Article

FDA Waives ODAC Review of Margetuximab in HER2+ Breast Cancer

The FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will no longer be meeting to review a Biologics License Application for margetuximab for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

The FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) will no longer be meeting to review a Biologics License Application (BLA) for margetuximab for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer, according to MacroGenics, Inc., the manufacturer of the Fc-engineered HER2-targeted antibody.1

"Since submitting the BLA for margetuximab, we have worked collaboratively with the FDA to answer the Agency’s questions as they arise," Scott Koenig, MD, president and CEO of MacroGenics, stated in the press release. "We will continue to work closely with the agency to potentially bring margetuximab as a treatment option to patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer."

The BLA is based on data from the phase 3 SOPHIA trial. Data from a prespecified second interim OS analysis presented at the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) showed that at a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the median OS in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population was 21.6 months (95% CI, 18.86-24.05) with margetuximab plus chemotherapy compared with 19.8 months (95% CI, 17.54-22.28) with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.13; P = .326).2,3

At the analysis, the investigator-assessed PFS showed a 29% reduction in risk of disease progression or death. The median PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI, 5.22-6.97) in the margetuximab arm compared with 4.4 months (95% CI, 4.14-5.45) in the trastuzumab arm (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86; P = .0006).

“Interestingly there is now an evident plateau in the curve that has appeared over time,” lead study investigator Hope S. Rugo, MD, director, Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education, University of California San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, said when presenting the data at the 2019 SABCS.

Explaining the mechanism of action of the treatment, Rugo said, “Margetuximab is a novel HER2-positive antibody with Fc engineering that alters Fc receptor affinities. “Margetuximab’s Fc engineering was designed to increase IgG1 Fc affinity for the activating Fc gamma receptor CD16A and decrease affinity for the inhibitory Fc gamma receptor CD32B.”

“Margetuximab’s Fc engineering enhances both innate and adaptive immunity, creating a coordinated engagement of HER2-targeted immunity,” added Rugo.

Based on the mechanism of action of margetuximab, prespecified exploratory analyses were conducted to assess the CD16A genotype as a predictor of anti-HER2 efficacy. In the estimated 86% of patients carrying a CD16A 158F allele, the median OS was 23.7 months in the margetuximab arm versus 19.4 months in the trastuzumab arm (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.04; P = .087).

However, in the 14% of patients who were homozygous for the CD16A-158VV allele, the trastuzumab regimen performed better than the margetuximab regimen. The median OS was 19.7 months in the margetuximab arm compared with 33.3 months in the trastuzumab arm (HR, 1.65; P = .157). In this 69-patient subgroup, “clinical characteristics were unbalanced in favor of the trastuzumab arm, where more patients treated with margetuximab had visceral metastases, brain metastases, more than 2 metastatic lines of therapy, and were older,” explained Rugo.

“Clearly more data are needed; however, at the present time, it seems reasonable to conclude from these data there is no evidence to support a benefit of margetuximab over trastuzumab in the VV homozygous population,” said Rugo.

The updated analysis Rugo presented at SABCS also included investigator-assed response rates. The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly improved with margetuximab at 25.2% versus 13.7% with trastuzumab (P = .0006). The clinical benefit rate was also significantly improved at 48.1% versus 35.6%, respectively (P = .0025).

The ORR in the margetuximab arm comprised a complete response (CR) rate of 1.9%, partial response (PR) rate of 23.3%, stable disease (SD) rate of 53.8%, and progressive disease (PD) rate of 15.0%. The ORR in the trastuzumab arm comprised a CR rate of 1.5%, PR rate of 12.2%, SD rate of 58.5%, and PD rate of 21.1%. The median duration of response was 6.9 versus 7.0 months in the 2 arms, respectively.

Earlier data from the SOPHIA trial were presented during the 2019 ASCO Annual Meeting. At a data cutoff date of October 10, 2018, the median PFS by central blinded analysis (CBA) was 5.8 months in the margetuximab arm compared with 4.9 months in the trastuzumab arm (HR, 0.76; P = .033).2 Investigator-assessed PFS at the cutoff was also longer in the margetuximab arm (median PFS, 5.6 vs 4.2 months; HR, 0.70; P = .001).

At the first interim OS analysis (median follow-up, 9.2 months) the median OS in the ITT population was 18.9 months in the margetuximab arm versus 17.2 months in the trastuzumab arm (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69-1.31; P = .758).

SOPHIA, included 536 patients (ITT population) with metastatic or unresectable locally-advanced relapsed/refractory HER2-positive breast cancer. All patients had received ≥2 prior anti-HER2 therapies, including pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab, and had received 1 to 3 prior lines of treatment in the metastatic setting. Patients could have prior brain metastasis if it was treated and stable.

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 arms, with a median age of 55 years in the margetuximab arm and 56 years in the trastuzumab arm. Ninety-eight percent of patients in each arm had metastatic disease, with 2% in each arm having unresectable locally advanced disease. About 60% of patients in each arm had hormone receptor—positive disease.

The backbone chemotherapy regimens were capecitabine in 27% in each arm, eribulin (Halaven) in about one-fourth, gemcitabine in 12%, and vinorelbine in about one-third of patients.

Fifty-nine percent of patient in the margetuximab arm and 54% in the trastuzumab arm received prior adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant therapy. About one-third in each arm received >2 lines of prior therapy in the metastatic setting. Nearly all patients in each arm had prior taxane-based chemotherapy and about 40% had prior anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Nearly half of each arm had prior endocrine therapy. More than 90% of patients received prior T-DM1 (ado-trastuzumab emtansine; Kadcyla), and about 15% had received lapatinib

Patients were randomized to margetuximab at 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks (n = 266) or trastuzumab (n = 270), using an 8 mg/kg loading dose followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. All patients also received investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine) in 3-week cycles.

The sequential primary end points were PFS by CBA and OS. Secondary end points included investigator assessed PFS and ORR by CBA. A preplanned exploratory secondary end point included evaluation of the effect of margetuximab by Fc-gamma receptor alleles (CD16A, CD32A, and CD32B).

The safety analysis was conducted at a data cutoff date of April 2019, and included 264 patients in the margetuximab arm and 266 in the trastuzumab arm. Rugo said the safety data were comparable between the 2 arms and were consistent with previously reported data for the treatments.

Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 142 (53.8%) patients on the margetuximab arm compared with 140 (52.6%) patients on the trastuzumab arm. Serious AEs occurred in 43 (16.3%) patients on the margetuximab arm compared with 49 (18.4%) patients on the trastuzumab arm.

Infusion-related reactions (IRRs) were more common with margetuximab than with trastuzumab (13% vs 3%) and were mostly grade 1/2 and associated with the first cycle. There were 4 grade 4 IRRs in the margetuximab arm and none in the control arm. All-grade left ventricular dysfunction rates were equivalent across groups, noted Rugo.

References

  1. MacroGenics Provides Update on FDA Review of Margetuximab for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer. Published May 28, 2020. https://bit.ly/3gu7lEs. May 28, 2020.
  2. Rugo HS, Im S-A, Cardoso F, et al. Phase 3 SOPHIA study of margetuximab + chemotherapy vs trastuzumab + chemotherapy in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer after prior anti-HER2 therapies: second interim overall survival analysis. Presented at: 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Abstract GS1-02.
  3. Rugo HS, Im S-A, Wright GLS, et al. SOPHIA primary analysis: A phase 3 (P3) study of margetuximab (M) + chemotherapy (C) versus trastuzumab (T) + C in patients (pts) with HER2+ metastatic (met) breast cancer (MBC) after prior anti-HER2 therapies (Tx). J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(15 suppl; abstr 1000). doi: 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.1000.

The company noted in a press release that the FDA action date for the BLA remains December 18, 2020. The BLA for margetuximab is specifically for use in combination with chemotherapy as a treatment for patients with previously treated metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

Related Videos
David Rimm, MD, PhD
Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, professor, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, director, Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine; Louisa and Rand Glenn Family Chair in Breast Cancer Research, director, Glenn Family Breast Center, director, Breast Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University
Peter Forsyth, MD
David Rimm, MD, PhD, discusses current HER2 immunohistochemistry assays that are used in the management of breast cancer, and their shortcomings.
Nancy U. Lin, MD, discusses the safety data from DESTINY-Breast12 with T-DXd for HER2+ advanced/metastatic breast cancer with or without brain metastases.
Sheldon M. Feldman, MD
David Rimm, MD, PhD
Nancy U. Lin, MD, associate chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Susan F. Smith Center for Women’s Cancers, director, Metastatic Breast Cancer Program, director, Program for Patients with Breast Cancer Brain Metastases, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; professor, medicine, Harvard Medical School
Oleg Gluz, MD
Oleg Gluz, MD