This randomized phase III trial studies exemestane and entinostat to see how well they work compared to exemestane alone in treating patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer that has spread to nearby tissue or lymph nodes (locally advanced) or another place in the body (metastatic). Estrogen can cause the growth of breast cancer cells. Endocrine therapy using exemestane may fight breast cancer by lowering the amount of estrogen the body makes. Entinostat may stop the growth of tumor cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth. It is not yet known whether exemestane is more effective with or without entinostat in treating breast cancer.
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate whether the addition of entinostat to endocrine therapy (exemestane) improves progression-free survival (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) in patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who have previously progressed on a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (Al). SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate the safety and tolerability of entinostat in combination with exemestane, and to compare the safety profile to that of endocrine therapy with placebo. II. To evaluate the objective response rate of exemestane in combination with entinostat or placebo. III. To evaluate whether the efficacy of exemestane with entinostat varies with changes in acetylation status in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). IV. To evaluate the time to treatment deterioration (as defined by decrease in health-related quality of life \[HRQL\], progression, death) of exemestane + entinostat versus exemestane + placebo arms. V. To evaluate the differences in overall health-related quality of life (HRQL) between the exemestane + entinostat versus exemestane + placebo arms. VI. To evaluate the difference with respect to specific symptoms that are associated with entinostat, i.e., fatigue, nausea, anorexia and diarrhea, between the exemestane + entinostat versus exemestane + placebo arms. VII. To measure adherence to protocol therapy. VIII. To evaluate the pharmacokinetics of entinostat in patients with advanced breast cancer. IX. To evaluate what, if any, patient variables alter the pharmacokinetic profile of entinostat in patients with advanced breast cancer. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. To collect archival tumor samples and germline deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to explore other potential biomarkers of therapeutic efficacy. II. To collect patient ratings of adverse events (AEs) using select patient-reported outcomes (PRO)-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) items to evaluate the psychometric properties of PRO-CTCAE items and explore the incorporation of PRO-CTCAE items into a phase III double-blind placebo-controlled trial. OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 treatment arms. ARM A: Patients receive exemestane orally (PO) once daily (QD) on days 1-28 and entinostat PO on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Cycles repeat every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients also undergo computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at baseline, at the end of cycle 3, every 3 cycles, at treatment discontinuation, and during follow-up, collection of blood samples at baseline and day 15 of cycle 1, and collection of archived tissue at baseline. ARM B: Patients receive exemestane as in Arm A and placebo PO on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Cycles repeat every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients also undergo CT or MRI at baseline, at the end of cycle 3, every 3 cycles, at treatment discontinuation, and during follow-up, collection of blood samples at baseline and day 15 of cycle 1, and collection of archived tissue at baseline. In both arms, pre/perimenopausal female patients and all male patients also receive goserelin acetate subcutaneously (SC) on day 1. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 3 months for 2 years, every 6 months for 3 years, and then annually for 5 years.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
608
Undergo collection of blood and archived tissue samples
Undergo CT
Given PO
Given PO
Given PO
Given SC
Undergo MRI
Given PO
Ancillary studies
University of Alabama at Birmingham Cancer Center
Birmingham, Alabama, United States
NEA Baptist Memorial Hospital and Fowler Family Cancer Center - Jonesboro
Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States
Mercy San Juan Medical Center
Carmichael, California, United States
Enloe Medical Center
Chico, California, United States
Adventist Health Cancer Care Center Chico
Chico, California, United States
Progression-free Survival (PFS)
Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined to be time from randomization to the earliest documented disease progression as defined by the RECIST criteria, new primary breast cancer, or death without progression. Disease assessment was to continue until disease progression, even after non-protocol anti-cancer therapy was started. Cases with incomplete follow up or without adequate disease evaluations were censored at the date last documented to be free of progression, regardless of whether non-protocol anti-cancer therapy was started or not. Disease progression was based on central review, and defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of the diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study. In addition to the relative increase of 20%, the sum must also demonstrate an absolute increase of at least 5 mm. In addition, the appearance of one or more new lesions was also considered progression. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate PFS rate.
Time frame: Assessed at baseline, then every 12 weeks until treatment discontinuation, then every 3 months within 2 years from study entry, every 6 months between 2-5 years and annually between 6-10 years from study entry, until first disease progression
Overall Survival (OS)
Overall survival (OS) was defined to be time from randomization to death from any cause. Cases who were still alive were censored at the date last known alive.
Time frame: Assessed every 3 months within 2 years from study entry, every 6 months between 2-5 years and annually between 6-10 years from study entry, until death
Objective Response Rate (ORR)
Objective response rate was defined as number of patients with complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) divided by all randomized patients. Responses were evaluated using the revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guideline. CR was defined as disappearance of all target and non-target lesions. PR was defined as at least a 30% decrease in the sum of the diameters of target lesions (taking as reference the baseline sum diameters), and/or persistence of one or more non-target lesion(s).
Time frame: Assessed at baseline, then every 12 weeks until treatment discontinuation, then every 3 months within 2 years from study entry, every 6 months between 2-5 years and annually between 6-10 years from study entry, until first disease progression
Time-to-treatment Deterioration (TTD)
Time-to-treatment deterioration (TTD) was defined as time from randomization to disease progression or death or worsening of symptoms, whichever occurred first. Disease progression was assessed per RECIST v1.1. Symptoms deterioration was measured by 6 items (GP1, GP2, GP4, GF7, B1, P2, scored 0-24) from the 8-item FACT-Breast Symptom Index (FBSI). Symptom deterioration was defined as two consecutive available decreases of at least 3 points from baseline using the 6-item FBSI in this trial, and the second visit time was used as the time of symptom deterioration in this case, unless it was the final score, for which one decrease was sufficient. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the median TTD and TTD rate at a certain time point. Symptoms were assessed every cycle for the first six months after randomization, every two cycles between 6 months and 1 year. It then were assessed based on the same schedule for tumor assessments until disease progression as specified below.
Time frame: Disease assessed at baseline, then every 12 weeks until treatment discontinuation, then every 3 months within 2 years from study entry, every 6 months between 2-5 years and annually between 6-10 years from study entry, until first disease progression
Lysine Acetylation Change in CD45 Blood Mononuclear Cells Between C1D1 and C1D15 and PFS in Patients on Arm A
Peripheral blood samples (PBMCs) were collected prior to therapy and on Days 8 and 15 of cycle 1, for assessment of lysine acetylation, using an assay developed by the Trepel Laboratory, NCI/NIH. CD45 blood mononuclear cells were measured. Patients with lysine acetylation change of 1.5 folds or higher were compared to patients with lysine acetylation change of less than 1.5 folds.
Time frame: Disease assessed at baseline, then every 12 weeks until treatment discontinuation, then every 3 months within 2 years from study entry, every 6 months between 2-5 years and annually between 6-10 years from study entry, until first disease progression
Patient-reported Health-related Quality of Life
Health-related quality of life (HRQL) was measured using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G). The primary endpoint for HRQL was the FACT-G Trial Outcome Index (TOI) which was an aggregate score of 5 items from the FACT-G-Physical subscale (GP2, GP3, GP4, GP6, and GP7) and 6 items from the FACT-G-Functional subscale (GF1, GF2, GF3, GF4, GF6, and GF7). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 to 4. FACT-G TOI subscale score was calculated based on the scoring manual, subscale score ranges from 0 to 44, and higher scores indicate better quality of life. The primary comparison of HRQL between treatment arms was based on the end of cycle 3 assessment.
Time frame: Assessed at baseline and end of cycle 3
Patient-reported Diarrhea
Diarrhea was measured by Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy for Patients With Diarrhea (FACIT-Diarrhea) subscale form, which had 11 items, all items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 to 4. FACIT-Diarrhea subscale score was calculated based on the scoring manual, subscale score ranges from 0 to 44, and higher score indicates less diarrhea. The primary comparison of patient-reported diarrhea between treatment arms was based on the end of cycle 3 assessment.
Time frame: Assessed at baseline and end of cycle 3
Patient-reported Fatigue
Fatigue was measured by PROMIS Fatigue short form, it had 7 items and all items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 to 5. The PROMIS Fatigue total score and T score were calculated based on the scoring manual. The total score ranges from 7 to 35, the T score ranges from 29.4 to 83.2, higher scores indicate more fatigue. The PROMIS Fatigue T score was used for arm comparison. The primary comparison of patient-reported fatigue between treatment arms was based on the end of cycle 3 assessment.
Time frame: Assessed at baseline and end of cycle 3
Patient-reported Nausea and Anorexia
Nausea and anorexia were measured by The Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Treatment (FAACT)-additional concerns, which had 12 items, all items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 to 4. FAACT-additional concerns subscale score was calculated based on scoring manual. Subscale score ranges from 0 to 48, and higher scores indicate less nausea and anorexia. The primary comparison of patient-reported nausea and anorexia between treatment arms was based on the end of cycle 3 assessment.
Time frame: Assessed at baseline and end of cycle 3
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Community Cancer Institute
Clovis, California, United States
University Oncology Associates
Clovis, California, United States
Eisenhower Medical Center
Rancho Mirage, California, United States
Mercy Cancer Center - Sacramento
Sacramento, California, United States
Saint Helena Hospital
St. Helena, California, United States
...and 645 more locations