Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
[Preprint]. 2023 Dec 4:2023.12.04.23297559.
doi: 10.1101/2023.12.04.23297559.

Adjuvant nivolumab, capecitabine or the combination in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer: the OXEL randomized phase II study

Filipa Lynce  1   2   3 , Candace Mainor  4 , Renee N Donahue  5 , Xue Geng  6 , Greg Jones  7 , Ilana Schlam  8   9 , Hongkun Wang  6 , Nicole J Toney  5 , Caroline Jochems  5 , Jeffrey Schlom  5 , Jay Zeck  4 , Christopher Gallagher  8 , Rita Nanda  10 , Deena Graham  11 , Erica M Stringer-Reasor  12 , Neelima Denduluri  13 , Julie Collins  4 , Ami Chitalia  8 , Shruti Tiwari  8 , Raquel Nunes  14 , Rebecca Kaltman  15 , Katia Khoury  12 , Margaret Gatti-Mays  16 , Paolo Tarantino  1   3 , Sara M Tolaney  1   2   3 , Sandra M Swain  6 , Paula Pohlmann  4 , Heather A Parsons  1   2   3 , Claudine Isaacs  6
Affiliations

Adjuvant nivolumab, capecitabine or the combination in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer: the OXEL randomized phase II study

Filipa Lynce et al. medRxiv. .

Update in

Abstract

Chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors have a role in the post-neoadjuvant setting in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, the effects of nivolumab, a checkpoint inhibitor, capecitabine, or the combination in changing peripheral immunoscore (PIS) remains unclear. This open-label randomized phase II OXEL study (NCT03487666) aimed to assess the immunologic effects of nivolumab, capecitabine, or the combination in terms of the change in PIS (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints include the presence of ctDNA, toxicity, clinical outcomes at 2-years and association of ctDNA and PIS with clinical outcomes. Forty-five women with TNBC and residual invasive disease after standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy were randomized to nivolumab, capecitabine, or the combination. Here we show that a combination of nivolumab plus capecitabine leads to a greater increase in PIS from baseline to week 6 (91%) compared with nivolumab (47%) or capecitabine (53%) alone (log-rank p = 0.08), meeting the pre-specified primary endpoint. In addition, the presence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was associated with disease recurrence, with no new safety signals in the combination arm. Our results provide efficacy and safety data on this combination in TNBC and support further development of PIS and ctDNA analyses to identify patients at high risk of recurrence.

Keywords: TNBC; breast cancer; capecitabine; ctDNA; nivolumab.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: FL reports consulting/advisory role for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck and Daiichi Sankyo; and institutional research funding from Eisai, AstraZeneca, CytomX and Gilead Sciences. MGM reports consulting/advisory roles for GE and Seagen. GJ reports being a shareholder and employee of NeoGenomics. CG reports serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo and Lilly Oncology. R.Na reports serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, BeyondSpring, Fujifilm, GE, Gilead, Infinity, iTeos, Merck, OBI, Oncosec, Sanofi and Seagen; and reports research funding from Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Corcept Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Gilead/Immunomedics, Merck, OBI Pharma, OncoSec, Pfizer, Relay, Seattle Genetics, Sun Pharma and Taiho. ES-R reports serving as a consultant for Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, Immunomedics, AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Merck; and institutional research funding from Susan G. Komen, V Foundation, Breast Cancer Research Foundation of Alabama and the National Institutes of Health. ND, JC and R.Nu report current employment with AstraZeneca. PT reports advisory/consultancy roles for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo and Lilly. SMT reports a consulting or advisory role for Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc., BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Infinity Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Artios Pharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, Incyte Corp, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. SMT receives research funding from Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Gilead, NanoString Technologies, Seattle Genetics, and OncoPep. SMS reports serving on advisory boards with honorarium at AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Aventis, Silverback Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Biotheranostics, Natera, Lilly, Molecular Templates and Exact Sciences; institutional research funding from Kailos Genetics and Genentech/Roche; third party in-kind writing from Genentech/Roche and AstraZeneca; and stock and stock options from Seagen. PP reports consulting for BOLT Therapeutics, AbbVie and Perthera; and serving as an unpaid steering committee member of a clinical trial for Seagen. HAP reports institutional research funding from Puma Biotechnology and serving on the advisory board of Illumina. CI reports consulting for Genentech, PUMA, Seattle Genetics, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, ESAI, Sanofi, ION and Gilead; royalties from Wolters Kluwer (UptoDate) and McGraw Hill (Goodman and Gillman); institutional research support from Tesaro/GSK, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech and Novartis; and serving as a medical director for the Side-Out Foundation. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.. Changes in peripheral immunoscore #1, and other immune cell subsets after 6 weeks of therapy.
(A) Heatmap representing the frequency at landmark and 6 weeks of refined classic peripheral blood mononuclear (PBMC) subsets of cell types reflecting known function (Supplementary Table 3) that were used to generate an immunoscore (peripheral immunoscore #1) in patients enrolled in arms A (n=15), B (n=14), C (n=13), and arms A and C combined (n=28). Each row corresponds to one patient. Peripheral immunoscore #1 is the sum of points assigned to each subset based on tertile distribution as previously described . (B) The peripheral immunoscore #1 calculated in A before and after 6 weeks of therapy in each treatment arm and arms A and C combined. (C) Comparison of the percent change after 6 weeks vs baseline in the peripheral immunoscore in each arm and arms A and C combined. p values are shown; p values were calculated by a two tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test in B and a two tailed Mann-Whitney test in C, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. Additional immune changes in the peripheral immune profile after 6 weeks of treatment in patients treated with (D) capecitabine (n=14), (E) nivolumab (n=15), and (F) nivolumab plus capecitabine (n=13). For D-F, changes in 10 classic PBMC cell types and 148 refined subsets reflective of maturation and function were analyzed with no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Notable subsets with significant changes at post timepoints vs. landmark are displayed in D-F and include those with p < 0.05 (calculated by a two tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test), difference in medians > 0.05, and ≥ 50% of patients having a > 25% change. cDC, conventional dendritic cell; DN, double negative; EM, effector memory, NK, natural killer cells; Treg, regulatory T cell; MDSC, myeloid-derived suppressor cells; PBMC, peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Source data are provided as a source data file.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.. Median invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and overall survival (OS).
iDFS (A) and OS (B) stratified by treatment arm. iDFS (C) and OS (D) stratified by the presence or absence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) at landmark in patients enrolled in Arms A, B, and C combined. Blue line: Arm A (nivolumab); Red line: arm B (capecitabine); Green line: Arm C (combination of nivolumab and capecitabine). Source data are provided as a source data file.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.. The peripheral immune profile at landmark associates with the development of recurrence after therapy.
The peripheral immune profile at landmark was compared between patients who developed a recurrence (R) and those that did not (no R). Frequency of immune subsets at landmark that associate with recurrence in patients treated with (A) nivolumab, capecitabine, or nivolumab + capecitabine (n=27 with no R, n=15 with R), (B) nivolumab (n=7 with no R, n=8 with R), (C) capecitabine (n=9 with no R, n=5 with R), and (D) nivolumab plus capecitabine (n=11 with no R, n=2 with R). Differences in 10 classic peripheral blood mononuclear (PBMC) cell types and 148 refined subsets reflective of maturation and function were analyzed. Notable subsets with significant differences are displayed and include those with p < 0.05 (calculated by a two tailed Mann-Whitney test), and difference in medians > 0.05 of PBMCs. No adjustments were performed for multiple comparisons. NK/NKT, natural killer T cells; PD-1, programmed cell death protein 1; Treg, regulatory T cell; HLA-DR, Human Leukocyte Antigen – DR isotype; ICOS, inducible T cell co-stimulator; PBMC, peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Source data are provided as a source data file.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.. Peripheral immunoscore #2 at landmark associates with disease recurrence in patients receiving nivolumab or nivolumab +/− chemotherapy.
(A) Heatmap representing the frequency at landmark of refined peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) subsets of cell types reflecting known function (Supplementary Table 9) that were used to generate an immunoscore (peripheral immunoscore #2) in patients enrolled in arms A (n=15), B (n=14), C (n=13), and arms A and C combined (n=28). Each row corresponds to one patient. The peripheral immunoscore #2 is the sum of points assigned to each subset based on tertile distribution as previously described . (B) Association between the peripheral immunoscore #2 calculated in A with disease recurrence following therapy in each arm and arms A and C combined. Peripheral immunoscore #2 was compared in patients with no disease recurrence (no R) vs patients with disease recurrence (R) in Arm A (n=7 no R, n=8 R), Arm B (n=9 no R, n=5 R), Arm C (n=11 no R, n=2 R), and Arms A + C combined (n=18 no R, n=10 R). Medians with p values are shown; p values were calculated by a two tailed Mann-Whitney test. (C) Association between the peripheral immunoscore #2 calculated in A and iDFS in arms A (n=15), B (n=14), C (n=13), and arms A and C combined (n=28), were analyzed using a Log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test. Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval, calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel method, are indicated. Solid line: patients with peripheral immunoscore #2 (PIS #2) > the median; dashed line: patients with PIS #2 ≤ the median. PD-1, programmed cell death protein 1; EM, effector memory; NK, natural killer cells; NKp 30, natural killer cells activating receptor 30; ICOS, inducible T cell co-stimulator; Treg, regulatory T cell; MDSC, myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Source data are provided as a source data file.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.. Association of the peripheral immune profile at landmark in patients from Arms A, B and C combined with the presence of ctDNA at landmark and recurrence.
The peripheral immune profile was compared at landmark in all arms combined between patients with presence and absence of landmark ctDNA. Frequency of PBMC subsets at landmark that differed between (A) patients with (n=11) and without (n=24) ctDNA at landmark, (B) patients without ctDNA at landmark who recurred (R, n=4) vs. did not recur (no R, n=20) after therapy, and (C) patients with ctDNA at landmark who recurred (R, n=9) and did not recur (no R, n=2) following therapy. Differences were analyzed in 10 classic PBMC cell types and 148 refined PBMC subsets reflective of maturation and function. Notable subsets with significant differences are displayed and include those with p < 0.05 (calculated by a two tailed Mann-Whitney test), and a difference in medians > 0.05 of PBMCs. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA; PBMC, peripheral blood mononuclear cells; PD-L 1, programmed death-ligand 1; Treg, regulatory T cell; HLA-DR, Human Leukocyte Antigen – DR isotype; ICOS, inducible T cell co-stimulator; NK, natural killer cells; NKp46, natural cytotoxicity triggering receptor 1. Source data are provided as a source data file.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Siegel R. L., Miller K. D., Fuchs H. E. & Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 72, 7–33, doi:10.3322/caac.21708 (2022). - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bianchini G., De Angelis C., Licata L. & Gianni L. Treatment landscape of triple-negative breast cancer - expanded options, evolving needs. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 19, 91–113, doi:10.1038/s41571-021-00565-2 (2022). - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dent R. et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 13, 4429–4434, doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-3045 (2007). - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lin N. U. et al. Clinicopathologic features, patterns of recurrence, and survival among women with triple-negative breast cancer in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cancer 118, 5463–5472, doi:10.1002/cncr.27581 (2012). - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Waks A. G. & Winer E. P. Breast Cancer Treatment: A Review. JAMA 321, 288–300, doi:10.1001/jama.2018.19323 (2019). - DOI - PubMed

Publication types