google Scholar |
| 15. | Awada A, Colomer R, Inoue K, et al: Neratinib plus paclitaxel vs trastuzumab plus paclitaxel in previously untreated metastatic ERBB2-positive breast cancer: The NEfERT-T randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2:1557-1564, 2016 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 16. | Chan A, Hurvitz SA, Marx G, et al: Effect of prophylaxis or neratinib dose escalation on neratinib-associated diarrhea and tolerability in patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer: Phase II CONTROL trial. Cancer Res 80:P5-14-03, 2020 (suppl 4; abstr) Google Scholar |
| 17. | Yardley DA, Kaufman PA, Brufsky A, et al: Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for patients with de novo versus recurrent HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 145:725-734, 2014 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 18. | Abraham J, Montero AJ, Jankowitz RC, et al: Safety and efficacy of T-DM1 plus neratinib in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: NSABP foundation trial FB-10. J Clin Oncol 37:2601-2609, 2019 Link, Google Scholar |
| 19. | Lin NU, Amiri-Kordestani L, Palmieri D, et al: CNS metastases in breast cancer: Old challenge, new frontiers. Clin Cancer Res 19:6404-6418, 2013 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 20. | Untch M, Geyer CE, Huang C, et al: Peripheral neuropathy (PN), thrombocytopenia (TCP) and central nervous system (CNS) recurrence: An update of the phase III KATHERINE trial of post-neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) or trastuzumab (H) in patients (pts) with residual invasive HER2-positive breast cancer (BC). Ann Oncol 30:V854-V855, 2019 (abstr) Google Scholar |
| 21. | Pivot X, Manikhas A, Żurawski B, et al: CEREBEL (EGF111438): A phase III, randomized, open-label study of lapatinib plus capecitabine versus trastuzumab plus capecitabine in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:1564-1573, 2015 Link, Google Scholar |
| 22. | Bachelot T, Romieu G, Campone M, et al: Lapatinib plus capecitabine in patients with previously untreated brain metastases from HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (LANDSCAPE): A single-group phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 14:64-71, 2013 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 23. | HER2 IQFISH pharmDx [package insert]. Dako; 2018 Google Scholar |
| 24. | Dako: ER/PR pharmDx [package insert]. https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/packageinsert/public/PD04072EFG_01.pdf Google Scholar |
| 25. | Novartis: Highlights of prescribing information: Tykerb, 2018. https://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/sites/www.pharma.us.novartis.com/files/tykerb.pdf Google Scholar |
| 26. | King MT: The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res 5:555-567, 1996 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 27. | Park JW, Liu MC, Yee D, et al: Adaptive randomization of neratinib in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 375:11-22, 2016 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 28. | Paplomata E, Nahta R, O’Regan RM: Systemic therapy for early-stage HER2-positive breast cancers: Time for a less-is-more approach? Cancer 121:517-526, 2015 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 29. | Arpino G, Wiechmann L, Osborne CK, et al: Crosstalk between the estrogen receptor and the HER tyrosine kinase receptor family: Molecular mechanism and clinical implications for endocrine therapy resistance. Endocr Rev 29:217-233, 2008 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 30. | Giuliano M, Trivedi MV, Schiff R: Bidirectional crosstalk between the estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 signaling pathways in breast cancer: Molecular basis and clinical implications. Breast Care (Basel) 8:256-262, 2013 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 31. | US Food & Drug Administration: FDA approves fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki for unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, 2019. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-fam-trastuzumab-deruxtecan-nxki-unresectable-or-metastatic-her2-positive-breast-cancer Google Scholar |
| 32. | Modi S, Saura C, Yamashita T, et al: Trastuzumab deruxtecan in previously treated HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 382:610-621, 2020 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
| 33. | Murthy RK, Loi S, Okines A, et al: Tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 382:597-609, 2020 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar |
