Biomarker Analysis of the Phase III NALA Study of Neratinib + Capecitabine versus Lapatinib + Capecitabine in Patients with Previously Treated Metastatic Breast Cancer

Other authors

Institut Català de la Salut

[Saura C, Oliveira M] Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain. Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. SOLTI Innovative Breast Cancer Research, Barcelona, Spain. [Matito J] Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain. [Wildiers H] University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. [Brufksy AM] Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [Waters SH] Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom. [Vivancos A] Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain. SOLTI Innovative Breast Cancer Research, Barcelona, Spain

Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus

Publication date

2022-06-17T09:46:21Z

2022-06-17T09:46:21Z

2021-11-01

Abstract

Cáncer de mama metastásico; Biomarcadores; Capecitabina


Càncer de mama metastàtic; Biomarcadors; Capecitabina


Metastatic breast cancer; Biomarkers; Capecitabine


Purpose: Neratinib plus capecitabine (N+C) demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in NALA (NCT01808573), a randomized phase III trial comparing N+C with lapatinib + capecitabine (L+C) in 621 patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had received ≥2 prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting. We evaluated correlations between exploratory biomarkers and PFS. Patients and Methods: Somatic mutations were evaluated by next-generation sequencing on primary or metastatic samples. HER2 protein expression was evaluated by central IHC, H-score, and VeraTag/HERmark. p95 expression (truncated HER2) was measured by VeraTag. HRs were estimated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Four hundred and twenty samples had successful sequencing: 34.0% had PIK3CA mutations and 5.5% had HER2 (ERBB2) mutations. In the combined patient populations, PIK3CA mutations trended toward shorter PFS [wild-type vs. mutant, HR = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64–1.03], whereas HER2 mutations trended toward longer PFS [HR = 1.69 (95% CI, 0.97–3.29)]. Higher HER2 protein expression was associated with longer PFS [IHC 3+ vs. 2+, HR = 0.67 (0.54–0.82); H-score ≥240 versus <240, HR = 0.77 (0.63–0.93); HERmark positive vs. negative, HR = 0.76 (0.59–0.98)]. Patients whose tumors had higher HER2 protein expression (any method) derived an increased benefit from N+C compared with L+C [IHC 3+, HR = 0.64 (0.51–0.81); H-score ≥ 240, HR = 0.54 (0.41–0.72); HERmark positive, HR = 0.65 (0.50–0.84)], as did patients with high p95 [p95 ≥2.8 relative fluorescence (RF)/mm2, HR = 0.66 (0.50–0.86) vs. p95 < 2.8 RF/mm2, HR = 0.91 (0.61–1.36)]. Conclusions: PIK3CA mutations were associated with shorter PFS whereas higher HER2 expression was associated with longer PFS. Higher HER2 protein expression was also associated with a greater benefit for N+C compared with L+C.


This work was supported by Puma Biotechnology Inc. (no grant number is applicable).

Document Type

Article


Published version

Language

English

Publisher

American Association for Cancer Research

Related items

Clinical Cancer Research;27(21)

https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-1584

Recommended citation

This citation was generated automatically.

Rights

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This item appears in the following Collection(s)