Abstract P3-14-24: Overall Survival Benefit Observed with Lapatinib (L) Plus Paclitaxel (P) As First-Line Therapy in Patients with HER2-Overexpressing Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC)
Z-z Guan,B-h Xu,W Arpornwirat,Z-s Tong,V Lorvidhaya,L Wang,B Newstat,M DeSilvio,Y Moore,Z-Z. Shen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs10-p3-14-24
IF: 11.2
2010-01-01
Cancer Research
Abstract:Abstract Background: Lapatinib (L) is a potent, oral selective, reversible, inhibitor of EGFR (ErbB1) and HER2 (ErbB2) receptor tyrosine kinases. EGF104535 is a phase III, international, randomized, double-blind study comparing lapatinib plus paclitaxel (L+P) versus P alone as 1st linetreatment for pts with HER2-positive+ (MBC). The study was focused in the Asia Pacific region. Methods: Pts with centrally confirmed HER2-positive (by FISH) MBC and measurable disease were randomized to L 1500 mg daily + P 80mg/m2/wk 3 out of 4 wk or to P 80mg/m2/wk 3 out of 4 wk alone. Pts were administered P for 6 cycles with additional cycles at investigator discretion, and continued on blinded randomized therapy until disease progression (PD). At time of PD, there was an optional monotherapy extension to allow pts on P alone arm to receive L monotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included progressionfree survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR) and safety. Analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat population. Results: 444 pts (N=222/arm) across 43 centers were randomized: 67% of P pts received L monotherapy. Baseline demographics were well-balanced between treatment groups. OS was significantly longer in the combination therapy (L+P) as compared with P alone. [Cox Regression Analysis: Treatment Hazard Ratio (HR) (95% CI)=0.64(0.49,0.82), p=0.0005, Kaplan-Meier estimates: median OS 27.8 mos (95% CI=23.2,32.2) vs 20.5 mos (95% CI=17.9,24.3), respectively]. Median PFS increased to 9.7 mos (95% CI=9.2, 11.1) compared with 6.5 mos (95% CI=5.5, 7.3), in the L+P vs P, respectively [HR (95%CI)=0.52(0.42,0.64), stratified log rank P<0.0001]. ORR for L+P was 69% (95% CI=63%,75%) compared with 50% (95% CI=43%,56%) for P alone [Odds Ratio=2.3 (1.54, 3.47), P<0.0001]. CBR improved with L+P (75%, 95% CI=69%,80%) compared with P alone (56%, 95% CI=49%,63%) [Odds Ratio=2.34 (1.54, 3.58), P<0.0001]. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (L+P, 77%, Grade 3/4 20/0; P, 29% Grade 3/4, <1/<1) and neutropenia (L+P, 77% Grade 3/4, 35/16; P, 47%, Grade 3/4, 15/5). The incidence of withdrawal from treatment due to AEs (13% vs 10%) was a similar. Conclusion: The combination of L+P showed a statistically and clinically meaningful survival advantage. Secondary endpoints support the observed clinical benefit. The combination of L+P was well tolerated. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-14-24.