Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) + pembrolizumab (pembro) vs chemotherapy (chemo) + pembro in previously untreated PD-L1–positive advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): Primary results from the randomized phase 3 ASCENT-04/KEYNOTE-D19 study.
Abstract
LBA109 Background: Although PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemo have expanded treatment options for previously untreated PD-L1–positive advanced TNBC, there still remains a critical unmet need to improve outcomes. SG previously demonstrated significant clinical benefit in pretreated metastatic TNBC (mTNBC). We report results from the ASCENT-04/KEYNOTE-D19 study in patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–positive (CPS ≥ 10; 22C3 assay) locally advanced unresectable or mTNBC. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to SG (10 mg/kg IV, day 1 & 8) + pembro (200 mg, day 1, max 35 cycles) in 21-day cycles or chemo (gemcitabine + carboplatin, paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel) + pembro until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified by curative treatment-free interval, geography, and prior exposure to anti–PD-(L)1 therapy in the curative setting. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Key secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS); objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by BICR; and safety. Results: 443 patients were randomized at a 1:1 ratio: 221 to SG + pembro and 222 to chemo + pembro. The median follow-up was 14 mo. SG + pembro showed a significant improvement in PFS by BICR compared with chemo + pembro (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84; P = .0009; Table). Median DOR was 16.5 mo for SG + pembro vs 9.2 mo for chemo + pembro (Table). Although OS data were immature, a positive early trend in OS improvement was also noted. The most frequent (≥ 10% of patients) grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with SG + pembro were neutropenia (43%) and diarrhea (10%); and with chemo + pembro were neutropenia (45%), anemia (16%), and thrombocytopenia (14%). Conclusions: SG + pembro led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS vs chemo + pembro with durable responses, no new safety concerns for SG or pembro, and a lower rate of treatment discontinuation due to TEAEs in patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–positive advanced TNBC. These data support the use of SG + pembro as a potential new standard of care treatment in this patient population. Clinical trial information: NCT05382286 . Efficacy, BICR, intent-to-treat SG + pembro(n = 221) Chemo + pembro(n = 222) Median PFS (95% CI), mo 11.2 (9.3-16.7) 7.8 (7.3-9.3) HR (95% CI); P -value (adjusted for randomization stratification factors) 0.65 (0.51-0.84); P = .0009 ORR (95% CI), % 59.7 (52.9-66.3) 53.2 (46.4-59.9) Median DOR (95% CI), mo 16.5 (12.7-19.5) 9.2 (7.6-11.3) Safety (TEAEs), all treated, n (%) n = 221 n = 220 Any grade; grade ≥ 3 220 (> 99); 158 (71) 219 (> 99); 154 (70) Led to dose reduction 78 (35) 96 (44) Led to any treatment discontinuation 26 (12) 68 (31)
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Sara M. Tolaney
Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Evandro de Azambuja
Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles and Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels
Kevin Kalinsky
Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta
Sherene Loi
Sung-Bae Kim
Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
Clinton Yam
Bernardo Leon Rapoport
The Medical Oncology Centre of Rosebank, Clinical and Translational Research Unit (CTRU), Department of Immunology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Saxonworld, South Africa
Seock-Ah Im
Seoul National University Hospital, Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
Barbara Pistilli
Department of Cancer Medicine, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
Wassim Mchayleh
AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, FL
David W. Cescon
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto
Junichiro Watanabe
Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo
Alejandro Lara
Scientia Investigación Clínica, Chihuahua, Mexico
Ruffo Freitas-Junior
Araujo Jorge Cancer Hospital, Goias Anticancer Association, Goiânia, Brazil
Javier Salvador Bofill
Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio, Seville, Spain
Maryam Afshari
Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA
Dianna Gary
Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA
Lu Wang
Catherine Lai
Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA
Peter Schmid
Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London