From the Journals

ABP 980 similar to trastuzumab in HER2+ breast cancer in all but name

View on the News

‘A curious regulatory issue’

The LILAC trial has some strengths and weaknesses and raises a curious regulatory issue. To begin with the weaknesses, only 696 of 725 randomized patients were evaluable for pathological complete response after surgery. No data about the outcomes, characteristics, or allocated treatment of the patients who did not reach surgery were provided. These lost patients should have been included in the intention-to-treat analysis and their responses classified when possible (e.g., those who did not reach surgery due to progressive disease should have been classified as nonpathological complete response). The effect of these few patients on the overall results is unknown, although it is possibly small.

Among the strengths of LILAC were that the trial was done in a sensitive population (i.e., a population in which differences in safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy could be attributed to the biosimilar or reference drug rather than patient-related or disease-related factors). Two chemotherapy choices were included that are broadly used worldwide, and thus mimicked routine clinical practice, and the study had a sensitive primary endpoint (pathological complete response). The aim of clinical trials in the regulatory pathway of biosimilars is to show an acceptable degree of similarity in clinical efficacy and safety to the reference product. For original products, endpoints in clinical trials must show benefits to patients, such as progression-free survival, disease-free survival, or overall survival, whereas for biosimilars, surrogate endpoints, such as the proportion of patients with pathological response in breast cancer neoadjuvant trials, are appropriate. The study design of LILAC, therefore, meets the main clinical requirements demanded by medicine agencies for the registration of biosimilars.

Miguel Martin, MD, PhD is with Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Universidad Complutense, Madrid. Dr. Martin’s remarks are adapted and condensed from an editorial in The Lancet Oncology accompanying the study by von Minckwitz G et al. He disclosed grants from Novartis and Roche and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche.


 

FROM THE LANCET ONCOLOGY


The safety analysis showed a similar incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events during neoadjuvant therapy (15% of patients on ABP 980 vs. 14% on trastuzumab). Grade 3 or greater neutropenia occurred in 6% of patients in each group.

During adjuvant therapy, grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 9% of patients continuing ABP 980, 6% continuing trastuzumab, and 8% of these switched from trastuzumab to ABP 980. The most frequent grade 3 or greater events of interest were infections and neutropenia, all occurring in 1% of patients in each arm, and infusion reaction, which occurred in 1% of patients who stayed on the assigned HER2 inhibitor and in 2% of patients who were switched to ABP 980.

There were two patient deaths from adverse events, each deemed to be unrelated to treatment. One patient died from pneumonia during neoadjuvant ABP 980 therapy, and one died from septic shock during adjuvant therapy with ABP 980 after being switch from trastuzumab.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study of a trastuzumab biosimilar encompassing a single-switch design from the reference product to a biosimilar, which allowed us to assess the clinical safety and immunogenicity of this approach to treatment. Safety and immunogenicity were similar in patients who were switched and in those who continued to receive trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE: von Minckwitz G et al. Lancet Oncol 2018 Jun 4. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30241-9.

Pages

Recommended Reading

HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: Current Management
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
IMPACT study: Matched targeted therapy improves survival in advanced cancer
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Dr. William J. Gradishar shares breast cancer take-aways from ASCO 2018
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
TAILORx marks major advance for precision medicine in breast cancer
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Everolimus/exemestane improves PFS of ER+/HER2– breast cancer vs. everolimus alone
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Rural cancer patients report faster care than urban counterparts
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
The long-term effects of posttreatment exercise on pain in young women with breast cancer
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
ASCO 2018: Less is more as ‘tailoring’ takes on new meaning
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Higher BMI tied to lower breast cancer risk in women before menopause
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Trastuzumab biosimilar is equivalent on central review
MDedge Hematology and Oncology