Efficacy of eribulin in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC): A pooled analysis by HER2 and ER status.

Authors

null

Peter Kaufman

Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH

Peter Kaufman , Chris Twelves , Javier Cortes , Linda T. Vahdat , Martin Olivo , Yi He , Ahmad Awada

Organizations

Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology and St James’s Institute of Oncology, Leeds, United Kingdom, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, Eisai Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Medical Oncology Clinic, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company

Background: Eribulin (E) has been assessed in two phase 3, open-label trials in pts with locally recurrent or MBC progressing after an anthracycline (A) and taxane (T). E significantly increased overall survival (OS) compared with treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) in one study (EMBRACE) and there was a non-significant trend for improved OS with E vs capecitabine (cape) in the other (Study 301). We present an unplanned pooled analysis of these data. Methods: In the EMBRACE trial, women had received 2–5 lines of chemotherapy for advanced disease. In this ≥ 3rd line setting, pts were randomized 2:1 to E mesylate (1.4 mg/m2 iv on days 1 and 8 every 21 days) or TPC. In study 301, pts who had received 0-2 prior chemotherapies for advanced disease were randomized 1:1 to either E (as above) or cape (1.25 g/m2orally b.i.d. days 1–14 every 21 days). We analysed OS by 2-sided stratified log-rank tests and Cox regression in the overall intent-to-treat population and in the HER2-, triple negative (TNBC) and HER2+ subgroups. Results: 1,864 pts (median age 54 yrs) were included; most had been treated in the 2nd (31.5%) or 3rd line (32.7%) MBC settings. Overall, E provided significantly improved OS vs control; this benefit was also significant in HER2− and TNBC, but not HER2+ pts (Table). E improved progression-free survival overall (4.0 vs 3.4 months, HR = 0.90, 95%CI = 0.81, 0.997, p = 0.046), in HER2– (3.7 vs 3.0 months, HR = 0.84, 95%CI = 0.74, 0.95, p = 0.006) and TNBC pts (2.8 vs 2.6 months, HR = 0.78, 95%CI = 0.63, 0.96, p= 0.018). As reported before, the E safety profile was similar in the studies. Conclusions: E significantly improved OS vs standard therapies in MBC pts with HER2− and TNBC in this pooled analysis; in pts with HER2+ disease the difference did not reach statistical significance but numbers were smaller. Clinical trial information: NCT00337103 and NCT00388726.

Overall
HER2-
HER2+
TNBC
E Con E Con E Con E Con
n 1062 802 748 572 169 123 243 185
Median OSa, months 15.2 12.8 15.2 12.3 13.5 12.2 12.9 8.2
HR (95%CI)b 0.85 (0.77, 0.95) 0.82 (0.72, 0.93) 0.82 (0.62, 1.06) 0.74 (0.60, 0.92)
pb 0.003 0.002 0.135 0.006

Abbreviations: Con, control; E, eribulin; HR, hazard ratio. aBased on survival curve adjusted by study; bStratified by geographic region, prior cape use and study (plus HER2 status [overall] and TNBC [HER2-]).

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

2014 Breast Cancer Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

General Poster Session B: Risk Assessment, Prevention, Early Detection,  Screening, and Systemic Therapy

Track

Systemic Therapy,Risk Assessment, Prevention, Early Detection, and Screening

Sub Track

Advanced Disease

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT00337103 and NCT00388726

Citation

J Clin Oncol 32, 2014 (suppl 26; abstr 137)

DOI

10.1200/jco.2014.32.26_suppl.137

Abstract #

137

Poster Bd #

D9

Abstract Disclosures