São Paulo

29/03/2019

GEICAM-CIBOMA Carlos H Barrios MD

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 2019

• Clinical Research: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Covance, Lilly, Medivation, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche/Genentech.

• Academic Research Projects: CPO, PUCRS, LACOG, GBECAM, INCA-Brazil.

• Advisory Boards and Consulting: Boehringer-Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Eisai.

• No financial conflicts to declare.

Carlos H. Barrios, MD barrios@tummi.org

Conflict of Interest Statement

This presentation reflects my personal opinion, and not that of my employer or the sponsor of this activity. Its main objective is to stimulate independent scientific discussion and does not intend to promote a specific product or indication. The information presented may be different from the local/regional label of some of the medications. Please refer to your local label for further clarification.

Carlos H. Barrios, MD barrios@tummi.org

Efficacy results from GEICAM/2003-11_CIBOMA/2004-01 study: a randomized phase III trial assessing adjuvant

capecitabine after standard chemotherapy for patients with early triple negative breast cancer

Professor Miguel Martin

Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain

Authors: Miguel Martín, Carlos H Barrios, Laura Torrecillas, Manuel Ruiz-Borrego, Jose Bines, Jose Segalla, Amparo Ruiz, Jose A García-Sáenz, Roberto Torres, Juan de la Haba, Elena García-Martínez, Henry L Gómez, Antonio Llombart, María Rodríguez de la Borbolla, José M Baena, Agustí Barnadas, Lourdes Calvo, Laura Pérez-Michel, Manuel Ramos, Javier Castellanos, Álvaro Rodríguez-Lescure, Jesús Cárdenas, Jeferson Vinholes, Eduardo Martínez de Dueñas, Maria J Godes, Miguel A Seguí, Antonio Antón, Pilar López-Álvarez, Jorge Moncayo, Gilberto Amorim, Esther Villar, Salvador Reyes, Carlos Sampaio, Bernardita Cardemil, Maria J Escudero, Susana Bezares, Eva Carrasco, Ana Lluch, on behalf of CIBOMA (Iberoamerican Coalition for Research in Breast Oncology), LACOG (Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group) and GEICAM Spanish Breast Cancer Group.

EudraCT number: 2005-002838-36. NCT: 00130533.

Study Design

• 6 cy. of standard CT mandatory except for N0 tumors (4 cy. of AC admitted).

• Primary endpoint: Disease-Free Survival (DFS).

• Secondary endpoints: Overall Survival (OS), subgroup analyses, safety, biomarkers.

• TNBC: ER-, PR-, HER2- (centrally confirmed)

• T1c-T3, N0-N3a*, M0

• Prior standard neo/adjuvant CT with anthra +/- taxanes

• Surgery with free-margins

*except infraclavicular lymph node involvement. 1:1

Random

ization

Capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 p.o., b.i.d. x 14 days every 3 weeks x

8 cycles

Observation

Stratification Factors:

• Institution

• Basal Phenotype according to CK 5/6 and/or EGFR staining (yes vs no)

• ALN (0 vs 1-3 vs ≥4)

• Prior CT (anthra vs anthra + taxanes)

Abbreviations: ER: Estrogen Receptor. PR: Progesterone Receptor. HER2: Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2. CT: Chemotherapy. Anthras: Anthracyclines. CK: Cytokeratins. EGFR: Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor. ALN: Axillary Lymph Nodes. Cy.: Cycles. AC: Doxorubicin + Cyclophosphamide.

Radiation therapy according to institution standards

Statistical Plan

• Primary analysis: DFS for ITT population.

• According to GEICAM “El Alamo” registry, the expected 5-year DFS for a similar

population is 64.7%1.

• Study hypothesis: capecitabine will increase 5-year DFS to 73.7% (Δ 9%, 80%

power to detect a HR of 0.701).

• 834 eligible patients needed, assuming a drop-out rate of 5%, a total of 876

patients were to be enrolled (438 in each arm).

• 255 DFS events projected.

• Stratified Log-rank test and Cox proportional-hazards model by stratification

factors. 1Project “The Alamo III”. ISBN: 84-938762-5-9. Legal deposit: M-36626-2013.

Phase 3, international, open-label

study randomized 876 patients in 8

countries and 80 sites.

Spain, n=532 (60.7%)

Mexico, n=113 (12.9%)

Brasil, n=139 (15.9%)

Chile, n=42 (4.8%)

Peru, n=19 (2.2%)

Ecuador, n=18 (2.1%)

Venezuela, n=4 (0.5%)

Colombia, n=9 (1.0%)

Recruitment period:

from 26th-Oct-2006 to 12nd-Sep-2011

Recruitment per Country

Patient and Tumor Characteristics (1)

Capecitabine (n=448) Observation (n=428)

Median age, years (range) 50 (20-79) 49 (23-82)

Region, n (%) • Spain • Latin America (LA)

272 (60.7) 176 (39.3)

260 (60.7) 168 (39.3)

Menopausal status at diagnosis, n (%) • Premenopausal • Postmenopausal

136 (30.4) 312 (69.6)

140 (32.7) 288 (67.3)

Stage at diagnosis, n (%) • I • II • III • Not available

62 (13.8)

270 (60.3) 106 (23.7)

10 (2.2)

74 (17.3) 271 (63.3) 80 (18.7) 3 (0.7)

Nodal status, n (%) • Negative • 1–3 positive nodes • ≥4 positive nodes • Not available

244 (54.5) 121 (27.0) 77 (17.2) 6 (1.3)

242 (56.5) 124 (29.0) 61 (14.3) 1 (0.2)

Patient and Tumor Characteristics (2)

Capecitabine (n=448) Observation (n=428)

Type of CT, n (%)

• Adjuvant (only)

• Neoadjuvant (+/- adjuvant)

• Missing data

353 (78.8)

89 (19.9)

6 (1.3)

352 (82.2)

75 (17.5)

1 (0.2)

pCR in patients with neoadjuvant CT*, n (%) 22 (24.7) 19 (25.3)

CT regimens, n (%)

• Anthracyclines-based

• Anthracyclines and Taxanes-based

147 (32.8)

301 (67.2)

138 (32.2)

290 (67.8)

*Pathological complete response in breast and axilla after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Disease-Free Survival (ITT)

Capecitabine 448 396 365 344 334 323 304 248 154 60 17 1

Observation 428 379 347 329 313 290 262 204 123 58 25 2

Number of patients at risk

Group Events

Capecitabine 105

Observation 120

HR: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.06, p=0.136)

Adjusted HR*: 0.79 (95% CI: 0.61, 1.03, p=0.082)

Median follow-up: 7.34 years

*Adjusted HR for stratification variables: Spain vs. LA, previous neo/adjuvant treatment (anthracyclines vs. anthracyclines and taxanes), number of involved nodes (0 vs. 1-3 vs. ≥4) and TN phenotype by IHC (basal vs. non-basal).

Time (Years)

Dis

ease-F

ree S

urviv

al P

ro

bab

ilit

y

Log-rank p-value: 0.135

79.6%

76.8%

100

90

80

70

60

50

1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 8 9 10 11

Expected 64.7%

Overall Survival (ITT)

Capecitabine 448 417 393 367 354 347 324 267 170 71 24 1

Observation 428 407 375 350 339 318 296 232 145 73 28 2

Number of patients at risk

Group Events

Capecitabine 71

Observation 73

HR: 0.92 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.28)

Median follow-up: 7.34 years

Time (Years)

Overall

Su

rviv

al P

ro

bab

ilit

y

Log-rank p-value: 0.623

86.2%

85.9%

100

90

80

70

60

50

1 0 3 4 5 6 7 2 8 9 10 11

Subgroup Analysis of DFS (ITT)

Hazard Ratio No. of events HR (95% CI)

Subgroup Overall Menopausal Status Premenopausal Postmenopausal Phenotype Basal Non-basal Chemotherapy Neoadjuvant Adjuvant Type of CT Taxanes No taxanes N0 vs. N+ N0 N+ Region Spain Latin America

Subgroup n=876 (100%) 276 (32) 600 (68) 628 (72) 248 (28) 164 (19) 705 (80) 285 (33) 591 (67) 444 (51) 420 (49) 532 (61) 344 (39)

Capecit. 105 24 81 84 21 29 74 33 72 34 70 60 45

Observ.

120 35 85 86 34 24 96 36 84 52 67 75 45

0.819 (0.630-1.065) 0.686 (0.408-1.153) 0.867 (0.639-1.176) 0.942 (0.697-1.272) 0.530 (0.307-0.913) 1.006 (0.586-1.727) 0.747 (0.552-1.012) 0.884 (0.551-1.418) 0.798 (0.583-1.093) 0.685 (0.445-1.057) 0.878 (0.628-1.228) 0.750 (0.534-1.053) 0.934 (0.618-1.413)

0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.6 2 <-Capecitabine Observation->

DFS

Prob

ab

ilit

y

Non-basal (EGFR and CK5/6 negative)

Time (Years)

DFS

Prob

ab

ilit

y

Basal (EGFR and/or CK5/6 positive)

Time (Years)

Subgroup Analysis of DFS (ITT)

Cape. 329 290 266 274 241 232 223 186 126 52 14

Obs. 318 287 263 252 237 219 195 154 102 49 22

Number of patients at risk

Cape. 119 106 99 97 93 91 81 62 28 8 3

Obs. 110 92 84 77 76 71 67 50 21 9 3

Number of patients at risk

p-value interaction test: 0.0694

78.5%

78.2%

Log-rank p-value: 0.696

HR: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.70, 1.27)

100

90

80

70

60

50

1 0 3 4 5 6 7 2 8 9 10

82.6%

72.9%

100

90

80

70

60

50

1 0 3 4 5 6 7 2 8 9 10

Log-rank p-value: 0.020

HR: 0.53 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.91)

Group Events

Capecitabine 21

Observation 34

Group Events

Capecitabine 84

Observation 86

79.6%

89.5%

Log-rank p-value: 0.007 100

90

80

70

60

50

1 0 3 4 5 6 7 2 8 9 10

84.9%

Log-rank p-value: 0.286

88.0%

100

90

80

70

60

50

1 0 3 4 5 6 7 2 8 9 10

OS

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Basal (EGFR and/or CK5/6 positive)

Time (Years)

Subgroup Analysis of OS (ITT)

OS

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Non-basal (EGFR and CK5/6 negative)

Time (Years)

Cape. 329

307

286

263

256

249

238

200

139

63 21

Obs. 318

301

284

268

259

242

223

179

123

64 25

Number of patients at risk

Cape. 119 110 107 104 98 98 86 67 31 8 3

Obs. 110 106 91 82 80 76 73 53 22 9 3

Number of patients at risk

p-value interaction test: 0.0052

Group Events

Capecitabine 13

Observation 27

Group Events

Capecitabine 58

Observation 46 HR: 1.23

(95% CI: 0.84, 1.82) HR: 0.42

(95% CI: 0.21, 0.81)

OVERALL POPULATION NON-BASAL POPULATION

Capecitabine (n=448)

Observation (n=428)

Capecitabine (n=119)

Observation (n=110)

Any DFS event, n (%) 105 (23.4) 120 (28.0) 21 (17.6) 34 (30.9)

Death without known recurrence, n (%) 14 (3.1) 10 (2.3) 2 (1.7) 3 (2.7)

Locoregional recurrence (after mastectomy), n (%) 0 4 (1.0) 0 2 (1.8)

Ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence, n (%) 5 (1.1) 12 (2.8) 2 (1.7) 3 (2.7)

Contralateral invasive breast cancer, n (%) 12 (2.7) 14 (3.3) 3 (2.5) 2 (1.8)

Distant recurrence (any), n (%) 64 (14.3) 66 (15.4) 13 (10.9) 18 (16.4)

• Lung 31 (6.9) 29 (6.8) 7 (5.9) 6 (5.5)

• Bone 19 (4.2) 19 (4.4) 4 (3.4) 5 (4.5)

• Lymph nodes 16 (3.6) 18 (4.2) 1 (0.8) 4 (3.6)

• Liver 13 (2.9) 20 (4.7) 2 (1.7) 6 (5.5)

• CNS 15 (3.3) 16 (3.7) 3 (2.5) 6 (5.5)

• Other 11 (2.4) 12 (2.8) 2 (1.7) 3 (2.7)

DFS Events: Overall and Non-basal Populations

Conclusions

• This study failed to show a statistically significant increase in DFS by adding

capecitabine to standard neo/adjuvant chemotherapy in early TNBC:

─ 5-year DFS with capecitabine vs. observation: 79.6% vs 76.8% (△ 2.8%, HR: 0.82, p=0.14, adjusted

HR: 0.79, p=0.082).

• In a prospective subset analysis, TNBC patients with non-basal like phenotype (IHC)

had a statistically significant increase in DFS and OS with extended adjuvant

capecitabine:

─ 5-year DFS with capecitabine vs observation: 82.6% vs 72.9% (HR 0.53, p=0.02, △9.7%).

─ 5-year OS with capecitabine vs observation: 89.5% vs 79.6% (HR 0.42, p=0.007, △9.9%).

• Tolerance of extended adjuvant capecitabine was as expected, with a median dose

intensity of 86.3% and 75.2% of patients completing the planned 8 cycles.

Spain

Mexico

Brazil

Chile

Peru

Ecuador

Venezuela

Colombia

Participating countries and sites:

Acknowledgments

H. Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Spain H. U. Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain Hemato-Oncólogos de Imbanaco, Colombia

H. U. Virgen del Rocío de Sevilla, Spain Social S. H. Teodoro Maldonado Carbo, Ecuador Social S. Hospital Carlos Andrade Marín, Ecuador

INCA (Instituto Nacional do Cancer), RJ Brasil Centro Oncologistas Asociados - RJ, Brasil Fundación Rodolfo Padilla Padilla, México

H. Amaral Carvalho - Jaú, Brasil H. R. U. Carlos Haya, Málaga, Spain H. Clinic i Provincial, Barcelona, Spain

Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Spain H. De la Beneficiencia Española, Mexico H. Comarcal de Barbastro, Spain

H. Clínico San Carlos de Madrid, Spain Clínica Amo Itaigara, Brasil H. General de Occidente, México

Instituto Nacional del Cáncer, Chile Centro Oncológico de Nayarit, México H. De Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Brasil

H. U. Reina Sofía de Córdoba, Spain F. H. de Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain Centro Estatal de Cancerología Chihuahua, México

H. G.U.Morales Meseguer de Murcia, Spain H. Base de Valdivia, Chile Centro Oncológico de Mérida SCP, México

H. Arnau de Vilanova de Lérida, Spain H. Femina - RS, Brasil H. Ángeles Ciudad Juárez, México

Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas (INEN), Perú

H. General Yagüe, Burgos, Spain Consorcio Sanitario de Terrasa, Spain

H. São Lucas da PUCRS, Brasil H. Insular de las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain F. Santa Fe de Bogotá, Colombia

H. U. Nuestra Sra. de Valme de Sevilla, Spain H. de Jerez, Cádiz, Spain H. Guillermo Grant Benavente, Chile

H. Puerta del Mar de Cádiz, Spain I. Jaliciense de Cancerología, México H. Militar, Venezuela

H. Santa Creu i Sant Pau de Barcelona, Spain H. Duran i Reynals, ICO L’Hospitalet, BCN, Spain H. Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain

C. H. La Coruña – Juan Canalejo, Spain Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal , Madrid H. U. Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain

Centro Oncológico de Galicia, La Coruña, Spain H. Universitario Salamanca, Spain H. Espíritu Santo, Barcelona, Spain

H. San José, México H. Virgen de la Salud, Toledo, Spain H. Provincial de Zamora, Zamora

H. General de Elche, Spain Centro Oncológico Belenus, SC, México H. Virgen de la Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain

H. Xeral Cies de Vigo, Spain Centro Oncológico Estatal ISSEM y M, México Núcleo de Oncología de Bahía, Brasil

Centro Médico Colima, Mexico Complejo Hospitalario de Jaén, Spain CEPREC, México

H. Provincial de Castellón, Spain H. Aranda de la Parra Centro Oncológico, México H. General U. de Alicante, Spain

U. De Novos Tratamentos CLINIONCO-RS, Brasil H. San Borja Arriarán, Chile H. Oncológico Padre Machado, Venezuela

CMN 20 de Noviembre ISSSTE, Mexico H. U. Germans Trias i Pujol, Barcelona, Spain H. U. Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain

C. H. Ntra. Sra. de la Candelaria, Tenerife, Spain H. Clínico Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza, Spain H. Universitario de Guadalajara, Spain

Corporación Sanitaria Parc Taulí, Barcelona, Spain H. U. de La Pincesa, Madrid, Spain Instituto Oncológico de Guipúzcoa, Spain

H. General U. de Valencia, Spain H del Mar, Barcelona, Spain

Staff members of:

All patients and her families

Roche/Genentech (for funding this clinical trial and providing Xeloda®)

HR for Relapse of Breast Cancer Between 1986-92 and 2004-08 (BCCA)

Cossetti R, et al. JCO, 33:65-73, 2014.

1986-1992 2004-2008

HR- HER2-

HR- HER2-

Although the pattern of relapse remains similar, there has been a

significant improvement in BC relapse-free survival. Outcomes

have improved for all BC subtypes, especially HER2-positive and TNBC,

with the early spike in disease recurrence markedly decreased.

CREATE-X: Study Design Pre-planned interim analysis of a randomized, open-label phase III study

Primary endpoint: DFS

Secondary endpoints: OS, time from first day of preoperative chemotherapy to recurrence or death, safety, cost-effectiveness

Pts 20-74 yrs of age

stage I-IIIB HER2- BC and

residual disease

(non-pCR, N+) after neoadjuvant

chemotherapy* and surgery;

ECOG PS 0 or 1;

no previous oral fluoropyrimidines

(N = 910)†

Capecitabine 2500 mg/m²/day PO Days 1-14

Q3W for 8 cycles‡

Hormonal therapy if ER/PgR+ (n = 455)†

Hormonal therapy if ER/PgR+ No further therapy if ER/PgR-

(n = 455)†

Stratified by ER status, age, neoadjuvant

chemotherapy, use of 5-FU, institution, node status

*Anthracycline/taxane, anthracycline containing, or

docetaxel/cyclophosphamide. †25 pts were removed from treatment (n = 10) and control (n = 15) arms due

to failure to meet eligibility criteria. ‡IDMC recommended extension to 8 cycles following interim safety analysis of

first 50 pts receiving 6 cycles.[2]

Masuda N, et al. N Engl J Med 2017;376:2147-59. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1612645

CREATE-X: DFS and OS Full Analysis Set

Masuda N, et al. N Engl J Med 2017;376:2147-59. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1612645

Medium Follow up of 3.6 years

Outcome Capecitabine

(n = 440) Observation

(n = 445) HR

(95% CI) P Value

5-yr DFS 74.1% 67.6% 0.70 (0.53-0.92) 0.01

5-yr OS 89.2% 83.6% 0.59 (0.39-0.90) 0.01

CREATE-X: DFS and OS in TNBC

Masuda N, et al. N Engl J Med 2017;376:2147-59. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1612645

Medium Follow up of 3.6 years

Outcome Capecitabine

(n = 440) Observation

(n = 445) HR

(95% CI)

5-yr DFS 69.8% 56.1% 0.58 (0.39-0.87)

5-yr OS 78.8% 70.3% 0.52 (0.30-0.90)

TAKE HOME MESSAGES

• We should never forget where we are coming from…

• The cure of EBC with adjuvant therapy has been achieved (since the early 70’) based on the concept of treating patients with estimations of risk and offering treatment to a large number of patients that we know do not need any treatment.

• Therapy individualization remains an important and worth-pursuing goal but is an imperfect exercise.

• Still today, most treatment decisions in this area are based in our ability of practicing the “art of medicine” and defining the balance of the potential benefits and harms for each individual patient.

Adapted from: Bonadonna, NEJM, 2006; EBCTCG, Lancet, 2011; Bonilla, JNCI, 2010; Martin, ASCO 2010; Slamon, NEJM 2011; Tolaney, NEJM 2015.

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 y

% D

ise

ase

Fre

e S

urv

iva

l

Breast Cancer Adjuvant Chemotherapy: Treatment Evolution

100%

50%

0%

26%

Surgery

32%

CMF

35%

Antra

62%

TAC

67%

DD

75%

Trastuz

93%

APT

A significant proportion of patients are cured by Surgery. We have not been able to single them out!

Patient selection (HER2 or clinical characteristics) has lead to dramatic improvements in outcomes

São Paulo

29/03/2019

GEICAM-CIBOMA Carlos H Barrios MD