2024-03-28T17:35:16Z
https://tsukuba.repo.nii.ac.jp/oai
oai:tsukuba.repo.nii.ac.jp:00054829
2022-04-27T09:29:08Z
2780:2176
3:62:5297:7989
A randomized, 3-arm, neoadjuvant, phase 2 study comparing docetaxel + carboplatin + trastuzumab + pertuzumab (TCbHP), TCbHP followed by trastuzumab emtansine and pertuzumab (T-DM1+P), and T-DM1+P in HER2-positive primary breast cancer
坂東, 裕子
バンドウ, ヒロコ
BANDO, Hiroko
Masuda, Norikazu
Ohtani, Shoichiro
Takano, Toshimi
Inoue, Kenichi
Suzuki, Eiji
Nakamura, Rikiya
Ito, Yoshinori
Ishida, Kazushige
Yamanaka, Takashi
Kuroi, Katsumasa
Yasojima, Hiroyuki
Kasai, Hiroi
Takasuka, Tsuyoshi
Sakurai, Takaki
Kataoka, Tatsuki R.
Morita, Satoshi
Ohno, Shinji
Toi, Masakazu
Purpose
The standard of care in the neoadjuvant setting for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer is dual HER2-targeted therapy. However, a need to minimize treatment-related toxicity and improve pathological complete response (pCR) rates, particularly in luminal HER2-positive disease, exists.
Methods
Neopeaks, a randomized, phase 2 study, compared docetaxel + carboplatin + trastuzumab + pertuzumab (TCbHP; 6 cycles; group A), TCbHP (4 cycles) followed by trastuzumab emtansine + pertuzumab (T-DM1+P; 4 cycles; group B), and T-DM1+P (4 cycles; group C) regimens in HER2‐positive primary breast cancer patients; concurrent hormone therapy with T-DM1+P was administered in case of estrogen receptor positivity (ER+). Based on tumor shrinkage, nonresponders in group C were switched to 5-fluorouracil + epirubicin + cyclophosphamide (FEC; 4 cycles). Primary endpoint was pCR (comprehensive pCR ypN0 [ypT0-TisypN0]).
Results
Of 236 patients enrolled, 204 were randomized to groups A (n = 51), B (n = 52), and C (n = 101). In group C, 80 (79%) patients continued T-DM1+P following favorable response, whereas 21 (21%) nonresponders switched to FEC. pCR rate was numerically higher with the TCbHP → T-DM1+P regimen (71%) versus the standard TCbHP (57%) and T-DM1+P (57%) regimens. The rate in group C was higher among responders continuing T-DM1+P (63%) versus nonresponders who switched to FEC (38%). pCR rates after initial 4 cycles of T-DM1+P (group C; 57%) and standard TCbHP regimen (57%) were equivalent. pCR rate in patients with ER+ was significantly higher in group B (69%) than groups A (43%) and C (51%), but was comparable in patients with ER− (67–76%). Compared with the T-DM1-based arm, the incidence of adverse events was higher in the taxane-based arms.
Conclusion
In the neoadjuvant setting, the pCR rate with the standard TCbHP → T-DM1+P regimen was numerically better than the TCbHP regimen alone and significantly better in patients with ER+. Personalization of the T-DM1+P regimen could serve as a reasonable approach to minimize toxicity while maintaining efficacy.
journal article
Springer
2020-02
application/pdf
Breast cancer research and treatment
1
180
135
146
0167-6806
AA10623184
https://tsukuba.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/54829/files/BCRT_180-135.pdf
eng
31953696
10.1007/s10549-020-05524-6
© The Author(s) 2020
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (2020) 180:135–146 145 1 3 included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.