Efficacy of first-line bevacizumab (BEV)-based therapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): Subgroup analysis of TURANDOT.

Authors

null

Moshe J. Inbar

Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel

Moshe J. Inbar , Istvan Lang , Zsuzsanna Kahan , Richard Greil , Semir Beslija , Salomon M. Stemmer , Bella Kaufman , Silke Ahlers , Thomas Brodowicz , Christoph Zielinski

Organizations

Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary, Universitätsklinikum der PMU, Salzburg, Austria, University of Sarajevo, Institute for Oncology Clinical Center, Sarajevo, Bosnia, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel, The Breast Cancer Unit, Institute of Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel, IST GmbH, Mannheim, Germany, Medical University of Vienna and Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG), Vienna, Austria

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company

Background: The randomized phase III TURANDOT trial compared first-line BEV plus paclitaxel (PAC) vs BEV plus capecitabine (CAP) in HER2-negative metastatic BC (mBC). BEV-based regimens are often favored in TNBC [Dawood 2012] because of efficacy in subgroup analyses and a lack of effective treatments. We performed an exploratory subgroup analysis of TURANDOT to provide more data on BEV-based therapy in TNBC. Methods: Patients (pts) with HER2-negative mBC who had received no prior chemotherapy for mBC were randomized to either BEV–PAC (BEV 10 mg/kg d1 and 15 + PAC 90 mg/m2 d1, 8, and 15 q4w) or BEV–CAP (BEV 15 mg/kg d1 + CAP 1000 mg/m2bid d1–14 q3w). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Results: Of 561 pts treated, 130 had TNBC. Baseline characteristics were typical of a poor-prognosis population and generally balanced between treatment arms, although fewer pts receiving BEV–PAC than BEV–CAP had ECOG PS 1/2 (25% vs 40%, respectively), positive lymph nodes (56% vs 72%), metastatic disease at first diagnosis (19% vs 30%), and liver metastases (27% vs 43%). Median age was 54 vs 56 years, respectively. At data cut-off, median follow-up was 21.4 vs 19.2 mo for BEV–PAC and BEV–CAP, respectively. The safety profiles in the TNBC subgroup were similar to the overall population. The predominant grade ≥3 AEs were hematologic AEs and neuropathy with BEV–PAC and hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea with BEV–CAP. Conclusions: One-year OS rates up to 78% in TURANDOT are among the highest seen in TNBC. BEV-based therapy is a valid option in a setting with limited active treatments. BEV–PAC may be favored based on 1-year OS, PFS, and ORR. Clinical trial information: NCT00600340.

Endpoint BEV–PAC (n=63) BEV–CAP (n=67)
OS
Events, n (%) 28 (44) 34 (51)
HR (95% CI)a 1.33 (0.80–2.19)
Adjusted HR (95% CI)b 1.17 (0.69–1.98)
1-year OS, % (95% CI) 78 (68–88) 63 (51–75)
ORR, n (%) 31 (49) 13 (19)
Difference, % (95% CI) 30 (14–45)
PFS
Events, n (%) 50 (79) 54 (81)
Median, mo 9.0 5.6
HR (95% CI) 1.37 (0.93–2.02)

a Univariate Cox proportional hazard model (CPHM). b Multivariate CPHM, treatment effect adjusted for ECOG PS, bone metastases, lymph nodes, and menopausal status.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2013 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Breast Cancer - Triple-Negative/Cytotoxics/Local Therapy

Track

Breast Cancer

Sub Track

Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT00600340

Citation

J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl; abstr 1040)

DOI

10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.1040

Abstract #

1040

Poster Bd #

18G

Abstract Disclosures