Purpose: This phase III study evaluated ribociclib plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer who were treatment naïve or had received up to one line of prior endocrine therapy in the advanced setting. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to ribociclib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. The primary end point was locally assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety. Results: A total of 484 postmenopausal women were randomly assigned to ribociclib plus fulvestrant, and 242 were assigned to placebo plus fulvestrant. Median progression-free survival was significantly improved with ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant: 20.5 months (95% CI, 18.5 to 23.5 months) versus 12.8 months (95% CI, 10.9 to 16.3 months), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.593; 95% CI, 0.480 to 0.732; P < .001). Consistent treatment effects were observed in patients who were treatment naïve in the advanced setting (hazard ratio, 0.577; 95% CI, 0.415 to 0.802), as well as in patients who had received up to one line of prior endocrine therapy for advanced disease (hazard ratio, 0.565; 95% CI, 0.428 to 0.744). Among patients with measurable disease, the overall response rate was 40.9% for the ribociclib plus fulvestrant arm and 28.7% for placebo plus fulvestrant. Grade 3 adverse events reported in ≥ 10% of patients in either arm (ribociclib plus fulvestrant v placebo plus fulvestrant) were neutropenia (46.6% v 0%) and leukopenia (13.5% v 0%); the only grade 4 event reported in ≥ 5% of patients was neutropenia (6.8% v 0%). Conclusion: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant might represent a new first- or second-line treatment option in hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer.

Purpose: CEREBEL compared the incidence of CNS metastases as first site of relapse in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive metastatic breast cancer receiving lapatinib-capecitabine or trastuzumab-capecitabine.Patients and Methods: Patients without baseline CNS metastases were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive lapatinib-capecitabine (lapatinib 1,250 mg per day; capecitabine 2,000 mg/m²per day on days 1 to 14 every 21 days) or trastuzumab-capecitabine (trastuzumab loading dose of 8 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks; capecitabine 2,500 mg/m²per day on days 1 to 14 every 21 days). The primary end point was incidence of CNS metastases as first site of relapse. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).Results: The study was terminated early with 540 enrolled patients (271 received lapatinib-capecitabine, and 269 received trastuzumab-capecitabine). Incidence of CNS metastases as first site of relapse was 3% (eight of 251 patients) for lapatinib-capecitabine and 5% (12 of 250 patients) for trastuzumab-capecitabine (treatment differences, −1.6%; 95% CI, −2% to 5%; P = .360). PFS and OS were longer with trastuzumab-capecitabine versus lapatinib-capecitabine (hazard ratio [HR] for PFS, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.64; HR for OS, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.64). Serious adverse events were reported in 13% (34 of 269 patients) and 17% (45 of 267 patients) of patients in the lapatinib-capecitabine and trastuzumab-capecitabine arms, respectively.Conclusion: CEREBEL is inconclusive for the primary end point, and no difference was detected between lapatinb-capecitabine and trastuzumab-capecitabine for the incidence of CNS metastases. A better outcome was observed with trastuzumab-capecitabine in the overall population. However, lapatinib-capecitabine efficacy may have been affected by previous exposure to a trastuzumab regimen and/or when treatment was given as first- or second-line therapy in the metastatic setting.

Patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC) preferred subcutaneous (s.c.) trastuzumab, delivered via single-use injection device (SID), over the intravenous (i.v.) formulation (Cohort 1 of the PrefHer study: NCT01401166). Here, we report patient preference, healthcare professional satisfaction, and safety data pooled from Cohort 1 and also Cohort 2, where s.c. trastuzumab was delivered via hand-held syringe. Patients were randomized to receive four adjuvant cycles of 600 mg fixed-dose s.c. trastuzumab followed by four cycles of standard i.v. trastuzumab, or vice versa. The primary endpoint was overall preference proportions for s.c. or i.v., assessed by patient interviews in the evaluable ITT population. A total of 245 patients were randomized to receive s.c. followed by i.v. and 243 received i.v. followed by s.c. (evaluable ITT populations: 235 and 232 patients, respectively). s.c. was preferred by 415/467 [88.9%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 85.7–91.6; P < 0.0001; two-sided test against null hypothesis of 65% s.c. preference]; 45/467 preferred i.v. (9.6%; 95% CI 7–13); 7/467 indicated no preference (1.5%; 95% CI 1–3). Clinician-reported adverse events occurred in 292/479 (61.0%) and 245/478 (51.3%) patients during the pooled s.c. and i.v. periods, respectively (P < 0.05; 2 × 2 χ²); 16 patients (3.3%) in each period experienced grade 3 events; none were grade 4/5. PrefHer revealed compelling and consistent patient preferences for s.c. over i.v. trastuzumab, regardless of SID or hand-held syringe delivery. s.c. was well tolerated and safety was consistent with previous reports, including the HannaH study (NCT00950300). No new safety signals were identified compared with the known i.v. profile in EBC. PrefHer and HannaH confirm that s.c. trastuzumab is a validated and preferred option over i.v. for improving patients' care in HER2-positive breast cancer. NCT01401166.

Background: XRP6258 is a novel taxoid with a low affinity for P-glycoprotein. This multicenter phase II study assessed the activity of XRP6258 in the treatment of taxane-resistant metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and methods: XRP6258 was administered as a 1-h i.v. infusion every 3 weeks at 20 mg/m² (then, in the absence of severe toxicity, at 25 mg/m² from cycle 2). The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR) assessed according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) guidelines. Results: Seventy-one patients were enrolled. The median relative dose intensity was 0.98. The ORR was 14% (two complete, eight partial responses). Eighteen patients (25%) had stable disease of >3 months duration. At a median follow-up of 20.0 months, the median time to progression was 2.7 months, and the median overall survival 12.3 months. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (73%) and leucopenia (55%), with a low febrile neutropenia rate (3%) and infrequent grade 3/4, treatment-related, non-hematological AEs (<5% patients for any AE). Two deaths were reported, one related to study drug and one to unknown cause. Conclusions: XRP6258 was active and well tolerated in this group of MBC patients with taxane-resistant disease. These results support the further clinical development of this agent.