Health-related quality of life with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer: Patient-reported outcomes in the PEARL study

Background: The PEARL study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (palbociclib/ET) was not superior to capecitabine in improving progression-free survival in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitors, but was better tolerated. This analysis compared patient-reported outcomes. Patients and methods: The PEARL quality of life (QoL) population comprised 537 patients, 268 randomised to palbociclib/ET (exemestane or fulvestrant) and 269 to capecitabine. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires. Changes from the baseline and time to deterioration (TTD) were analysed using linear mixed-effect and stratified Cox regression models, respectively. Results: Questionnaire completion rate was high and similar between treatment arms. Significant differences were observed in the mean change in global health status (GHS)/QoL scores from the baseline to cycle 3 (2.9 for palbociclib/ET vs. -2.1 for capecitabine (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4–8.6; P = 0.007). The median TTD in GHS/QoL was 8.3 months for palbociclib/ET versus 5.3 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55–0.89; P = 0.003). Similar improvements for palbociclib/ET were also seen for other scales as physical, role, cognitive, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. No differences were observed between the treatment arms in change from the baseline in any item of the EQ-5D-L3 questionnaire as per the overall index score and visual analogue scale. Conclusion: Patients receiving palbociclib/ET experienced a significant delay in deterioration of GHS/QoL and several functional and symptom scales compared with capecitabine, providing additional evidence that palbociclib/ET is better tolerated. Trial registration number: NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov). EudraCT study number: 2013-003170-27. © 2021 The Author(s

Palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in hormonal receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative, aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer: a phase III randomised controlled trial—PEARL

Background: Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) is the standard treatment of hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, its efficacy has not been compared with that of chemotherapy in a phase III trial. Patients and methods: PEARL is a multicentre, phase III randomised study in which patients with aromatase inhibitor (AI)-resistant MBC were included in two consecutive cohorts. In cohort 1, patients were randomised 1 : 1 to palbociclib plus exemestane or capecitabine. On discovering new evidence about estrogen receptor-1 (ESR1) mutations inducing resistance to AIs, the trial was amended to include cohort 2, in which patients were randomised 1 : 1 between palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine. The stratification criteria were disease site, prior sensitivity to ET, prior chemotherapy for MBC, and country of origin. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in cohort 2 and in wild-type ESR1 patients (cohort 1 + cohort 2). ESR1 hotspot mutations were analysed in baseline circulating tumour DNA. Results: From March 2014 to July 2018, 296 and 305 patients were included in cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively. Palbociclib plus ET was not superior to capecitabine in both cohort 2 [median PFS: 7.5 versus 10.0 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.50] and wild-type ESR1 patients (median PFS: 8.0 versus 10.6 months; aHR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.87-1.41). The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities with palbociclib plus exemestane, palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine, respectively, were neutropenia (57.4%, 55.7% and 5.5%), hand/foot syndrome (0%, 0% and 23.5%), and diarrhoea (1.3%, 1.3% and 7.6%). Palbociclib plus ET offered better quality of life (aHR for time to deterioration of global health status: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.53-0.85). Conclusions: There was no statistical superiority of palbociclib plus ET over capecitabine with respect to PFS in MBC patients resistant to AIs. Palbociclib plus ET showed a better safety profile and improved quality of life

Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Prognostic and predictive biomarkers to cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors are lacking. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can be used to profile these patients and dynamic changes in ctDNA could be an early predictor of treatment efficacy. Here, we conducted plasma ctDNA profiling in patients from the PEARL trial comparing palbociclib+fulvestrant versus capecitabine to investigate associations between baseline genomic landscape and on-treatment ctDNA dynamics with treatment efficacy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Correlative blood samples were collected at baseline [cycle 1-day 1 (C1D1)] and prior to treatment [cycle 1-day 15 (C1D15)]. Plasma ctDNA was sequenced with a custom error-corrected capture panel, with both univariate and multivariate Cox models used for treatment efficacy associations. A prespecified methodology measuring ctDNA changes in clonal mutations between C1D1 and C1D15 was used for the on-treatment ctDNA dynamic model. RESULTS: 201 patients were profiled at baseline, with ctDNA detection associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS)/overall survival (OS). Detectable TP53 mutation showed worse PFS and OS in both treatment arms, even after restricting population to baseline ctDNA detection. ESR1 mutations were associated with worse OS overall, which was lost when restricting population to baseline ctDNA detection. PIK3CA mutations confer worse OS only to patients on the palbociclib+fulvestrant treatment arm. ctDNA dynamics analysis (n = 120) showed higher ctDNA suppression in the capecitabine arm. Patients without ctDNA suppression showed worse PFS in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: We show impaired survival irrespective of endocrine or chemotherapy-based treatments for patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer harboring plasma TP53 mutations. Early ctDNA suppression may provide treatment efficacy predictions. Further validation to fully demonstrate clinical utility of ctDNA dynamics is warranted

Overall survival with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the PEARL study.

BACKGROUND: An earlier analysis of the PEARL phase III study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) does not improve progression-free survival (PFS) over capecitabine in aromatase inhibitor-resistant, hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Here, we report the final overall survival (OS) analysis. METHODS: Postmenopausal patients (N = 601) were randomized 1:1 to capecitabine or palbociclib plus ET (exemestane, Cohort 1; fulvestrant, Cohort 2). OS was analysed in Cohort 2, the wild-type ESR1 population and the overall population. Additionally, we analysed subsequent systemic therapies and explored PFS2 (time from randomization to the end of the first subsequent therapy/death). RESULTS: OS was 31.1 months for palbociclib plus fulvestrant and 32.8 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.50, P = 0.550). In the wild-type ESR1 population, OS was 37.2 months for palbociclib plus ET and 34.8 months for capecitabine (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.37, P = 0.683). In OS analyses, no subgroup showed superiority for palbociclib plus ET over capecitabine. OS in the overall population was 32.6 months for palbociclib plus ET and 30.9 months for capecitabine (P = 0.995). Subsequent systemic therapy was given to 79.8% and 82.9% of patients with palbociclib plus ET and capecitabine, respectively. Median PFS2 was similar between study arms (Cohort 2, P = 0.941; wild-type ESR1 population, P = 0.827). No new safety findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Palbociclib plus ET did not show a statistically superior OS compared to capecitabine in MBC patients progressing on aromatase inhibitors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov), 2013-003170-27 (EudraCT)

Palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in hormonal receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative, aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer: a phase III randomised controlled trial-PEARL.

BackgroundPalbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) is the standard treatment for hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, its efficacy has not been compared with that of chemotherapy in a phase III trial.Patients and methodsPEARL is a multicentre, phase III randomised study in which patients with aromatase inhibitors (AIs)-resistant MBC were included in two consecutive cohorts. In cohort 1 (C1), patients were randomised 1:1 to palbociclib plus exemestane or capecitabine. On discovering new evidence about oestrogen receptor-1 (ESR1) mutations inducing resistance to AIs, the trial was amended to include cohort 2 (C2), in which patients were randomised 1:1 between palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine. The stratification criteria were disease site, prior sensitivity to ET, prior chemotherapy for MBC, and country of origin. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in C2 and in wild-type ESR1 patients (C1+C2). ESR1 hotspot mutations were analysed in baseline circulating tumour DNA.ResultsFrom March-2014 to July-2018, 296 and 305 patients were included in C1 and C2, respectively. Palbociclib plus ET was not superior to capecitabine in both C2 (median PFS: 7.5 vs. 10.0 months; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.13; 95% confidence Interval [CI]: 0.85-1.50) and wild-type ESR1 patients (median PFS: 8.0 vs. 10.6 months; aHR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.87-1.41). The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities with palbociclib plus exemestane, palbociclib plus fulvestrant, and capecitabine were neutropenia (57.4%, 55.7% and 5.5%), hand/foot syndrome (0%, 0% and 23.5%), and diarrhoea (1.3%, 1.3% and 7.6%). Palbociclib plus ET offered better quality of life (aHR for time to deterioration of global health status: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.53-0.85).ConclusionsThere was no statistical superiority of palbociclib plus ET over capecitabine with respect to PFS in MBC patients resistant to AIs. Palbociclib plus ET showed a better safety profile and improved quality of life