IMaging PAtients for Cancer Drug selecTion - Metastatic Breast Cancer (IMPACT-MBC)
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01957332|
Recruitment Status : Active, not recruiting
First Posted : October 8, 2013
Last Update Posted : February 2, 2021
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Metastatic Breast Cancer||Procedure: Molecular imaging||Not Applicable|
Patient selection for hormone therapy and anti-HER2 therapy is based on the presence of their respective targets, the ER and HER2, as currently assessed on tumor tissue by molecular biological techniques. In primary breast cancer, both ER and HER2 are powerful predictors for response to ER or HER2 targeting treatment, driving treatment decisions. If both receptors are absent, targeted hormone or anti-HER2 therapy will not be administered and chemotherapy is the only therapeutic option left. MBC management in oncology practice is often based on ER and HER2 status of the primary tumor. However, a biopsy of a metastasis is considered part of the standard work up for MBC, in view of the potential conversion of ER and HER2 during the course of the disease. In contrast to primary breast cancer, no prospective studies have been done to evaluate the impact of (converted) receptor status on metastases, on prognosis and prediction of response to subsequent targeted therapy. Although receptor conversion in MBC is a well known phenomenon, clinicians may refrain from having a biopsy taken, for instance when it would require a highly invasive procedure. Even if it is feasible, the biopsy will only reflect ER and HER2 status of a single lesion, and disregard the potential heterogeneity of expression of ER and HER2 status between and within metastatic lesions.
Therefore, the current standard work up of MBC is not adequate enough or too invasive in a relevant proportion of MBC patients to drive treatment decisions. As a result, these patients incorrectly receive an ineffective treatment with potentially toxic effects. Meanwhile, an effective treatment for these patients may be delayed or even denied (such as chemotherapy or anti-HER2 based therapy) because of inadequate assessment of ER and HER2 status. This shows the need of obtaining up-to-date whole body information with information of characteristics of the different metastases within a patient. Non-invasive 18F-fluoroestradiol(18F-FES)-PET and Zirconium-89(89Zr)-trastuzumab-PET scan techniques are able to visualize the ER and HER2 in metastatic lesions throughout the whole body, and may therefore - in a patient friendly way- provide comprehensive information (i.e. of the primary tumor and various metastatic lesions) on ER and HER2 status. Furthermore, optimal selection of the right treatment for the right patient may not only reduce unnecessary toxicity, but also health care costs. Although various studies have already indicated the clinical utility of 18F-FES-PET and 89Zr-trastuzumab-PET, no prospective data are yet available assessing their predictive value (14-19). Therefore, it is clear that these new techniques, and also the aspects of cost-effectiveness, need to be prospectively evaluated within the framework of established assessments (including metastases biopsies and FDG-PET), to ensure their implementation in standard care.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||217 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Single Group Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||Towards Patient Tailored Cancer Treatment Supported by Molecular Imaging IMPACT: IMaging PAtients for Cancer Drug selecTion - Metastatic Breast Cancer|
|Study Start Date :||August 2013|
|Estimated Primary Completion Date :||October 2021|
|Estimated Study Completion Date :||October 2021|
Experimental: Molecular imaging
All patients receive 18F-FES (~200MBq) injection followed by a FES-PET. On the same day or the day after 18F-FES injection 89Zr-trastuzumab (~37 MBq) will be injected. The HER2-PET will be performed 4 days after tracerinjection.
Procedure: Molecular imaging
On the day of FES-injection&scan or the day after FES-injection, 89Zr-trastuzumab (~37 MBq) will be injected. The HER2-PET will be performed 4 days after tracerinjection.
Procedure: Molecular imaging
All patients receive 18F-FES (~200MBq) injection followed by a FES-PET.
- Clinical utility [ Time Frame: 3-5 years (End of study) ]The primary objective is to evaluate the clinical utility of experimental PET scans, in the setting of MBC at first presentation. These scans include Fluor-18-16 alpha-fluoroestradiol(18F-FES)-PET and Zirconium-89(89Zr)-trastuzumab-PET scans at baseline, and 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose fluorodeoxyglucose(18F-FDG)-PET for early response measurement. Clinical utility in this setting might be defined as improved personalized medicine, when the PET scans show improved predictive value for therapy response in comparison or in addition to currently available clinical information including a biopsy. But also when the PET scans would have the same predictive value for therapy response compared to a biopsy, they would have clinical utility because they are less invasive and more patient friendly. The inherent focus (the primary endpoint) of this study is therefore therapy response. Therapy response will be related to the novel PET scans, both per patient and per metastasis analysis.
- Correlation PET scans & progression-free survival (PFS) [ Time Frame: 3-5 years (End of study) ]To relate experimental PET scans (baseline 18F-FES-PET and 89Zr-trastuzumab-PET; 2 week 18F-FDG-PET scan) to (progression free) survival.
- Correlation of DNA and RNA analyses to imaging, molecular analyses and follow-up data [ Time Frame: 3-5 years (End of study) ]To relate DNA sequencing and RNA expression analysis of the baseline biopsy and venous blood samples (only DNA sequencing; baseline) to all other molecular, imaging (standard and experimental), and clinical follow-up data (treatment response and survival).
- Correlation miRNA analysis to molecular analyses, imaging & clincal follow-up data [ Time Frame: 3-5 years (End of study) ]To relate miRNA analysis of the baseline biopsy and a venous blood sample at baseline to all other molecular, imaging and clinical follow-up data.
- Correlation of peptide profiling to all other molecular, imaging and clinical follow-up data [ Time Frame: 3-5 years (EoS) ]To relate peptide profiling of new baseline biopsy and venous blood samples (baseline and day of standard response assessment) to all other molecular, imaging and clinical follow-up data.
- Correlation of standard pathology results to all molecular, imaging and clinical follow up data. [ Time Frame: 3-5 years (EoS) ]To assess molecular changes (including pathological examination) of primary biopsy, new baseline biopsy and (optional) biopsy taken during treatment and relate to all molecular, imaging and clinical follow up data.
- To compare CTC enrichment approaches and correlation of CTC analysis to all molecular, imaging and clinical follow-up data [ Time Frame: 3-5 years (EoS) ]To relate CTC count and ER/HER2 status of CTCs at baseline to all molecular, imaging and clinical follow-up data.
- Correlation circulating tumor DNA analysis to all other molecular, imaging and clinical follow-up data [ Time Frame: 3-5 years (EoS) ]To relate circulating tumor DNA analysis (baseline, day of early 18F-FDG-PET imaging and day of standard response assessment) to all other molecular, imaging and clinical follow-up data.
- Cost-effectiveness of molecular imaging [ Time Frame: 3-5 years (EoS) ]To assess cost-effectiveness of experimental PET scans.
- QoL [ Time Frame: 3-5 years (EoS) ]To assess impact of baseline biopsy procedure and baseline molecular imaging, as well as quality of Life (QoL) before and during therapy.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT01957332
|VU University Medical Center|
|University Medical Center|
|Groningen, Netherlands, 9700RB|
|University Medical Center St. Radboud|
|Principal Investigator:||Carolien Schröder, MD, PhD||UMCG|
|Principal Investigator:||Willemien Menke, MD, PhD||VUMC|
|Principal Investigator:||Winette vd Graaf, MD, PhD||RUMC|