Come join others currently navigating treatment in our weekly Zoom Meetup! Register here: Tuesdays, 1pm ET.

Immunotherapy Tecentriq Helps Some Advanced-Stage Triple-Neg

124»

Comments

  • nicolerod
    nicolerod Member Posts: 2,877
    edited August 2021

    Why??? Is tecentriq all of a sudden not working in combo with chemo??? I heard a LOT of people had success with that combo?

  • moth
    moth Member Posts: 3,293
    edited August 2021

    I think it's 2 issues;

    One is that the Impassion 130 and Impassion 131 came out with different results.

    "Approval was based on the progression-free survival (PFS) results of the Phase III IMpassion130 study for people with mTNBC whose tumours express PD-L1 (≥1%). Continued approval for this indication was contingent upon the results of IMpassion131, the postmarketing requirement (PMR). This study did not meet its primary endpoint of PFS for the initial (first-line) treatment of people with mTNBC in the PD-L1-positive population."

    Impassion 130 showed benefit, Impassion 131 did not.

    THEN, I think Trodelvy also changes things. If there was nothing else on the scene, I wonder if they would have continued to have it as an option. But with Trodelvy being out and showing significant results, the choice most oncologists and pts would make would probably be for Trodelvy....so they would be marketing a drug which few people wanted to use.

    Right now in the US, atezolizumab + abraxane are still listed as first line for mTNBC but I think that recommendation might be changing soon? It's still very unclear.

    But yes, some people do well on it - it just seems that we are not identifying them. It's probably not PD-L1 that's the relevant marker...

  • moth
    moth Member Posts: 3,293
    edited August 2021

    Someone just posted a link to a study by Hope Rugo. I have to read it again in more detail but it looks like some of the *assays* which are testing for PD-L1 are not agreeing with each other? And it might mean that those who responded had PD-L1 tested by a different assay than those who didn't... & that those who didn't respond might have had false positive PD-L1 results? I think that's the possibility they're exploring here.

    https://academic.oup.com/jnci/advance-article/doi/...

  • martaj
    martaj Member Posts: 307
    edited August 2021

    I received Tecentriq in 2019-20. Involved in a clinical trial. Now what happens. Considered NED at this point. I'll have to call study group Monday

  • nicolerod
    nicolerod Member Posts: 2,877
    edited August 2021

    Im confused..are they not going to be even giving ppl tecentriq at all anymore for anyone??

  • moth
    moth Member Posts: 3,293
    edited August 2021

    Nicole, I don't think they will be prescribing it to new pts but I'm not sure if those responding to it have to go off. Haven't heard details yet.

  • nicolerod
    nicolerod Member Posts: 2,877
    edited August 2021

    I am just so shocked at this..I feel like all I ever heard was success stories when this was combined with Abraxane....

  • moderators
    moderators Posts: 8,637
    edited September 2021

    Hi all, we thought you'd be interested in Breastcancer.org's take on this recent development about Tecentriq:

    Genentech Withdraws Breast Cancer Indication From Tecentriq
    August 28, 2021

    On Aug. 27, 2021, Genentech announced it is voluntarily withdrawing the breast cancer indication from the immunotherapy medicine Tecentriq in the United States. Read more...

  • moth
    moth Member Posts: 3,293
    edited September 2021

    Final OS analysis from Impassion 130

    -Three-year OS rates in the PD-L1 IC-positive population were 35.8% with A + nP versus 22.2% with P + nP.

    -OS benefit with A + nP versus P + nP in the ITT population was not statistically significant, precluding further testing

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2021.05.355

    (Edited to fix link)