PURPOSE The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved inavolisib with palbociclib and fulvestrant for adults with endocrine-resistant, PIK3CA -mutated, hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC), as detected by an FDA-approved test, FoundationOne Liquid CDx assay, after recurrence on or after completing adjuvant endocrine therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Approval was based on INAVO120, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 325 patients with endocrine-resistant, PIK3CA -mutated, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced or MBC. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either inavolisib (n = 161) or placebo (n = 164) in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant. RESULTS INAVO120 met its primary end point of progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment, with a median PFS of 15.0 months for inavolisib + palbociclib + fulvestrant versus 7.3 months for placebo + palbociclib + fulvestrant (hazard ratio HR, 0.43 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.59; P < .0001). The objective response rate was 58% (95% CI, 50 to 66) versus 25% (95% CI, 19 to 32). The median duration of response was 18.4 months (95% CI, 10.4 to 22.2) versus 9.6 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 16.6). Interim analysis of overall survival did not reach statistical significance but was supportive of the overall benefit-risk assessment with a HR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.97). Consistent with the PI3Kα inhibitor class, common adverse reactions noted with inavolisib included hyperglycemia, stomatitis, diarrhea, and rash. CONCLUSION The approval of inavolisib with palbociclib plus fulvestrant was based on a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS observed in the INAVO120 trial. Before this approval, there were no specific therapies approved by the FDA for the first-line treatment of patients with endocrine-resistant, hormone receptor–positive advanced or MBC.
Wedam et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: