Neoadjuvant Trastuzumab, Pertuzumab, and Docetaxel vs Trastuzumab Emtansine in Patients With ERBB2-Positive Breast Cancer A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is presently approved for treatment of advanced breast cancer and after incomplete response to neoadjuvant therapy, but the potential of T-DM1 as monotherapy is so far unknown. OBJECTIVE To assess pathologic complete response (pCR) to standard neoadjuvant therapy of combination docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (DTP) vs T-DM1 monotherapy in patients with ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-positive breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This randomized phase 2 trial, conducted at 9 sites in Sweden, enrolled 202 patients between December 1, 2014, and October 31, 2018. Participants were 18 years or older, with ERBB2-positive tumors larger than 20mmand/or verified lymph node metastases. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive 6 cycles of DTP (standard group) or T-DM1 (investigational group). Crossover was recommended at lack of response or occurrence of intolerable toxic effects. Assessment with fluorine 18-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (PET-CT) was performed at baseline and after 2 and 6 treatment cycles. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES Pathologic complete response, defined as ypT0 or Tis ypN0. Secondary end points were clinical and radiologic objective response; event-free survival, invasive disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival; safety; health-related quality of life (HRQoL); functional and biological tumor characteristics; and frequency of breast-conserving surgery. RESULTS Overall, 202 patients were randomized; 197 (99 women in the standard group [median age, 51 years (range, 26-73 years)] and 98 women in the investigational group [median age, 53 years (range, 28-74 years)]) were evaluable for the primary end point. Pathologic complete response was achieved in 45 patients in the standard group (45.5%; 95% CI 35.4%-55.8%) and 43 patients in the investigational group (43.9%; 95% CI 33.9%-54.3%). The difference was not statistically significant (P =.82). In a subgroup analysis, the pCR rate was higher in hormone receptor-negative tumors than in hormone receptor-positive tumors in both treatment groups (45 of 72 [62.5%] vs 45 of 125 [36.0%]). Three patients in the T-DM1 group experienced progression during therapy. In an exploratory analysis, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes at 10% or more (median) estimated pCR significantly (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.42-5.36; P =.003). Response evaluation with 18F-FDG PET-CT revealed a relative decrease of maximum standardized uptake value by equal to or greater than 68.7%(median) was associated with pCR (odds ratio, 6.74, 95% CI, 2.75-16.51; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this study, treatment with standard neoadjuvant combination DTP was equal to T-DM1.