A phase II study of afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, added to letrozole in patients with estrogen receptor-positive hormone-refractory metastatic breast cancer progressing on letrozole
© Gunzer et al. 2016
Received: 12 February 2015
Accepted: 9 December 2015
Published: 19 January 2016
Phase II, open-label study assessing the efficacy and safety of the ErbB family blocker afatinib combined with letrozole in estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients who had progressed on letrozole monotherapy. Adult females (N = 28) received oral afatinib (50 [n = 7], 40 [n = 13] or 30 [n = 8] mg/day) plus letrozole 2.5 mg/day in 28-day cycles until disease progression. Primary endpoint was the progression-free rate at or after 16 weeks of afatinib. At 16 weeks, four patients remained on afatinib without progression; two of these were HER2 negative. Fifteen (54 %) patients had a best response of stable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Median progression-free survival was 60, 107 and 79 days with 50, 40 and 30 mg/day afatinib, respectively. Diarrhea, asthenia, rash, mucosal inflammation and nausea were the most frequent adverse events. In this small, exploratory study, afatinib combined with letrozole was able to induce disease stabilization in 54 % of hormone-refractory MBC patients previously progressing on letrozole.
Clinical trial registration: NCT00708214
Abnormally activated ErbB Family receptors (EGFR [ErbB1], HER2 [ErbB2], ErbB3 and ErbB4) and estrogen receptors (ER) are frequently implicated in breast cancer, making these potential therapeutic targets (Hurvitz and Pietras 2008; Ciardiello and Tortora 2008). Specifically, anti-estrogens, aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and selective ER modulators have proven effective in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer; however, a major clinical problem limiting the usefulness of endocrine therapy is tumor resistance (Schiff et al. 2004; Chu and Lu 2008).
Exploration into the complexity of receptor signaling has identified that receptor crosstalk constitutes a fundamental mechanism of tumor resistance, and preclinical observations have confirmed that activation of ER and ErbB Family receptors, namely EGFR/HER2, on the tumor cell surface stimulates multiple intracellular signaling cascades, leading to cellular proliferation, survival and differentiation (Ullrich and Schlessinger 1990; Klapper et al. 2000). Bidirectional crosstalk can lead to cross-activation of these downstream signaling pathways, resulting in the development of tumor resistance to endocrine therapy (Nicholson et al. 2001; Arpino et al. 2008; Hurtado et al. 2008). To overcome such resistance, the combination of an AI with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeting either EGFR or HER2 has been explored and has been shown to enhance response and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with treatment with an AI alone (Johnston et al. 2009; Cristofanilli et al. 2010). Such findings confirm that combining endocrine treatment with an ErbB Family-targeted therapy could be an effective strategy in the management of patients with primary or acquired hormone-resistant breast cancer (Osborne et al. 2005). Furthermore, restoration of hormone sensitivity via ErbB Family inhibition could pose a therapeutic advantage, providing sustained disease control without the need for chemotherapy.
Afatinib (BIBW 2992) is an orally available, irreversible ErbB Family Blocker, with a half maximal inhibitory concentration of 0.5 nM, 14 and 1 nM for EGFR, HER2 and ErbB4, respectively (Li et al. 2008). This compound also inhibits ErbB3 transphosphorylation (Li et al. 2008). Phase I monotherapy studies in patients with advanced solid tumors recommended a continuous dose of afatinib 50 mg once daily for the phase II setting (Yap et al. 2010; Agus et al. 2006). Afatinib monotherapy (50 mg/day) has previously demonstrated clinical activity in heavily pre-treated patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had progressed following trastuzumab treatment, with a median PFS of 15 weeks and an overall survival (OS) of 61 weeks (Lin et al. 2012), as well as a small proportion of patients with triple-negative MBC who had progressed following no more than two prior lines of chemotherapy (Schuler et al. 2010). To further investigate the potential activity of afatinib in MBC, we undertook a phase II exploratory study to assess the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of afatinib in combination with letrozole in patients with ER-positive MBC who had progressed on letrozole monotherapy.
Patients and methods
This was a phase II, open-label, single-arm, multicenter trial of afatinib added to letrozole in patients with ER-positive MBC who had progressed on letrozole monotherapy. Patients continued to receive letrozole monotherapy during the 2-week screening period. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free rate at or after 16 weeks of afatinib treatment. Progression was defined as the occurrence of any of the following: new bone lesion(s) identified on a bone scan or with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), progression or occurrence of new lesion(s) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0 (Therasse et al. 2000), an increase in the tumor marker CA 15.3 of more than 20 % compared with the baseline value (at two consecutive examinations), or disease-related skeletal events (pathological or vertebral compression fracture not related to trauma; palliative radiotherapy for bone pain; prophylactic radiation or surgery for an impending fracture; spinal cord compression). Secondary endpoints included objective response (complete response [CR] or partial response [PR]) based on RECIST, clinical benefit (CR or PR or stable disease [SD]) according to RECIST at 16 and 24 weeks, PFS, OS, time to and duration of objective response, pharmacokinetics and safety.
The study was conducted between 30 May 2007 and 4 January 2010 at five sites in France, and was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice Guideline and approved by the French national regulatory agency and local ethics committees. All patients provided written informed consent prior to study participation.
Eligible females (≥18 years) had histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV ER-positive MBC. Patients had previously received letrozole and had developed acquired resistance, defined as disease progression on letrozole following previous response (PR or better, or SD for ≥24 weeks). Initially, only patients who had not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were allowed to participate. Following an amendment, up to two lines of prior chemotherapy for MBC were permitted. Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer could have received prior trastuzumab in the adjuvant and metastatic setting. HER2 positivity was not a requirement for study entry. Further eligibility criteria included: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; life expectancy of ≥6 months; recovery from any grade 3 (according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [NCI CTCAE] version 3.0) adverse events (AEs) from previous treatment; documented menopause (estradiol level of <11 pg/mL); diagnosis of disease progression ≤6 weeks prior to trial entry; and adequate bone marrow (absolute neutrophil count ≥1500/mm3, platelet count ≥100,000/mm3), hepatic (aspartate aminotransferase and/or alanine aminotransferase ≤3× the upper limit of normal) and renal (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL [≤132 μmol/L, SI unit or equivalent]) function. Patients were excluded from the study if they had: chronic diarrhea or gastrointestinal (GI) disorders that could interfere with absorption of study treatment; brain metastases; significant cardiovascular disease (i.e., uncontrolled hypertension, unstable angina pectoris, history of infarction, congestive heart failure of New York Heart Association grade >2) within the past 12 months; received chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiotherapy, other EGFR- and/or HER2-inhibiting drugs, or had participated in another clinical study within 4 weeks before the start of therapy. Treatment with bisphosphonates was allowed if the patient had been receiving a stable dose for at least 3 months prior to study entry.
Patients received oral afatinib once daily at a starting dose of 50 mg (which was reduced to 40 mg and then to 30 mg following protocol amendments) over repeated 28-day treatment cycles, with 2.5 mg of oral letrozole daily until disease progression, withdrawal of consent or discontinuation due to AEs. The study medications were administered concurrently 1 h prior to food intake. The protocol amendments were made as some patients receiving afatinib 50 or 40 mg experienced grade 3 cutaneous AEs and diarrhea. As a result, the starting dose of afatinib was reduced to 40 mg once-daily and then 30 mg once-daily for all newly enrolled patients. At each starting dose, dose reduction of afatinib in 10 mg decrements (to a minimum of 20 mg) was a pre-specified option for patients experiencing certain drug-related AEs. A safety analysis was performed when the initial 15 patients had completed 1 month of treatment at either 50 or 40 mg afatinib. This analysis was supportive of the reduction of the afatinib starting dose from 40 to 30 mg per day. Concomitant treatments were permitted as clinically necessary.
Efficacy was assessed in terms of the progression-free rate at or after 16 weeks of treatment. If a patient withdrew from the study due to clinical deterioration, according to the investigator’s judgment, this was considered as progressive disease (PD). Target lesions were evaluated by clinical detection, computed tomography or MRI at screening and at the end of every other 28-day treatment cycle.
Safety was assessed by monitoring the incidence and intensity of AEs that patients experienced. AEs were graded according to the NCI CTCAE version 3.0.
Pharmacokinetic sampling and data analysis
For quantification of drug plasma concentrations, 5 mL of venous blood was collected. Blood samples were drawn before and 2 h after letrozole administration on day –14 and –7 during the first 2 weeks of letrozole monotherapy treatment. For quantification of letrozole and afatinib plasma concentrations, blood samples were drawn on day 1 (cycles 1, 3, 4 and 5) before and 2 h after administration of afatinib and letrozole, and additionally at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 h after drug administration on day 1 of cycle 4. Afatinib plasma concentrations were determined by a validated high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (HPLC–MS/MS) assay at the Department of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH and Co. KG, Biberach, Germany. Letrozole plasma concentrations were determined by a validated HPLC–MS/MS assay at Nuvisan Pharma Services GmbH & Co. KG, Neu-Ulm, Germany.
The analyses in this trial were descriptive and exploratory. A sample size of 30–40 patients was required to provide 80 % power to detect statistically significant evidence of afatinib activity, based on the assumption of an underlying true rate of non-progression of 25 % at 16 weeks. Sample size was based on a one-sided alpha of 10 %. Analysis was completed on the treated set, comprising all patients who received at least one dose of afatinib.
Demographics and characteristics of treated patients
Baseline ECOG performance status
Progesterone receptor positive
Estrogen receptor positive
HER2 unknown or missing
Prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Number of prior metastatic chemotherapies
Hormone therapy prior to letrozole
Prior adjuvant radiotherapy
Number of prior metastatic radiotherapies
Progression-free rate at 16 weeks (primary endpoint)
Summary of patients reaching the primary endpoint (progression-free rate at 16 weeks)
Afatinib 50 mg + letrozole 2.5 mg
Afatinib 40 mg + letrozole 2.5 mg
Afatinib 30 mg + letrozole 2.5 mg
All afatinib doses
Number of patients, n (%)
(Protocol-defined criteria)a, n (%) [95 % CI]
Progression-free rate (RECIST criteria), n (%) [95 % CI]
Of the four who completed 16 weeks of treatment but were not progression-free according to the primary endpoint definition, two were diagnosed with PD at the 16-week assessment. One patient, who received 40 mg afatinib, was considered progression-free according to RECIST criteria, but had elevated CA 15.3 levels. The final patient had suspected RECIST progression prior to 16 weeks which was not formally documented due to difficulty of determining on computed tomography.
Objective response and clinical benefit rate (RECIST)
No patients experienced an objective (complete or partial) tumor response to afatinib plus letrozole treatment. Throughout the study, a best response of SD, as determined by RECIST, was experienced by 15 patients (54 %). The incidence of SD was comparable across the afatinib starting dose cohorts. Overall, six patients (21 %) experienced clinical benefit at 16 weeks; this included the four patients who met the primary endpoint, the patient who was progression-free based on RECIST (but had elevated CA 15.3 levels) and one patient who had SD at week 16 but had discontinued treatment. Of these six patients, the best response on prior letrozole therapy was SD for five and PR for one patient. Four (14 %) of these six patients continued to have clinical benefit at 24 weeks. Best response to previous letrozole treatment was PR in one patient and SD in three patients.
Progression-free survival and overall survival
According to RECIST criteria, median PFS (25th percentile, 75th percentile) was 60 (51, 274), 107 (65, 116) and 79 (51, 230) days for patients initially receiving 50, 40 and 30 mg afatinib, respectively. The longest duration of treatment with afatinib and letrozole was 449 days. Duration of therapy, along with reasons for discontinuation, is shown by starting dose of afatinib for all patients (Fig. 2). Median OS could not be estimated due to the small number of patients who died during the trial (three patients died during the trial; none of the deaths were considered treatment-related).
Treatment-related adverse events by afatinib starting dose and reported as NCI CTCAE grades (patients with at least 1 grade ≥3 adverse event; treated set)
Afatinib 50 mg + letrozole 2.5 mg, n = 7
Afatinib 40 mg + letrozole 2.5 mg, n = 13
Afatinib 30 mg + letrozole 2.5 mg, n = 8
All afatinib doses + letrozole 2.5 mg, n = 28
Grade ≥ 3
Grade ≥ 3
Grade ≥ 3
Grade ≥ 3
Patients with any treatment-related adverse event
Renal failure acute
Six of the seven patients (86 %) who initially received 50 mg afatinib underwent protocol-specified dose reduction to 40 mg for a grade 3 AE. For two of these six patients the dose was subsequently further reduced to 30 mg because they experienced another grade 3 AE. Eight of 13 patients (62 %) who initially received 40 mg afatinib underwent dose reduction to 30 mg. None of the eight patients who received the 30 mg afatinib starting dose required dose reduction.
The frequency of AEs observed varied across different doses of afatinib. A higher than expected rate of grade 3 GI and skin-related AEs (rash, acne, dermatitis acneiform and palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia) was observed at the 50 mg starting dose. However, patients fully recovered with treatment interruption or discontinuation. Further analyses suggested dose-related trends for both rash and diarrhea. Among the 16 patients (57 %) who experienced treatment-related rash, those receiving higher doses of afatinib were more likely to experience grade 3 rash and have a faster onset of symptoms (7 days from the start of therapy for patients receiving 50 mg or 40 mg compared with 8–14 days for patients receiving 30 mg). There was a small decrease in the incidence of drug-related diarrhea with decreasing dose. The first onset of treatment-related diarrhea usually occurred within 7 days after the start of therapy.
Summary of afatinib pharmacokinetic parameters after multiple oral administrations of afatinib 40 and 30 mg, with letrozole 2.5 mg
Pharmacokinetic parameter (unit)
Afatinib 40 mg
Afatinib 30 mg
Geometric CV (%)
Geometric CV (%)
Cpre,ss, 57 (ng/mL)
Cpre,ss, 85 (ng/mL)
This phase II study evaluated daily afatinib (30, 40 or 50 mg/day) in combination with letrozole in ER-positive, hormone-refractory MBC. The attempt to overcome hormone resistance, i.e. resistance to letrozole by the addition of the ErbB Family inhibitor afatinib, achieved disease stabilization in four patients (14 %) who remained on treatment without progression after 16 weeks. Two of these patients were HER2-negative. The use of the additional criteria for the diagnosis of progression for the primary endpoint was felt important at the time of this study as bone lesions were deemed non-measurable by RECIST version 1.0. Patients with ER-positive breast cancer frequently have bone metastases. Upon PD during trial treatment, chemotherapy was available to patients as an additional option. In order not to withhold chemotherapy from these patients, close monitoring of PD in bone lesions, which was not necessarily captured by RECIST 1.0, was required. Overall, the ability of afatinib, when administered with letrozole, to induce SD in around 50 % of patients may indicate the potential for reversal of hormone resistance with this agent. Of note, the duration of endocrine therapy prior to afatinib treatment in those who did and did not achieve clinical benefit was not available for all patients, so we are unable to speculate as to whether indolent disease contributed to any treatment effect in this study.
Clinical trials co-targeting growth factor receptors in hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer patients
Prior hormone therapy experience
Median PFS (months)
Grade ≥3 AEs
Phase II (Mayer et al. 2006)
Letrozole + erlotinib
Of 22 patients enrolled, 11/20 patients achieved clinical benefit (1 CR, 4 PR and 6 SD)
Hypermagnesemia, hypokalemia and scalp infection in 1 patient
Phase II (Mita et al. 2005)
Anastrozole + gefitinib
No clinical benefit
Phase II (Cristofanilli et al. 2010)
No prior endocrine therapy and/or developed metastatic disease during/after adjuvant tamoxifen
Anastrozole + gefitinib
Diarrhea 7 vs. 0 %
Fatigue 5 vs. 4 %
Hot flash 2 vs. 0 %
Anastrozole + placebo
Phase II (Osborne et al. 2011)
Patients with newly metastatic disease or recurring after adjuvant tamoxifen
Tamoxifen + gefitinib
Diarrhea 4 vs. 0 %
Rash 4 vs. 0 %
Vomiting 2 vs. 2 %
Tamoxifen + placebo
Tamoxifen + gefitinib
Tamoxifen + placebo
TAnDEM/phase III (Kaufman et al. 2009)
Previous treatment with tamoxifen as adjuvant or hormonal therapy for MBC or anastrozole was permitted (begun up to 4 weeks before random assignment)
Anastrozole + trastuzumab
4.8 (independent assessment)
Vomiting 3 vs. 1 %
Hypertension 2 vs. 4 %
2.4 (independent assessment)
EGF30008/phase III(Johnston et al. 2009)
No prior therapy for advanced or metastatic disease was allowed. Prior neoadjuvant/adjuvant antiestrogen/adjuvant aromatase inhibitor and/or trastuzumab, (completed >1 year before study entry)
Letrozole + lapatinib
Diarrhea 10 vs. <1 %
Rash 1 vs. 0 %
Letrozole + placebo
ER/PgR-positive HER2-negative MBC (relapsed <6 months after stopping adjuvant tamoxifen)
Letrozole + lapatinib
Letrozole + placebo
ER/PgR-positive HER2-negative MBC with low ER expression (ER H-score <160) (Finn et al. 2009)
Letrozole + lapatinib
Letrozole + placebo
eLEcTRA/phase III(Huober et al. 2012)
First-line treatment; no prior hormone therapy
Letrozole + trastuzumab
Bone pain 4 vs. 7 %
Dyspnea 0 vs. 7 %
ER/PgR-positive HER2-negative MBC
Bone pain 6 %
TAMRAD (Bachelot et al. 2012)
ER/PgR-positive HER2-negative MBC
Tamoxifen + everolimus
Clinical benefit rate = 61 %
Stomatitis 11 vs. 0 %
Pain 9 vs. 18 %
Infection 7 vs. 5 %
Anorexia 7 vs. 4 %
Clinical benefit rate = 42 %
BOLER0-2/phase III (Baselga et al. 2012)
ER/PgR-positive advanced breast cancer
Exemestane + everolimus
Stomatitis 8 vs. 1 %
Anemia 6 vs. <1 %
Dyspnea 4 vs. 1 %
Hyperglycemia 4 vs. 1 %
Fatigue 4 vs. 1 %
Pneumonitis 3 vs. 0 %
Exemestane + placebo
One limitation of our trial is the relatively small sample size; however, this included 20 (71 %) HER2-negative patients, two of whom remained on treatment without progressing at 16 weeks. This observation is of interest because letrozole combined with lapatinib, a reversible EGFR and HER2 TKI, in the first-line setting failed to improve PFS in patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative tumors (Johnston et al. 2009; Schwartzberg et al. 2010). Importantly, ER-positive HER2-negative MBC patients with low ER expression demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS when treated with letrozole plus lapatinib (Finn et al. 2009). Targeting HER2 with the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab and aromatase inhibitors such as anastrozole has also been explored, and the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus in combination with endocrine therapy represents another promising therapeutic strategy for ER-positive MBC (Table 5) (Huober et al. 2012; Marcom et al. 2007; Kaufman et al. 2009; Bachelot et al. 2012; Baselga et al. 2012). Understanding tumor biology and the compensatory mechanisms that are responsible for endocrine resistance will drive the choice of combination agent to provide optimal, synergistic blockade of relevant signaling pathways.
Across all doses of afatinib, the most frequently observed AEs were diarrhea, skin-related AEs, mucosal inflammation and asthenia. Overall, the side effect profile reported here was in accordance with the side effects observed across the phase I dose-finding afatinib monotherapy studies in patients with a variety of solid tumors, with GI and skin-related AEs most frequently reported (Yap et al. 2010; Eskens et al. 2008). These are known to be the most prominent AEs associated with EGFR blockade and are manageable (Mok et al. 2009; Mitsudomi et al. 2010; Frankel and Palmieri 2010; Rosell et al. 2012). Data from phase I monotherapy studies indicated an afatinib dose of 50 mg once daily to be the recommended dose for afatinib development in subsequent phase II studies (Yap et al. 2010; Agus et al. 2006; Eskens et al. 2008; Lewis et al. 2006). Therefore, patients who initially entered this phase II trial received a starting dose of afatinib 50 mg daily, with the option for dose reduction following the occurrence of specific grade 3 AEs. A notable proportion of patients initially treated with afatinib 50 mg in combination with letrozole experienced skin-associated AEs and diarrhea, requiring a dose reduction to 40 mg daily. The occurrence of significant skin-associated AEs and diarrhea within the 40 mg dose cohort also led to a subsequent dose reduction to 30 mg daily. The combination of afatinib/letrozole at a dose of 30/2.5 mg resulted in fewer patients discontinuing treatment due to AEs than patients who received 50 or 40 mg afatinib doses. Overall, the combination of afatinib and letrozole appeared to result in skin-related AEs occurring at greater intensity, when compared with afatinib monotherapy. It is worth noting that at the time of this study there was little known about the toxicity profile of TKIs and their management.
Co-administration of afatinib with letrozole resulted in afatinib pharmacokinetic parameters that were comparable to those observed during afatinib monotherapy (Yap et al. 2010; Eskens et al. 2008). Letrozole plasma concentrations were also comparable with or without afatinib administration and were within the ranges previously reported in the literature (Pfister et al. 2001; Dowsett 1999), indicating that there was no effect of afatinib on letrozole exposure. Therefore, this study is a preliminary indication that afatinib has no influence on the pharmacokinetics of letrozole and vice versa. However, the pharmacokinetic analysis was limited by the small number of patient samples and, as such, firm conclusions could not be drawn.
Despite the significant achievements of endocrine therapy in patients with breast cancer, only 50 % of all ER-positive tumors are initially responsive to anti-estrogens (Mouridsen et al. 2003; Osborne 1998). Furthermore, in the metastatic setting, tumors that are initially responsive always become resistant to endocrine treatment. Therefore, an agent that might suppress or delay the onset of endocrine resistance by disrupting multiple pathways at once and restoring hormone sensitivity may spare patients from treatment with aggressive chemotherapy. The phase II exploratory observations presented here show that the once-daily afatinib 30 mg/letrozole 2.5 mg combination was able to induce disease stabilization in 54 % of hormone-refractory MBC patients previously progressing on letrozole. This combination may warrant further evaluation, particularly in patients with ER-positive HER2-negative MBC. An ongoing study (NCT02115048) is assessing the efficacy of afatinib plus letrozole versus letrozole alone in first-line advanced ER-positive, HER2-negative postmenopausal breast cancer with low ER expression.
In this small exploratory study, combination therapy with afatinib and letrozole led to disease stabilization in 54 % of patients with advanced hormone-refractory MBC who had progressed following letrozole treatment. These findings warrant further evaluation to determine the potential for overcoming the resistance associated with hormone therapy via ErbB Family blockade with afatinib.
HdM, MUF, KP, SW and JLM were involved in design of the study. KG, FJ, JMF, JG, GB and JLM enrolled patients and collected data. KP oversaw statistical analysis and SW managed the pharmacokinetic analysis. All authors were involved in data analysis and interpretation and contributed to manuscript development through critical review and revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
This study was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim. We gratefully acknowledge the patients, their families and their caregivers for participation in this study. Medical writing assistance, supported financially by Boehringer Ingelheim, was provided by Julie Fleming, of Ogilvy Healthworld, and Caroline Allinson of GeoMed, an Ashfield company, part of UDG Healthcare plc during the preparation of this manuscript.
The study was conducted between 30 May 2007 and 4 January 2010 at five sites in France, and was in line with the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice Guideline and approved by the French national regulatory agency and local ethics committees. All patients provided written informed consent prior to study participation.
KG, FJ, JMF, GB, JLM: no conflicts of interest; JG: research support and advisory board fees from Novartis; HDMS, MUF, KP, SW: employees of Boehringer Ingelheim.
Role of the funding source
This study was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim. The authors were fully responsible for all content and editorial decisions, were involved at all stages of manuscript development and have approved the final version.
Gunzer K, et al. Addition of BIBW 2992, an irreversible inhibitor of EGFR/HER1 and HER2, to treatment continuation of letrozole in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive metastatic breast cancer progressing on letrozole. Poster presentation at 32nd Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 9–13 December, 2009, San Antonio, TX. Abstract no. 4098.
Gunzer K, et al. Addition of BIBW 2992, an irreversible inhibitor of EGFR/HER1 and HER2, to letrozole in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) progressing on letrozole monotherapy. Poster presentation at 46th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 4–8 June, 2010, Chicago, IL. Abstract no. 1072.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided 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.
- Agus DB, Terlizzi E, Stopfer P, Amelsberg A, Gordon MS (2006) A phase I dose escalation study of BIBW 2992, an irreversible dual EGFR/HER2 receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in a continuous schedule in patients with advanced solid tumours. J Clin Oncol 24(18S):2074Google Scholar
- Arpino G, Wiechmann L, Osborne CK, Schiff R (2008) Crosstalk between the estrogen receptor and the HER tyrosine kinase receptor family: molecular mechanism and clinical implications for endocrine therapy resistance. Endocr Rev 29:217–233View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bachelot T, Bourgier C, Cropet C, Ray-Coquard I, Ferrero J-M, Freyer G et al (2012) Randomized phase II trial of everolimus in combination with tamoxifen in patients with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer with prior exposure to aromatase inhibitors: a GINECO study. J Clin Oncol 30:2718–2724View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Baselga J, Campone M, Piccart M, Burris HA 3rd, Rugo HS, Sahmoud T et al (2012) Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 366:520–529View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chu D, Lu J (2008) Novel therapies in breast cancer: what is new from ASCO 2008. J Hematol Oncol 1:16View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ciardiello F, Tortora G (2008) EGFR antagonists in cancer treatment. N Engl J Med 358:1160–1174View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cristofanilli M, Valero V, Mangalik A, Royce M, Rabinowitz I, Arena FP et al (2010) Phase II, randomized trial to compare anastrozole combined with gefitinib or placebo in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 16:1904–1914View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dowsett M (1999) Drug and hormone interactions of aromatase inhibitors. Endocr Relat Cancer 6:181–185View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Eskens FA, Mom CH, Planting AS, Gietema JA, Amelsberg A, Huisman H et al (2008) A phase I dose escalation study of BIBW 2992, an irreversible dual inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor 1 (EGFR) and 2 (HER2) tyrosine kinase in a 2-week on, 2-week off schedule in patients with advanced solid tumours. Br J Cancer 98:80–85View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Finn RS, Press M, Dering J, Florance A, Platek G, Arbushites M et al (2009) Progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with HER2-negative, estrogen-receptor (ER)-low metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with the addition of lapatinib to letrozole: Biomarker results of EGF30008. ASCO Meeting Abstracts 27(15S):1018Google Scholar
- Frankel C, Palmieri FM (2010) Lapatinib side-effect management. Clin J Oncol Nurs 14:223–233View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Huober J, Fasching PA, Barsoum M, Petruzelka L, Wallwiener D, Thomssen C et al (2012) Higher efficacy of letrozole in combination with trastuzumab compared to letrozole monotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer—Results of the eLEcTRA trial. Breast 21:27–33View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hurtado A, Holmes KA, Geistlinger TR, Hutcheson IR, Nicholson RI, Brown M et al (2008) Regulation of ERBB2 by oestrogen receptor-PAX2 determines response to tamoxifen. Nature 456:663–666View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hurvitz SA, Pietras RJ (2008) Rational management of endocrine resistance in breast cancer: a comprehensive review of estrogen receptor biology, treatment options, and future directions. Cancer 113:2385–2397View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Johnston S, Pippen J Jr, Pivot X, Lichinitser M, Sadeghi S, Dieras V et al (2009) Lapatinib combined with letrozole versus letrozole and placebo as first-line therapy for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:5538–5546View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kaufman B, Mackey JR, Clemens MR, Bapsy PP, Vaid A, Wardley A et al (2009) Trastuzumab plus anastrozole versus anastrozole alone for the treatment of postmenopausal women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III TAnDEM study. J Clin Oncol 27:5529–5537View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Klapper LN, Kirschbaum MH, Sela M, Yarden Y (2000) Biochemical and clinical implications of the ErbB/HER signaling network of growth factor receptors. Adv Cancer Res 77:25–79View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lewis N, Marshall J, Amelsberg A, Cohen RB, Stopfer P, Hwang J et al (2006) A phase I dose escalation study of BIBW 2992, an irreversible dual EGFR/HER2 receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in a 3 week on 1 week off schedule in patients with advanced solid tumours. J Clin Oncol 24(18S):3091Google Scholar
- Li D, Ambrogio L, Shimamura T, Kubo S, Takahashi M, Chirieac LR et al (2008) BIBW2992, an irreversible EGFR/HER2 inhibitor highly effective in preclinical lung cancer models. Oncogene 27:4211–4702Google Scholar
- Lin NU, Winer EP, Wheatley D, Carey LA, Houston S, Mendelson D et al (2012) A phase II study of afatinib (BIBW 2992), an irreversible ErbB family blocker, in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer progressing after trastuzumab. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133:1057–1065View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Marcom PK, Isaacs C, Harris L, Wong ZW, Kommarreddy A, Novielli N et al (2007) The combination of letrozole and trastuzumab as first or second-line biological therapy produces durable responses in a subset of HER2 positive and ER positive advanced breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 102:43–49View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mayer I, Ganja N, Shyr Y, Muldowney N, Arteaga C (2006) A phase II trial of letrozole plus erlotinib in post-menopausal women with hormone-sensitive metastatic breast cancer: preliminary results of toxicities and correlative studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 100(abstr 4052)Google Scholar
- Mita M, de Bono JS, Mita A et al (2005) A phase II and biologic correlative study investigating anastrozole in combination with gefitinib in post menopausal patients with estrogen receptor positive metastatic breast carcinoma who have previously failed hormonal therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 94(Suppl 1; abstr 1117)Google Scholar
- Mitsudomi T, Morita S, Yatabe Y, Negoro S, Okamoto I, Tsurutani J et al (2010) Gefitinib versus cisplatin plus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (WJTOG3405): an open label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 11:121–128View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, Yang CH, Chu DT, Saijo N et al (2009) Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 361:947–957View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mouridsen HT, Rose C, Brodie AH, Smith IE (2003) Challenges in the endocrine management of breast cancer. Breast 12(Suppl 2):S2–S19View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nicholson RI, Gee JM, Harper ME (2001) EGFR and cancer prognosis. Eur J Cancer 37(Suppl 4):S9–S15View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Osborne CK (1998) Tamoxifen in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 339:1609–1618View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Osborne CK, Shou J, Massarweh S, Schiff R (2005) Crosstalk between estrogen receptor and growth factor receptor pathways as a cause for endocrine therapy resistance in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 11:865s–870sGoogle Scholar
- Osborne CK, Neven P, Dirix LY, Mackey JR, Robert J, Underhill C et al (2011) Gefitinib or placebo in combination with tamoxifen in patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a randomized phase II study. Clin Cancer Res 17:1147–1159View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pfister CU, Martoni A, Zamagni C, Lelli G, De Braud F, Souppart C et al (2001) Effect of age and single versus multiple dose pharmacokinetics of letrozole (Femara) in breast cancer patients. Biopharm Drug Dispos 22:191–197View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, Vergnenegre A, Massuti B, Felip E et al (2012) Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 13:239–246View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schiff R, Massarweh SA, Shou J, Bharwani L, Mohsin SK, Osborne CK (2004) Cross-talk between estrogen receptor and growth factor pathways as a molecular target for overcoming endocrine resistance. Clin Cancer Res 10:331S–336SView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schuler MH, Uttenreuther-Fischer MM, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Harbeck N, on behalf of the study group and trial team (2010) BIBW 2992, a novel irreversible EGFR/HER1 and HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, for the treatment of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer after failure of no more than two prior chemotherapies. J Clin Oncol 28(Suppl):15s (abstr 1065)Google Scholar
- Schwartzberg LS, Franco SX, Florance A, O’Rourke L, Maltzman J, Johnston S (2010) Lapatinib plus letrozole as first-line therapy for HER-2+ hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. Oncologist 15:122–129View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Smith IE, Walsh G, Skene A, Llombart A, Mayordomo JI, Detre S et al (2007) A phase II placebo-controlled trial of neoadjuvant anastrozole alone or with gefitinib in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:3816–3822View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L et al (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–216View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ullrich A, Schlessinger J (1990) Signal transduction by receptors with tyrosine kinase activity. Cell 61:203–212View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yap TA, Vidal L, Adam J, Stephens P, Spicer J, Shaw H et al (2010) Phase I trial of the irreversible EGFR and HER2 kinase inhibitor BIBW 2992 in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 28:3965–3972View ArticleGoogle Scholar