By: SHARON WORCESTER, Internal Medicine News Digital Network
Major Finding: Adding bevacizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased the rate of pathological complete response from 28.2% to 34.5% in one study and from 14.9% to 18.4% in another.
Data Source: The results come from two large randomized phase III trials – the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-40 trial and the GeparQuinto (GBG44) trial.
Disclosures: NSABP B-40 was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Genentech USA, and Eli Lilly. GeparQuinto was supported by grants from Sanofi-Aventis and Roche, Germany. Detailed individual author disclosures are available with the full text of the articles at NEJM.org.
View on The News
Bevacizumab: The Debate Heats Up
Adding bevacizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early-stage HER2-negative breast cancer significantly improves pathological complete response, according to preliminary reports from two large randomized clinical trials.
The published results are likely to reopen debate over the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration decision to revoke an indication for bevacizumab (Avastin) in metastatic breast cancer and the use of surrogate end points for survival in breast cancer trials.
Findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-40 trial and the GeparQuinto (GBG44) trial appear in the Jan. 26 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine.
Docetaxel-Based Chemo in NSABP B-40
In NSABP B-40, 1,206 patients were enrolled between Jan. 5, 2007 and June 20, 2101 and randomly assigned to receive docetaxel (Taxotere), docetaxel plus capecitabine (Xeloda), or docetaxel plus gemcitabine (Gemzar) for four cycles. All groups received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide for an additional four cycles, and the participants were additionally assigned to receive or not receive bevacizumab (Avastin) – an antiangiogenic monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), for the first 6 of the 8 treatment cycles.
The addition of the antimetabolites capecitabine or gemcitabine had no significant effect on pathological complete response in the breast, with, respectively 29.7% and 31.8% of patients achieving that primary end point, compared with 32.7% of those receiving only docetaxel, Dr. Harry D. Bear of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond and his colleagues reported (N. Engl. J. Med. 2012;366:310-20).
Adding bevacizumab, however, increased the rate of pathological complete response in the breast significantly from 28.2% to 34.5%. Subgroup analysis indicated the effect was more pronounced in patients with hormone receptor–positive tumors (the rate increasing significantly from 15.1% without bevacizumab to 23.2% with bevacizumab) than in hormone receptor–negative tumors (47.1% and 51.5%, respectively), the investigators said. The benefit of bevacizumab tended to be seen more in patients with a high tumor grade.
Epirubicin-based Chemo in GeparQuinto
In the GeparQuinto trial, 1,948 patients were enrolled from November 2007 through June 2010 and randomized to receive neoadjuvant epirubicin (Ellence) and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel either with or without bevacizumab.
|
|
Pathological complete response occurred in 18.4% of those who received bevacizumab, compared with 14.9% of those who did not (odds ratio, 1.29), Dr. Gunter von Minckwitz of the German Breast Group, Neu-Isenburg, Germany and his colleagues reported. (N. Engl. J. Med. 2012;366:299-309). After adjusting for age, clinical tumor and nodal stage, hormone-receptor status, tumor grade, and histologic type, the odds ratio was 1.36.
In contrast with the findings from NSABP B-40, the greatest effects of bevacizumab in GBG44 were seen in the 633 patients with triple-negative tumors (27.9% without vs. 39.3% with bevacizumab), compared with the 1,262 patients with hormone-receptor-positive tumors (7.8% and 7.7%, respectively). The test for interaction for this finding was not significant, but the study was not powered to show these differential effects, the investigators noted.
Investigators from both trials suggested that possible reasons for the divergent findings between the studies include differences in inclusion criteria and drug dosing and/or sequencing.
View on The News
Bevacizumab: The Debate Heats Up
While the results of these studies are particularly timely given the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s revocation in November of its 2008 approval of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, they do little to quell the controversy surrounding bevacizumab, Dr. Alberto J. Montero and Dr. Charles Vogel said in an accompanying editorial.
The studies were designed based on the "plausible assumption" that a surrogate clinical end point such as progression-free survival – the end point used in the trials on which bevacizumab was initially approved – should be used in cases of metastatic breast cancer.
"The unresolved issue is whether significant improvements in a surrogate end point ... in the absence of a benefit for overall survival, are potentially predictive of curative benefits in patients with earlier-stage breast cancer," they said; only data on recurrence and survival from ongoing trials will resolve this issue (N. Engl. J. Med. 2012;366:374-5).
The controversy also involves broader questions about the use of surrogate end points, as well as about economic factors such as the ever-increasing cost of new cancer drugs.
"It is through this lens that the NSABP B-40 and GBG44 trials should be viewed, since each of these trials reports a significant improvement with bevacizumab in another putative surrogate clinical end point: pathological complete response," they said, adding that if such surrogate end points are ultimately shown to predict survival benefits in earlier-stage disease, their use in clinical research will be vindicated – and the FDA’s recent action will be further called into question.
"However, in the context of unsustainable expenditures for cancer care in the United States, any survival benefit of bevacizumab, or other molecularly targeted drugs, will be balanced against the considerable development costs of modern molecularly targeted oncology drugs," they said.
Dr. Montero and Dr. Vogel are with the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Vogel had several disclosures. The complete list is available with the full text of the editorial at NEJM.org.
> more Women's Health articles
Interested in being notified of new Women's Health news?
Click here to view our Women's Health RSS Feed.
| May 18 - 23 San Francisco, CA | American Thoracic Society (ATS): International Conference |
| May 19 - 24 Atlanta, GA | American Urological Association (AUA): Annual Meeting |
| May 19 - 23 Stockholm, | European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS): Annual Congress |
| May 20 - 23 Brisbane, | Australasian College of Dermatologists: Annual Scientific Meeting |
| May 20 - 23 San Antonio, TX | American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA): Annual Meeting |
| May 20 - 23 Washington, DC | American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP): Leadership & Advocacy Conference |
| May 21 - 23 Nice, | 12th International Review of Bipolar Disorders (IRBD 12) |
| May 21 - 25 Sarasota, FL | American Medical Seminars: Cardiology Update in Primary Care |
| May 22 - 25 Lisbon, | 21st European Stroke Conference |
| May 23 - 27 Philadelphia, PA | American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE): Annual Meeting and Clinical Congress |