Clinical trial NCT06081244: NeoAdj. Therapy Comparing Sacituzumab Govitecan (SG) vs. SG+Pembrolizumab in Low-risk, Triple-neg. EBC (ADAPT-TN-III)
Official title: NeoAdjuvant Dynamic Marker - Adjusted Personalized Therapy Comparing Sacituzumab Govitecan Versus Sacituzumab Govitecan+Pembrolizumab in Low-risk, Triple-negative Early Breast Cancer (ADAPT-TN-III)
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: RECRUITING
Phase: PHASE2
Conditions: Triple Negative Breast Cancer
Keywords: TNBC
Early breast cancer
Sacituzumab govitecan
pembrolizumab
chemotherapy
low recurrence risk
Lead sponsor: West German Study Group
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: Gilead Sciences
name: Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC
First posted: 2023-10-13
Enrollment: 348
Sex: FEMALE
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: This is a multicentre, interventional, prospective, two-arm, randomised, open-label, neoadjuvant, phase-II-trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of SG alone vs. SG+PEM in low-risk early TNBC in pre- and postmenopausal women.
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: TNBC is known for poor prognosis, aggressive patterns of disease, and significant molecular heterogeneity. (Neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is standard of care in all node-positive and in node-negative patients with a tumour size \>5 mm according to current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. However, TNBC patients with lower stage disease do clearly have a better prognosis compared to more advanced stages. Patients with stage I-II node-negative disease have 3-5 year iDFS rates of 80-90% (with majority of relapses within the first three years) as shown in several trials.Although survival results appear much better in the lower vs. higher stages, there is a high clinical need in this most common group of TNBC patients in Western Europe and USA.

Detailed description: About 15% of breast cancers lack both, expression of ER and PR receptors, and amplification/over-expression of HER2 receptors, and are thus described as triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). TNBC is known for poor prognosis, aggressive patterns of disease, and significant molecular heterogeneity. (Neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is standard of care in all node-positive and in node-negative patients with a tumour size \>5 mm according to current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. However, TNBC patients with lower stage disease do clearly have a better prognosis compared to more advanced stages. Patients with stage I-II node-negative disease have 3-5 year iDFS rates of 80-90% (with majority of relapses within the first three years) as shown in several trials. Our own results from the PlanB- and ADAPT-trials, and pooled analysis with SUCCESS C-trials show 3-year iDFS of 86-90% in node-negative TNBC with a tumour size \< 3 cm. Although survival results appear much better in the lower vs. higher stages, there is a high clinical need in this most common group of TNBC patients in Western Europe and USA.

In the neoadjuvant setting, it has been shown that the prognosis of patients with TNBC is strongly dependent on their response to NACT: Patients achieving pathological complete response (pCR), or a near pCR (an excellent response after NACT (residual cancer burden (RCB) score 0-1), in some studies do have an excellent prognosis that is not significantly different from that observed in other breast cancer subtypes. However, patients with a less responsive disease (i.e., with RCB Score 2-3) suffer from a significantly worse prognosis compared to non-TNBC.

Chemotherapy in TNBC The optimal chemotherapy regimen for patients with TNBC remains to be identified. Standard anthracycline-taxane (A/T)-based NACT combinations render pCR rates between 25-50%. However, the survival impact of anthracyclines remains controversial due to conflicting results of different randomized trials. Adding carboplatin (carbo) to A/T-containing poly-NACT or use of dose-intensified poly-NACT significantly increases pCR-rates up to 49-60% in mostly stage II-III disease with conflicting survival results and higher toxicity. Hence, use of pragmatic taxane-carboplatin anthracycline-free combinations appears as an effective treatment option in TNBC instead of further treatment escalation. This probably is independent of the germline BRCA (gBRCA) status, due to its general chemo-predictive effect. Unfortunately, no prospective phase-III-data are available so far. However, indirect comparison between trials renders similar pCR rates in taxane-carboplatin based vs. A/T+/-carbo-based regimens in early TNBC.

In the ADAPT-TN neoadjuvant trial, the taxane-carbo arm (12-week nab-paclitaxel (nab-pac)+carbo) was well tolerable (only 10% SAE-rate), highly effective (pCR, ypT0/is/ypN0, of 46%) and superior to the gemcitabine (gem)-arm (nab-pac+gem, pCR of 29%). In this study, omission of further chemotherapy was allowed in patients with pCR after 12 weeks of therapy and was not associated with decreased survival after 3 years \[5\] and longer follow up.

Although a standard chemotherapy as well as optimal therapy duration are still to be defined, several studies are showing a comparable efficacy for longer vs. shorter adjuvant treatments in TNBC \[3\], as well as a similar efficacy regarding pCR in HR-negative (in contrast to HR-positive) early breast cancer (eBC) \[26\]. Moreover 6 vs. 4 cycles of the same chemotherapy (AC or pac weekly) yielded a similar survival outcome in eBC despite of HR-status. No such comparison regarding treatment duration is available for modern antibody-drug conjugates like sacituzumab govitecan (SG).

Therefore, an examination of shorter (12 weeks vs. 18 weeks) regimen as neoadjuvant treatment appears to be a very promising strategy at least in patients with lower risk disease or in elderly patients, who do not qualify for polychemotherapy treatments.

In the Keynote-522 trial combination of carboplatin/taxane-anthracycline NACT with the anti-PD1-antibody pembrolizumab (PEM) has been shown to be associated with a significantly higher pCR and clinically meaningful better EFS and a trend to better OS. Noteworthy only patients with more advanced stages IIa-III TNBC were included into the Keynote-522 trial. Although this effect was independent of clinically assessed nodal status, there is still some uncertainty on the optimal treatment in patients with clinical stage I.

In the metastatic setting, SG as a Trop-2-antibody-drug-conjugate has been shown to be highly efficacious in severely pre-treated patients (all with A/T pre-treated tumours, most of them carboplatin and 1/3 also anti-PD1 pre-treated) compared to chemotherapy of investigator´s choice. Treatment with SG was associated with significant longer median PFS (5.5 vs. 1.7 months) and longer median OS (12.1 vs. 6.7 months). Objective response was dramatically higher in the SG group vs. treatment by physician´s choice group (34.9 vs. 4.7%), in particular in the 2nd-3rd-line therapy (40% vs. 4%). Moreover, Tropics-02 trial has shown higher efficacy of SG vs. chemotherapy of investigator´s choice in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

In the neoadjuvant setting, recently presented results from the NeoSTAR trial show a promising pCR-rate of 30% and RCB 0-1-rate of 36% in TNBC patients with mostly stage II-III-disease (about 80%) after only 4 cycles of SG.

The following clinical questions are of highest medical need

1. Can 12-18 weeks neoadjuvant treatment with SG alone or in combination with PEM be associated with comparable pCR-rates (but more favourable safety profile) as shown for polychemotherapy in TNBC patients at lower relapse risk in historical controls?
2. Can SG-based therapy, as the most promising agent in patients with chemo-resistant disease, be associated with a such better prognosis (measured by 3-year-iDFS) compared to historical controls, which would make a randomized phase III-trial obsolete?

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

1. ER + PR negative or low positive (≤10% positive cells in IHC), and HER2 negative (i.e., IHC 0 - 1+ or IHC 2+ with FISH negative) breast cancer
2. All patients, independent from gender
3. ≥18 years at diagnosis
4. Histologically confirmed unilateral, primary invasive carcinoma of the breast Note: bilateral, multicentric, or multifocal carcinoma may be included, if there is a clear target lesion, that is subject to treatment decisions and solely evaluated and documented for study purposes.
5. Clinical stage I: cT1a-c, cN0 (clinical stage II only, if patient does not qualify for neoadjuvant polychemotherapy+PEM, e.g., elderly population, per investigator´s decision)
6. No clinical evidence for distant metastasis (M0)
7. Tumour block available for central pathology review
8. Performance Status ECOG ≤ 1 or KI ≥ 80%
9. Negative pregnancy test (urine or serum) within 7 days prior to registration in premenopausal patients
10. Written informed consent prior to beginning specific protocol procedures, including expected cooperation of the patients for the treatment and follow-up, must be obtained and documented according to the local regulatory requirements
11. The patient must be willing and able to comply with the requirements and restrictions in this protocol and accessible for treatment and follow-up
12. Laboratory requirements:

    * Leucocytes ≥3.5 109/L,
    * Neutrophils \> 1.5 109/L,
    * Platelets ≥100 109/L,
    * Haemoglobin ≥10 g/dL,
    * AP \< 5.0 ULN,
    * AST ≤2.5 x ULN,
    * ALT ≤2.5 x ULN,
    * Total bilirubin ≤1 x ULN,
    * Creatinine ≤1.5 × ULN OR clearance ≥30 mL/min for participant with creatinine levels \>1.5 × institutional ULN
13. Clinical assessments:

    • LVEF within normal limits of each institution, measured by echocardiography and normal ECG (within 42 days prior to treatment)
14. The following age-specific requirements apply:

    * Women aged \<50 years will be considered post-menopausal if they have been amenorrhoeic for 12 months or more following cessation of exogenous hormonal treatments and if they have luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels in the post-menopausal range for the site.
    * Women aged ≥ 50 years will be considered post-menopausal if they have been amenorrhoeic for 12 months or more following cessation of all exogenous hormonal treatments.
15. Females on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and whose menopausal status is in doubt will be required to use one of the contraception methods outlined for women of child-bearing potential if they wish to continue their HRT during the study. Otherwise, they must discontinue HRT to allow confirmation of post-menopausal status prior to randomization/study enrolment. For most forms of HRT, at least 2-4 weeks will elapse between the cessation of therapy and the blood draw; this interval depends on the type and dosage of HRT. Following confirmation of their post-menopausal status, they can resume use of HRT during the study without use of a contraceptive method.
16. Female patients of childbearing potential who are sexually active with a non-sterilized male partner must use at least one highly effective method of contraception, presented in Table 1 (see Section 4.4.2), from the time of screening and must agree to continue using such precautions for 7 months after the last dose of IMP. Not all methods of contraception are highly effective. Female patients must refrain from breastfeeding while on study and for 7 months after the last dose of IMP. Complete heterosexual abstinence for the duration of the study and drug washout period is an acceptable contraceptive method if it is line with the patient's usual lifestyle (consideration must be made to the duration of the clinical trial); however, periodic, or occasional abstinence, the rhythm method, and the withdrawal method are not acceptable.
17. Female patients must not donate, or retrieve for their own use, ova from the time of randomisation and throughout the study treatment period, and for at least 7 months after the final study drug administration. They should refrain from breastfeeding throughout this time. Preservation of ova may be considered prior to enrolment in this study.
18. A male participant must agree to use a contraception as detailed in Appendix C of this protocol during the treatment period and for at least 7 months after the last dose of study treatment and refrain from donating sperm during this period.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Known hypersensitivity reaction to the compounds or incorporated substances of the IMPs
2. Prior malignancy with a disease-free survival of \< 5 years, except curatively treated basalioma of the skin or pTis of the cervix uteri
3. Any history of invasive breast cancer
4. Previous or concurrent treatment with cytotoxic agents for any non-oncological reason unless clarified with sponsor
5. Concurrent treatment with other experimental drugs
6. Participation in another interventional clinical trial with or without any investigational not marketed drug within 30 days prior to study entry
7. Concurrent pregnancy; patients of childbearing potential or potentially childbearing partners of male patients must implement a highly effective (less than 1% failure rate) non-hormonal contraceptive measures during the study treatment
8. Breast feeding woman
9. Reasons indicating risk of poor compliance
10. Patients not able to consent
11. Known polyneuropathy ≥ grade 2
12. Severe and relevant co-morbidity that would interact with the application of cytotoxic agents or the participation in the study including recovery from major surgery, autoimmune disease, known psychiatric/substance abuse disorders, acute cystitis, ischuria, and chronic kidney disease
13. Uncontrolled infection requiring i.v. antibiotics, antivirals, or antifungals
14. History of pneumonitis
15. Active primary immunodeficiency, known human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, or active hepatitis B or C infection. Patients positive for hepatitis C (HCV) antibody are eligible only if polymerase chain reaction is negative for HCV RNA. Patients should be tested for HIV prior to randomisation if required by local regulations or ethics committee (EC).
16. Have active hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV). In patients with a history of HBV or HCV, patients with detectable viral loads will be excluded.

    * Patients who test positive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg). Patients who test positive for hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) will require HBV DNA by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for confirmation of active disease.
    * Patients who test positive for HCV antibody will require HCV RNA by quantitative PCR for confirmation of active disease. Patients with a known history of HCV or a positive HCV antibody test will not require a HCV antibody at screening and will only require HCV RNA by quantitative PCR for confirmation of active disease.
17. Patients who test positive for HIV antibody.

Primary outcomes:
measure: pathological complete remission (pCR)
timeFrame: at surgery
measure: invasive disease-free survival rate (iDFS),
timeFrame: after 3 years
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Overall survival (OS)
timeFrame: 6 years
measure: distant disease-free survival (dDFS)
timeFrame: after 3 years
measure: distant disease-free interval (dDFI)
timeFrame: after 3 years
measure: recurrence-free survival (RFS)
timeFrame: after 3 years
measure: local recurrence-free survival (LRFS)
timeFrame: after 3 years
measure: Breast cancer free interval (BCFI)
timeFrame: after 3 years
measure: Health-related Quality of Life: Quality of Life Questionnaire C30
timeFrame: Baseline to end of cycle 2 (each cycle is 21 days)
measure: Health-related Quality of Life: Quality of Life Questionnaire BR45
timeFrame: Baseline to end of cycle 2 (each cycle is 21 days)
measure: Health-related Quality of Life: Quality of Life Questionnaire C30
timeFrame: Baseline to end of cycle 4 (each cycle is 21 days)
measure: Health-related Quality of Life: Quality of Life Questionnaire BR45
timeFrame: Baseline to end of cycle 4 (each cycle is 21 days)
measure: Health-related QoL: EORTC QLQ-C30
timeFrame: Baseline to end of cycle 6 (each cycle is 21 days)
measure: Health-related Quality of Life: Quality of Life Questionnaire BR45
timeFrame: Baseline to end of cycle 6 (each cycle is 21 days)
measure: Health-related QoL: EORTC QLQ-C30
timeFrame: Baseline to timepoint before surgery
measure: Health-related QoL: EORTC QLQ-BR45
timeFrame: Baseline to timepoint before surgery
measure: Health-related Quality of Life: Quality of Life Questionnaire C30
timeFrame: Baseline to timepoint 1 year after surgery
measure: Health-related Quality of Life: Quality of Life Questionnaire BR45
timeFrame: Baseline to timepoint 1 year after surgery
Other outcomes:
measure: Other pCR-definitions
timeFrame: at time of surgery
measure: stromal tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (sTIL)
timeFrame: at baseline and after 3 weeks of therapy
Locations:
city: Weinheim
country: Germany
facility: GRN Klinik Weinheim
state: Baden-Württembergs
city: Baden-Baden
country: Germany
facility: Stadtklinik Baden-Baden / Brustzentrum
state: Baden-Württemberg
city: Böblingen
country: Germany
facility: Kliniken Böblingen
state: Baden-Württemberg
city: Freiburg
country: Germany
facility: Praxis für interdisziplinäre Onkologie & Hämatologie
state: Baden-Württemberg
city: Heilbronn
country: Germany
facility: SLK Kliniken Heilbronn, Frauenklinik
state: Baden-Württemberg
city: Tübingen
country: Germany
facility: Universitätsklinikum Tübingen
state: Baden-Württemberg
city: München
country: Germany
facility: Rotkreuzklinikum München
state: Bayern
city: Berlin
country: Germany
facility: DBZ Onkologie GmbH
state: Brandenburg
city: Potsdam
country: Germany
facility: Klinikum Ernst von Bergmann gGmbH
state: Brandenburg
city: Bremerhaven
country: Germany
facility: Klinikum Bremerhaven Reinkenheide gGmbH
state: Bremen
city: Frankfurt am Main
country: Germany
facility: AGAPLESION Markus Krankenhaus
state: Hessen
city: Georgsmarienhütte
country: Germany
facility: MVZ II der Niels Stensen Kliniken
state: Niedersachsen
city: Berlin
country: Germany
facility: Ev. Krankenhaus Berlin-Spandau
state: NRW
city: Bielefeld
country: Germany
facility: Onkologische Schwerpunktpraxis Bielefeld
state: NRW
city: Düsseldorf
country: Germany
facility: MVZ Medical Center Düsseldorf - GynOnco
state: NRW
city: Eschweiler
country: Germany
facility: St. - Antonius - Hospital
state: NRW
city: Essen
country: Germany
facility: Kliniken Essen-Mitte
state: NRW
city: Gelsenkirchen
country: Germany
facility: ev. Klinikum Gelsenkirchen - Klinik für Senelogie
state: NRW
city: Hamm
country: Germany
facility: St. Barbara Klinik Hamm GmbH
state: NRW
city: Köln
country: Germany
facility: Köln-Hohenlind
state: NRW
city: Köln
country: Germany
facility: Kliniken der Stadt Köln, Krankenhaus Holweide
state: NRW
city: Mönchengladbach
country: Germany
facility: Ev. Krankenhaus Bethesda Brustzentrum Niederrhein
state: NRW
city: Münster
country: Germany
facility: MVZ MediaVita, St. Franziskus-Hospital Münster
state: NRW
city: Schwerte
country: Germany
facility: MKS St.Paulus GmbH (ehem.Marienkrankenhaus)
state: NRW
city: Troisdorf
country: Germany
facility: Praxisnetzwerk Hämatologie und Onkologie, Troisdorf
state: NRW
city: Witten
country: Germany
facility: Marien Hospital Witten
state: NRW
city: Wuppertal
country: Germany
facility: Helios Universitätsklinikum Wuppertal Barmen
state: NRW
city: Trier
country: Germany
facility: Klinikum Mutterhaus-Trier
state: Rheinland-Pfalz
city: Saarbrücken
country: Germany
facility: Caritasklinikum Saarbrücken
state: Saarland
city: Stendal
country: Germany
facility: Johanniter GmbH Johanniter Krankenhaus Stendal
state: Sachsen-Anhalts
city: Leipzig
country: Germany
facility: Universitätsklinikum Leipzig
state: Sachsen
city: Bremen
country: Germany
facility: Hämatologisch/Onkologische Schwerpunktpraxis Bremen
city: Hamburg
country: Germany
facility: Mammazentrum Hamburg am Krankenhaus Jerusalem
Study officials:
affiliation: Westdeutsche Studiengruppe GmbH
name: Peter Schmid, Prof Dr PHD
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
affiliation: Breast Centre, Dept. Obstetrics & Gynaecology and CCC Munich LMU University Hospital
name: Nadia Harbeck, Prof Dr
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
affiliation: Breast Centre, Evang. Bethesda-Hospital, Moenchengladbach
name: Oleg Gluz, PD Dr
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
affiliation: Breast Centre, Kliniken Essen Mitte
name: Sherko Kuemmel, Prof Dr
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
affiliation: Breast Centre, Evang. Bethesda-Hospital, Moenchengladbach
name: Monika Graeser, PD Dr..
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References: