Dr. Yardley Discusses Data With Talazoparib in Breast Cancer

Denise A. Yardley, MD
Published: Monday, Aug 27, 2018



Denise A. Yardley, MD, senior investigator of breast cancer research, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, discusses data with talazoparib in breast cancer.

Talazoparib was granted a priority review to a new drug application for the treatment of patients with germline BRCA mutation–positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer in June 2018. The PARP inhibitor reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 46% versus chemotherapy in patients with BRCA-positive advanced breast cancer, according to data from the phase III EMBRACA trial.

Findings from the EMBRACA trial showed that the median progression-free survival was 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.2-9.3) with talazoparib compared with 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.2-6.7) with physician’s choice of therapy (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.71; P <.0001). Additionally, the objective response rate was 62.6% (95% CI, 55.8-69.0) versus 27.2% (95% CI, 19.3-36.3), respectively (odds ratio, 4.99; 95% CI, 2.9-8.8; 2-sided P value <.0001).

Yardley says that patients may be wary of chemotherapy due to the toxicities, but other agents come with their own line of toxicities as well, even immunotherapy.
SELECTED
LANGUAGE


Denise A. Yardley, MD, senior investigator of breast cancer research, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, discusses data with talazoparib in breast cancer.

Talazoparib was granted a priority review to a new drug application for the treatment of patients with germline BRCA mutation–positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer in June 2018. The PARP inhibitor reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 46% versus chemotherapy in patients with BRCA-positive advanced breast cancer, according to data from the phase III EMBRACA trial.

Findings from the EMBRACA trial showed that the median progression-free survival was 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.2-9.3) with talazoparib compared with 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.2-6.7) with physician’s choice of therapy (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.71; P <.0001). Additionally, the objective response rate was 62.6% (95% CI, 55.8-69.0) versus 27.2% (95% CI, 19.3-36.3), respectively (odds ratio, 4.99; 95% CI, 2.9-8.8; 2-sided P value <.0001).

Yardley says that patients may be wary of chemotherapy due to the toxicities, but other agents come with their own line of toxicities as well, even immunotherapy.



View Conference Coverage
Online CME Activities
TitleExpiration DateCME Credits
Community Practice Connections™: 1st Annual Paris Breast Cancer Conference™Dec 31, 20181.5
35th Annual Chemotherapy Foundation Symposium: Innovative Cancer Therapy for Tomorrow® Clinical Vignette SeriesJan 31, 20192.0
Publication Bottom Border
Border Publication
x