Atezolizumab (A) plus pertuzumab/trastuzumab/hyaluronidase (PHESGO) in patients (pts) with solid tumors with <i>ERBB2</i> alterations (alt): Results from the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) study.
Abstract
2644 Background: TAPUR is a phase II basket study evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in pts with advanced cancers with specific genomic alts. Results of a cohort of pts with solid tumors with ERBB2 alts treated with A+PHESGO are reported. Methods: Eligible pts had measurable disease, ECOG performance status (PS) 0-2, adequate organ function, and no remaining standard treatment (tx) options. Genomic testing was performed in CLIA-certified, CAP-accredited labs. Dosing for A was 1200 mg IV delivered every 3 weeks (wks). PHESGO was dosed every 3 wks, with a loading dose of 1200 mg/600 mg/30,000 units, then 600 mg/600 mg/20,000 units, until progression. Primary endpoint was disease control (DC) per investigator defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) of at least 16 wks duration (SD16+) per RECIST v.1.1. Simon 2-stage design tested null DC rate of 15% vs. 35% (power = 0.85; α = 0.10). If ≥2/10 pts in stage 1 had DC, cohort expanded to stage 2; otherwise, the cohort was closed. Cohorts closed prior to reaching the protocol-specified sample size of 28 used alternative thresholds set forth in the protocol to maintain the α level. For n=20, 6 pts had to have DC to reject the null (power = 0.74). Secondary endpoints were OR, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response and SD, and safety. Results: The cohort expanded to stage 2 but closed before reaching the planned sample size. 23 pts with 6 tumor types (colorectal [CRC; 14], gallbladder [GB; 3], stomach [3], breast [1], pancreas [1], small intestine [1]) with ERBB2 amplification (amp; n=16), ERBB2 overexpression (n=2), ERBB2 mutation (mut; n=2), and ERBB2 amp and mut (n=3) were enrolled. 3 pts were not evaluable. 2 partial responses (both GB, ERBB2 amp) and 2 SD16+ (both CRC, ERBB2 amp) were observed for a DC rate of 25% (1-sided 90% CI, 10 to 100) and an OR rate of 10% (95% CI, 1 to 32). The null hypothesis was not rejected (p=0.26). 6 pts had tx-related grade 3 AE/SAEs: acute kidney injury, ALP increase, dehydration, diarrhea, infusion related reaction, lymphopenia, maculo-papular rash, pneumonitis and sepsis. Conclusions: A+PHESGO did not demonstrate sufficient antitumor activity in pts with ERBB2 -altered solid tumors to warrant further study. However, the cohort did not reach its planned accrual, limiting statistical power for demonstrating efficacy. Other tx should be considered for these pts, including tx offered in clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT02693535 . Demographics (N=23) and efficacy outcomes (n=20). Median (Med) age, years (range) 61 (43, 90) ECOG PS, No. (%) 0 10 (44) 1 11 (48) 2 2 (9) Prior systemic regimens, No. (%) 0-2 ≥3 16 (70)7 (30) DC (OR plus SD16+) rate, % (1-sided 90% CI), p-value 25 (10, 100), p=0.26 OR rate, % (95% CI) 10 (1, 32) Med PFS, wks (95% CI) 9 (8, 16) Med OS, wks (95% CI) 35 (16, 52)
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Timothy Lewis Cannon
Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, VA
Michael Rothe
Institute of Experimental Hematology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer
ASCO, Alexandria, VA
Andrew Gregory
2Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, United States
Meredith McKean
Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, TN
Kunal C. Kadakia
Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Charlotte, NC
Evan P. Pisick
City of Hope - Chicago, Zion, IL
Bamidele Adesunloye
City of Hope - Atlanta, Atlanta, GA
Jasdeepa Nagi
Sutter Cancer Research Consortium, Sacramento, CA
Erwin Grussie
The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, A Cedars-Sinai Affiliate, Los Angeles, CA
Carmen Julia Calfa
Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
Majd Chahin
Lewis Cancer and Research Pavilion, St. Joseph’s/Candler, Bluffton, SC
Jaykumar Ranchodbhai Thumar
Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute, Hartford, CT
Stanley Madu Nwabudike
New Mexico Cancer Research Alliance, Albuquerque, NM
Gahyun Gim
University of Florida Health, Gainesville, FL
Abigail Gregory
ASCO, Alexandria, VA
Dominique C. Hinshaw
Gina N. Grantham
ASCO, Alexandria, VA
Susan Halabi
From the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda (A.B.A., N.S., S.N., L.L., L.C.), the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore (J.H.-C.), and the Investigational Drug Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville (H.S., E.S.) — all in Maryland; the Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (K.V.B., M.O., C.M., G.P.B.); AdventHealth Cancer Institute and the University of Central Florida, Orlando (G.S.); Dana–Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston (S.B., B.M.); UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill (W.Y.K.), and Duke University Medical Center and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham (J.H., S.H.) — both in North Carolina; the University of Kansas Cancer Center, Westwood (R.P.); Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York (M.Y.T., M.J.M., J.E.R.), and Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo (G.C.) — both in...
Richard L. Schilsky
ASCO, Alexandria, VA