Which Tx Combo Is Best for HER2+ Breast Cancer?
The combination of trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu) with pertuzumab (Perjeta) as a first-line treatment for HER2-positive advanced metastatic breast cancer has been shown to reduce the risk for disease progression or death by more than the current standard-of-care treatment.
Sara Tolaney, MD, MPH
Sara Tolaney, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented this finding and other interim results of the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast09 study, at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting in Chicago.
'Trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, in combination with pertuzumab demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival, with a 44% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death when compared to a taxane, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (THP),' said Tolaney, during her presentation.
New First-line Standard?
Similar results were observed across all patient subgroups, with no new safety signals, Tolaney said.
'These data suggest that T-DXd and pertuzumab may represent a new first-line standard of care for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer,' she said.
The study randomized 1157 patients to three treatment groups: T-DXd 5.4 mg/kg every three weeks plus placebo, T-DXd-pertuzumab, or a taxane plus trastuzumab with pertuzumab (THP). The interim study readout includes only data from the T-DXd-pertuzumab and the taxane plus trastuzumab with pertuzumab groups.
Pertuzumab + T-Dxd or Standard of Care?
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 40.7 months in the T-DXd-pertuzumab patients and 26.9 months in the taxane plus trastuzumab with pertuzumab patients ( P < .00001).
Tolaney explained that the study was designed to have an interim analysis for PFS after approximately 399 events across the three arms with at least 277 events for comparison. At the time of the interim analysis, she said, only the TDX-pertuzumab and THP groups met the criteria for superiority, a P -value < .00043, which was not met for the comparison of T-DXd plus placebo to THP. The T-DXd-placebo arm remains blinded until the final progression-free survival analysis, Tolaney said.
Twenty-one percent of the patients in the T-DXd-pertuzumab arm had discontinued T-DXd due to adverse events, Tolaney said; 9% of patients elected to continue with trastuzumab and pertuzumab after they discontinued T-DXd.
Among hormone receptor-positive patients, 13.5% in the T-DXd-pertuzumab group and 38% in the THP group elected to add endocrine treatment. At the data cutoff, 46% of the T-DXd-pertuzumab patients and 33% of those in the THP group remained on study treatment. Median follow-up duration was 29 months.
The treatment effect of T-DXd-pertuzumab became evident early in the study, Tolaney said. Six months after starting treatment, 7% of the T-DXd-pertuzumab group vs 12% of the THP group had progressed. The gap continued to widen over time, she said.
'With 26% of patients still on steady treatment with T-DXd and pertuzumab, it suggests that this median is likely to evolve with further follow-up,' she said.
Objective response rates were also higher with T-DXd–pertuzumab, 86% vs 79% with THP, Tolaney said.
'The complete response rate for T-DXd and pertuzumab was 15%, which was almost double what was seen with THP (8.5%),' she said. Response duration was also longer with T-DXd-pertuzumab, with 73% remaining in response at 24 months vs 55% in the THP arm.
'Overall survival data are very immature at this timepoint with just 16% of survival events seen, but you can see that there is an early trend favoring T-DXd plus pertuzumab with a hazard ratio of 0.84,' she said.
A similar number of patients in both groups had serious treatment-emergent adverse events: 27% for T-DXd-pertuzumab and 25.1% for THP, which Tolaney said, was consistent with the known toxicity profiles of both agents, with no new toxicities identified.
The median duration of treatment in the DESTINY-Breast09 study was 21 months.
'A Pivotal Advancement?'
Rebecca Dent, MD, deputy CEO at the National Cancer Center Singapore, called the DESTINY-Breast09 results 'a pivotal advancement in the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer that is both clinically and statistically significant.'
Rebecca Dent, MD
HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer was once considered a 'death sentence,' Dent said at a press conference, but now patients can survive on therapy for years, which presents its own challenges.
Regarding the T-DXd-plus-pertuzumab regimen, Dent said, 'Is this for all patients at the beginning of their treatment for metastatic disease?' The truth of the matter is we don't know.'
Having better biomarkers would provide answers, she said, but for patients with extensive disease with central nervous system metastasis, pertuzumab in combination with other agents 'is clearly your first-line choice.'
How to best sequence therapies is another challenge emerging with these evolving treatment regimens, Dent added. 'And then I think finally we do have to appreciate that there are toxicities: One in terms of quality of life but also cost toxicity,' she said.
Which Therapeutic Regimen Costs More?
Tolaney acknowledged the cost implications of adding pertuzumab to T-DXd, in an interview with Medscape Medical News .
'But I would also note,' Tolaney said, 'that the standard-of-care arm does involve getting continued trastuzumab and pertuzumab therapy.'
In the PATINA study, which added palbociclib (Ibrance) to standard maintenance therapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, the cost profile was similar to those of the treatments used in the newer trial, Tolaney said.
'You are looking at substantial continued cost because we're continuing to suppress the HER2 pathway for years in these patients,' she said.
AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo funded the study. Tolaney reported financial relationships with ADi, Ambrx, Artios Biopharmaceuticals, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bicycle Therapeutics, BioNTech, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Circle Pharma, Cullinan Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Hengrui Pharmaceutical (USA), Immunomedics/Gilead, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Launch Therapeutics, Lilly, Menarini Group, Merck, Mersana, NanoString Technologies, Natera, Novartis, OncoPep, Pfizer, Reveal Genomics, Sanofi, Seagen, Sumitovant Biopharma, Summit Therapeutics, Systimmune, Tango Therapeutics, Zentalis, Zuellig Pharma, and Zymeworks.
Dent reported having financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, DKSH, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Health Line
40 minutes ago
- Health Line
GLP-1 Drugs Linked to Age-Related Macular Degeneration, Study Finds
GLP-1 drugs are associated with a higher risk of 'wet' age-related macular degeneration in people with type 2 diabetes, according to a new study. Researchers found that the risk substantially increased the longer people were prescribed a GLP-1 drug, particularly those containing semaglutide. GLP-1 medications like Ozempic and Wegovy have surged in popularity as weight loss treatments, but ophthalmologists say their potential risks to eye health are not well understood. GLP-1 drugs are linked to a significantly higher risk of developing neovascular or 'wet' age-related macular degeneration, according to new research. The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Toronto, found that people with type 2 diabetes who were prescribed GLP-1s were more than twice as likely to develop wet AMD as those who weren't. The study also found that the longer subjects were treated with these medications, the greater their risk of developing wet AMD. Neovascular age-related macular degeneration, commonly known as wet AMD, is the less common but more aggressive form of age-related macular degeneration, and a leading cause of irreversible vision loss among older adults in the United States. The findings, published on June 5 in JAMA Ophthalmology, suggest that doctors and patients should be aware of the potential risks, even though the chance of developing the condition remains relatively low. GLP-1 drugs, a class of blockbuster diabetes and obesity drugs sold under brand names like Ozempic and Wegovy, have surged in popularity in recent years. They offer a range of substantial benefits, including weight loss, improved blood sugar levels, and reduced cardiovascular disease risk. Despite these benefits, ophthalmologists say the impact of GLP-1 drugs on eye health is not well understood. Studies have identified an association between the medications and other eye conditions, including diabetic retinopathy and non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). While the findings don't establish a clear causal link between GLP-1 drugs and eye disease, experts say there's still reason for caution. 'The dose-response effect we observed — where longer GLP-1 receptor agonist exposure was associated with higher risk — strengthens the argument that this association may reflect a true biological effect rather than being due to confounding factors,' said study co-author Andrew Mihalache, MD(C), of the Temerty Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto, Canada. 'Seeing a graded relationship like this suggests that prolonged exposure could play a causal role in increasing risk. However, this needs to be confirmed in future studies,' he told Healthline. Long-term GLP-1 drug use may triple wet AMD risk Drawing on health records from Ontario, Canada, researchers at the University of Toronto analyzed nearly 140,000 adults with type 2 diabetes to investigate a possible link between GLP-1 use and wet AMD. The retrospective study tracked patient outcomes over a three-year period, using data collected between 2020 and 2023. Roughly one-third of participants — about 46,000 people — had been prescribed a GLP-1 drug for at least six months. The rest had not. In the vast majority of cases (97.5%), that drug was semaglutide, the active ingredient in Ozempic and Wegovy. The average participant was 66, and the cohort was almost evenly divided by sex, with females representing 46.6% of the group. On average, those who were prescribed a GLP-1 drug were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with wet AMD. However, that number doesn't tell the full story. People who took GLP-1 drugs for longer experienced progressively greater risk. Those who had only taken their medication for 6–18 months actually had a slightly lower risk than those who didn't take the medication. However, at the 18–30 month mark, GLP-1 users' risk of developing wet AMD more than doubled compared to non-users. And those taking the drugs for 30 months or longer had more than triple the risk. 'This was definitely surprising, especially given the growing enthusiasm for GLP-1 receptor agonists for their cardiovascular and metabolic benefits. It really highlights the need for further investigation into their ocular safety profile,' first study author Reut Shor, MD, of the Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences at the University of Toronto, Canada, told Healthline. Despite the increase in risk, the absolute risk of developing wet AMD was still low: 0.2% among those taking a GLP-1 and 0.1% among those who didn't. Do GLP-1 drugs harm eye health? While not definitive, the study raises further questions about the potential risks posed by GLP-1 drugs for eye health. Prior studies have also identified links between GLP-1s and other forms of eye disease in people with type 2 diabetes. In a major phase 3 semaglutide trial in 2016, researchers identified that type 2 diabetes patients taking semaglutide had a higher risk of complications of diabetic retinopathy compared to a placebo. Those findings were published in The New England Journal of Medicine. However, other studies have provided conflicting evidence. A retrospective 2024 study evaluated nearly 700 subjects with type 2 diabetes who were taking a GLP-1 drug and found no association between GLP-1s and worsening retinopathy. Also in 2024, researchers found that patients with type 2 diabetes who were prescribed semaglutide were at greater risk of NAION compared to those who weren't. NAION is a condition that causes sudden blindness, typically just in one eye, due to a lack of blood flow to the optic nerve. The mechanism for why GLP-1 drug use may lead to wet AMD is not well established, but a predominant theory is that lowering blood sugar rapidly leads to a lack of oxygen in the retina. 'When you make the retina more hypoxic, which is what the GLP-1s do, it basically pushes it further over the threshold, causing more abnormal blood vessels to grow,' said Linda Lam, MD, MBA, an ophthalmologist with Keck Medicine of USC, who wasn't involved in the research. Abnormal blood vessel growth in the eye is the hallmark of wet AMD. While GLP-1s offer many health benefits, eye disease risk must be considered in some populations, Lam told Healthline. 'In this particular group of patients who are older, who are diabetics, I really would caution against the extended use of GLP-1s,' she said. Lam reiterated the importance of annual eye exams for the general population, but in particular for those with diabetes, to identify and diagnose eye disease early on. People with type 2 diabetes, especially those taking a GLP-1 drug, should be aware of the signs and symptoms of vision loss and consult with their doctor immediately. These include:
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Republicans Like Health Savings Accounts
Should the government allow HSAs to cover gym memberships? Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are a popular and important way many people pay for medical expenses. They are also a great way to save—better, for example, than an IRA or a 401(k) plan. Because of various quirks in the law, HSAs are not available to a large number of people—including people on Medicaid or Medicare and most people who buy their own insurance in the (Obamacare) exchanges. Under the reconciliation bill just passed in the House of Representatives, more people will have access to these accounts and there will be new opportunities to use them. Currently, individuals and their employers can make tax-free deposits to HSAs, provided the individual is also covered by third-party health insurance with a high deductible. Money can accumulate and grow tax-free. After age 65, the money can be withdrawn for non-health expenses without penalty, but it is subject to normal income taxes. As of 2023, there were 37.4 million accounts with $46.4 billion in assets. Industry experts think the House bill will lead to an additional 20 million people with an HSA. Here is a summary of the hits and misses in the Republican bill, as it faces a vote by the Senate. The Good. By far the best feature of the bill is a provision making all bronze and catastrophic insurance plans offered through the (Obamacare) exchanges automatically eligible for an HSA account. This is likely the main reason why the number of HSA accounts is likely to soar. Another provision would allow the use of HSAs to pay monthly fees for direct primary care (DPC). This used to be called 'concierge care' and in the past it was available only to the rich. But the price has come way down. Atlas MD in Wichita, for example, charges $50 a month for a mother and $10 for a child. In return, the family has 24/7 access to a physician's practice that provides all primary care. Often, the family has the doctor's personal phone number. DPC has become increasingly popular, and employers often pay the monthly fee for their employees. Under current law, however, the employer cannot put funds in an HSA account, let the employee choose a DPC doctor and pay that doctor from the account. The House bill will create that opportunity. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the ten-year cost of all of the HSA changes combined is almost $44 billion. Yet the cost of the two best provisions is less than $6 billion. More on that below. The Questionable. The bill allows annual withdrawals of $500 (individuals) or $1,000 (couples) for gym memberships and other physical activities. (No sailing or golfing expenses, however.) The problem is that these are not medical expenses. If we are going to allow gym memberships, why not hundreds of other nonmedical expenses – including sailing and golfing? The CBO says the cost of this provision is $10 billion. The bill also doubles the annual HSA contribution that is allowable for individuals with incomes up to $75,000 and couples who earn up to $150,000. The problem here is that only about one in ten account holders are contributing the maximum allowable right now. At a cost of more than $8 billion this is an expensive change that will only affect a small part of the market. Instead of these questionable measures, the Senate should consider making all Obamacare silver plans (the most popular choice) automatically eligible for an HSA. Missed opportunities. While the House should be congratulated for making many desirable improvements in the HSA law, it unfortunately failed to correct a fundamental flaw: an inflexible across-the-board deductible. Common sense would suggest that different medical expenses need different deductibles. The biggest problem with chronic illness, for example, is noncompliance with a drug regimen. That is why some Medicare Advantage plans make maintenance drugs for chronic patients (such as insulin for diabetics) available for free or at very low cost. In the first Trump administration, an IRS ruling waived the deductible requirement for 14 specific services and medications that serve as treatments for such conditions as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, and depression. This was an executive branch decision to modify existing legislation, however. To make it permanent, Congress needs to codify it. Ideally, Congress should remove the deductible requirement altogether and let the role of deductibles be determined in the marketplace. One way to think about the combination of allowing gym memberships and failing to address the deductible issue is to see that the House risks being accused of creating benefits for the healthy while ignoring the sick. Another missed opportunity was the failure of House Republicans to give 80 million Medicaid enrollees access to what I will call a Roth HSA. Private companies managing Medicaid (or the state itself) should be able to make deposits to an account that would cover, say, all primary care. Enrollees could use the money for health care during an insurance year. Afterward, they could withdraw any unspent funds for any purpose. If there were no taxes or penalties on non-medical withdrawals, health care and non-health care would trade against each other on a level playing field under the tax law. People wouldn't spend a dollar on health care unless they got a dollar's worth of value. An early study by the RAND Corporation suggests that these accounts would reduce Medicaid spending by 30 percent. Aside from payments for the disabled and nursing home care, if Medicaid spending could be reduced by 30 percent, the savings would amount to almost $1 trillion over ten years. This saving would be shared by the beneficiaries and the taxpayers who fund Medicaid.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Jillian Sackler, Philanthropist Who Defended Husband's Legacy, Dies at 84
Jillian Sackler, an arts philanthropist who struggled to preserve the reputation of her husband, Arthur, by distinguishing him from his two younger Sackler brothers and their descendants, whose aggressive marketing and false advertising on behalf of their pharmaceutical company, Purdue Pharma, triggered the opioid epidemic, died on May 20 in Manhattan. She was 84. Her death, in a hospital, was from esophageal cancer, said Miguel Benavides, her health proxy. Dr. Arthur Sackler, a psychiatrist and researcher who became a pioneer in medical marketing, bought Purdue Frederick, originally based in New York City, in the 1950s and gave each of his brothers a one-third share. They incorporated the company as Purdue Pharma in 1991. (Its headquarters are now in Stamford, Conn.) Dr. Sackler died in 1987 — nine years before the opioid OxyContin was marketed by the company as a powerful painkiller. Shortly after his death, his estate sold his share of the company to his billionaire brothers, Raymond and Mortimer, for $22.4 million. The company's misleading advertising claim that OxyContin was nonaddictive prompted doctors to overprescribe it beginning in the 1990s. The proliferation of the medication ruined countless lives of people who became dependent on it. In 2021, the company proposed a bankruptcy settlement in which members of the Sackler family agreed to pay $4.2 billion over nine years to resolve civil claims related to the opioid crisis. In return, they sought immunity from future lawsuits. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
