27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Fulvestrant plus capivasertib versus placebo after relapse or progression on an aromatase inhibitor in metastatic, oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (FAKTION): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Capivasertib (AZD5363) is a potent selective oral inhibitor of all three isoforms of the serine/threonine kinase AKT. The FAKTION trial investigated whether the addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in patients with aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer.

          Methods

          In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, postmenopausal women aged at least 18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 and oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic or locally advanced inoperable breast cancer who had relapsed or progressed on an aromatase inhibitor were recruited from 19 hospitals in the UK. Enrolled participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (day 1) every 28 days (plus a loading dose on day 15 of cycle 1) with either capivasertib 400 mg or matching placebo, orally twice daily on an intermittent weekly schedule of 4 days on and 3 days off (starting on cycle 1 day 15) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment allocation was done using an interactive web-response system using a minimisation method (with a 20% random element) and the following minimisation factors: measurable or non-measurable disease, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, PIK3CA status, and PTEN status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival with a one-sided alpha of 0·20. Analyses were done by intention to treat. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992952.

          Findings

          Between March 16, 2015, and March 6, 2018, 183 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 140 (76%) were eligible and were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus capivasertib (n=69) or fulvestrant plus placebo (n=71). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 4·9 months (IQR 1·6–11·6). At the time of primary analysis for progression-free survival (Jan 30, 2019), 112 progression-free survival events had occurred, 49 (71%) in 69 patients in the capivasertib group compared with 63 (89%) of 71 in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival was 10·3 months (95% CI 5·0–13·2) in the capivasertib group versus 4·8 months (3·1–7·7) in the placebo group, giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·58 (95% CI 0·39–0·84) in favour of the capivasertib group (two-sided p=0·0044; one-sided log rank test p=0·0018). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (22 [32%] of 69 patients in the capivasertib group vs 17 [24%] of 71 in the placebo group), diarrhoea (ten [14%] vs three [4%]), rash (14 [20%] vs 0), infection (four [6%] vs two [3%]), and fatigue (one [1%] vs three [4%]). Serious adverse reactions occurred only in the capivasertib group, and were acute kidney injury (two), diarrhoea (three), rash (two), hyperglycaemia (one), loss of consciousness (one), sepsis (one), and vomiting (one). One death, due to atypical pulmonary infection, was assessed as possibly related to capivasertib treatment. One further death in the capivasertib group had an unknown cause; all remaining deaths in both groups (19 in the capivasertib group and 31 in the placebo group) were disease related.

          Interpretation

          Progression-free survival was significantly longer in participants who received capivasertib than in those who received placebo. The combination of capivasertib and fulvestrant warrants further investigation in phase 3 trials.

          Funding

          AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          An integrative genomic and proteomic analysis of PIK3CA, PTEN, and AKT mutations in breast cancer.

          Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT pathway aberrations are common in cancer. By applying mass spectroscopy-based sequencing and reverse-phase protein arrays to 547 human breast cancers and 41 cell lines, we determined the subtype specificity and signaling effects of PIK3CA, AKT, and PTEN mutations and the effects of PIK3CA mutations on responsiveness to PI3K inhibition in vitro and on outcome after adjuvant tamoxifen. PIK3CA mutations were more common in hormone receptor-positive (34.5%) and HER2-positive (22.7%) than in basal-like tumors (8.3%). AKT1 (1.4%) and PTEN (2.3%) mutations were restricted to hormone receptor-positive cancers. Unlike AKT1 mutations that were absent from cell lines, PIK3CA (39%) and PTEN (20%) mutations were more common in cell lines than tumors, suggesting a selection for these but not AKT1 mutations during adaptation to culture. PIK3CA mutations did not have a significant effect on outcome after adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in 157 hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients. PIK3CA mutations, in comparison with PTEN loss and AKT1 mutations, were associated with significantly less and inconsistent activation of AKT and of downstream PI3K/AKT signaling in tumors and cell lines. PTEN loss and PIK3CA mutation were frequently concordant, suggesting different contributions to pathophysiology. PTEN loss rendered cells significantly more sensitive to growth inhibition by the PI3K inhibitor LY294002 than did PIK3CA mutations. Thus, PI3K pathway aberrations likely play a distinct role in the pathogenesis of different breast cancer subtypes. The specific aberration present may have implications for the selection of PI3K-targeted therapies in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preclinical pharmacology of AZD5363, an inhibitor of AKT: pharmacodynamics, antitumor activity, and correlation of monotherapy activity with genetic background.

            AKT is a key node in the most frequently deregulated signaling network in human cancer. AZD5363, a novel pyrrolopyrimidine-derived compound, inhibited all AKT isoforms with a potency of 10 nmol/L or less and inhibited phosphorylation of AKT substrates in cells with a potency of approximately 0.3 to 0.8 μmol/L. AZD5363 monotherapy inhibited the proliferation of 41 of 182 solid and hematologic tumor cell lines with a potency of 3 μmol/L or less. Cell lines derived from breast cancers showed the highest frequency of sensitivity. There was a significant relationship between the presence of PIK3CA and/or PTEN mutations and sensitivity to AZD5363 and between RAS mutations and resistance. Oral dosing of AZD5363 to nude mice caused dose- and time-dependent reduction of PRAS40, GSK3β, and S6 phosphorylation in BT474c xenografts (PRAS40 phosphorylation EC(50) ~ 0.1 μmol/L total plasma exposure), reversible increases in blood glucose concentrations, and dose-dependent decreases in 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ((18)F-FDG) uptake in U87-MG xenografts. Chronic oral dosing of AZD5363 caused dose-dependent growth inhibition of xenografts derived from various tumor types, including HER2(+) breast cancer models that are resistant to trastuzumab. AZD5363 also significantly enhanced the antitumor activity of docetaxel, lapatinib, and trastuzumab in breast cancer xenografts. It is concluded that AZD5363 is a potent inhibitor of AKT with pharmacodynamic activity in vivo, has potential to treat a range of solid and hematologic tumors as monotherapy or a combinatorial agent, and has potential for personalized medicine based on the genetic status of PIK3CA, PTEN, and RAS. AZD5363 is currently in phase I clinical trials. ©2012 AACR.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Design issues of randomized phase II trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials.

              Future progress in improving cancer therapy can be expedited by better prioritization of new treatments for phase III evaluation. Historically, phase II trials have been key components in the prioritization process. There has been a long-standing interest in using phase II trials with randomization against a standard-treatment control arm or an additional experimental arm to provide greater assurance than afforded by comparison to historic controls that the new agent or regimen is promising and warrants further evaluation. Relevant trial designs that have been developed and utilized include phase II selection designs, randomized phase II designs that include a reference standard-treatment control arm, and phase II/III designs. We present our own explorations into the possibilities of developing "phase II screening trials," in which preliminary and nondefinitive randomized comparisons of experimental regimens to standard treatments are made (preferably using an intermediate end point) by carefully adjusting the false-positive error rates (alpha or type I error) and false-negative error rates (beta or type II error), so that the targeted treatment benefit may be appropriate while the sample size remains restricted. If the ability to conduct a definitive phase III trial can be protected, and if investigators feel that by judicious choice of false-positive probability and false-negative probability and magnitude of targeted treatment effect they can appropriately balance the conflicting demands of screening out useless regimens versus reliably detecting useful ones, the phase II screening trial design may be appropriate to apply.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Oncol
                Lancet Oncol
                The Lancet. Oncology
                Lancet Pub. Group
                1470-2045
                1474-5488
                1 March 2020
                March 2020
                : 21
                : 3
                : 345-357
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Cancer and Genetics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
                [b ]Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
                [c ]Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
                [d ]All Wales Laboratory Genetics Service, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
                [e ]Department of Cellular Pathology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
                [f ]Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, UK
                [g ]Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Blackpool, UK
                [h ]Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust, Huddersfield, UK
                [i ]University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Lancaster, UK
                [j ]University of Leeds and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Leeds, UK
                [k ]The Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust, Ipswich, UK
                [l ]Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK
                [m ]Division of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Dr Robert H Jones, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff CF14 2TL, UK robert.hugh.jones@ 123456wales.nhs.uk
                [†]

                Joint first authors

                Article
                S1470-2045(19)30817-4
                10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30817-4
                7052734
                32035020
                5ede46fa-2aa0-43f5-a2ba-8ae4b6ba164b
                © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article