2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Glembatumumab vedotin for patients with metastatic, gpNMB overexpressing, triple-negative breast cancer (“METRIC”): a randomized multicenter study

      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.

          Abstract

          The METRIC study (NCT#0199733) explored a novel antibody–drug conjugate, glembatumumab vedotin (GV), targeting gpNMB that is overexpressed in ~40% of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and associated with poor prognosis. The study was a randomized, open-label, phase 2b study that evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) of GV compared with capecitabine in gpNMB-overexpressing TNBC. Patients who had previously received anthracycline and taxane-based therapy were randomized 2:1 to receive, GV (1.88 mg/kg IV q21 days) or capecitabine (2500 mg/m 2 PO daily d1–14 q21 days). The primary endpoint was RECIST 1.1 PFS per independent, blinded central review. In all, 327 patients were randomized to GV (213 treated) or capecitabine (92 treated). Median PFS was 2.9 months for GV vs. 2.8 months for capecitabine. The most common grade ≥3 toxicities for GV were neutropenia, rash, and leukopenia, and for capecitabine were fatigue, diarrhea, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. The study did not meet the primary endpoint of improved PFS over capecitabine or demonstrate a relative risk/benefit improvement over capecitabine.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

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

          Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries

          This article provides a status report on the global burden of cancer worldwide using the GLOBOCAN 2018 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, with a focus on geographic variability across 20 world regions. There will be an estimated 18.1 million new cancer cases (17.0 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 9.6 million cancer deaths (9.5 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) in 2018. In both sexes combined, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer (11.6% of the total cases) and the leading cause of cancer death (18.4% of the total cancer deaths), closely followed by female breast cancer (11.6%), prostate cancer (7.1%), and colorectal cancer (6.1%) for incidence and colorectal cancer (9.2%), stomach cancer (8.2%), and liver cancer (8.2%) for mortality. Lung cancer is the most frequent cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among males, followed by prostate and colorectal cancer (for incidence) and liver and stomach cancer (for mortality). Among females, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, followed by colorectal and lung cancer (for incidence), and vice versa (for mortality); cervical cancer ranks fourth for both incidence and mortality. The most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, however, substantially vary across countries and within each country depending on the degree of economic development and associated social and life style factors. It is noteworthy that high-quality cancer registry data, the basis for planning and implementing evidence-based cancer control programs, are not available in most low- and middle-income countries. The Global Initiative for Cancer Registry Development is an international partnership that supports better estimation, as well as the collection and use of local data, to prioritize and evaluate national cancer control efforts. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2018;0:1-31. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

            Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cancer statistics, 2018

              Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2014, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2015, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, 1,735,350 new cancer cases and 609,640 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2005-2014) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% annually in men, while the cancer death rate (2006-2015) declined by about 1.5% annually in both men and women. The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Of the 10 leading causes of death, only cancer declined from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, the cancer death rate was 14% higher in non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs) than non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) overall (death rate ratio [DRR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.13-1.15), but the racial disparity was much larger for individuals aged <65 years (DRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.29-1.32) compared with those aged ≥65 years (DRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09) and varied substantially by state. For example, the cancer death rate was lower in NHBs than NHWs in Massachusetts for all ages and in New York for individuals aged ≥65 years, whereas for those aged <65 years, it was 3 times higher in NHBs in the District of Columbia (DRR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.16-3.91) and about 50% higher in Wisconsin (DRR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02), Kansas (DRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.81), Louisiana (DRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60), Illinois (DRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57), and California (DRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.38-1.54). Larger racial inequalities in young and middle-aged adults probably partly reflect less access to high-quality health care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7-30. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                vahdatl@mskcc.org
                Journal
                NPJ Breast Cancer
                NPJ Breast Cancer
                NPJ Breast Cancer
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2374-4677
                20 May 2021
                20 May 2021
                2021
                : 7
                : 57
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.5386.8, ISNI 000000041936877X, Weill Cornell Medicine, ; New York, NY USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.4868.2, ISNI 0000 0001 2171 1133, Center for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, ; London, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.265892.2, ISNI 0000000106344187, University of Alabama School of Medicine, ; Birmingham, AL USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.189509.c, ISNI 0000000100241216, Duke University Medical Center, ; Durham, NC USA
                [5 ]GRID grid.168010.e, ISNI 0000000419368956, Stanford University School of Medicine, ; Stanford, CA USA
                [6 ]GRID grid.266102.1, ISNI 0000 0001 2297 6811, University of California, San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, ; San Francisco, CA USA
                [7 ]Klinikum Frankfurt Hoechst, Frankfurt, Germany
                [8 ]GRID grid.411083.f, ISNI 0000 0001 0675 8654, IOB Institute of Oncology, Quironsalud Group, Madrid & Barcelona, Vall d´Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), ; Barcelona, Spain
                [9 ]GRID grid.239578.2, ISNI 0000 0001 0675 4725, Cleveland Clinic, ; Cleveland, OH USA
                [10 ]GRID grid.4367.6, ISNI 0000 0001 2355 7002, Washington University, ; St. Louis, MO USA
                [11 ]GRID grid.170205.1, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7822, University of Chicago, ; Chicago, IL USA
                [12 ]GRID grid.428633.8, ISNI 0000 0004 0504 5021, Florida Cancer Specialists, ; New Port Richey, FL USA
                [13 ]GRID grid.417695.8, Celldex Therapeutics, Inc., ; Hampton, NJ USA
                [14 ]GRID grid.419513.b, ISNI 0000 0004 0459 5478, Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology, PLLC, ; Nashville, TN USA
                [15 ]GRID grid.418152.b, Present Address: AstraZeneca, ; Gaithersburg, MD USA
                [16 ]Present Address: Syndax, Waltham, MA USA
                [17 ]GRID grid.476696.c, Present Address: Taiho Oncology, ; Princeton, NJ USA
                [18 ]GRID grid.497611.c, ISNI 0000 0004 1794 1958, Present Address: Blueprint Medicines, Inc., ; Cambridge, MA USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3522-7382
                Article
                244
                10.1038/s41523-021-00244-6
                8137923
                34016993
                4ed7b3a5-ab14-446f-83aa-a532aabc7f30
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 17 April 2020
                : 16 February 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100012431, Celldex Therapeutics (Celldex);
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                cancer,breast cancer
                cancer, breast cancer

                Comments

                Comment on this article