Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected
ATC codes:
L01FD03
Indication
Carcinoma of breast, specialised type
ICD11 code:
2D10
INN
Trastuzumab emtansine
Medicine type
Biological agent
List type
Complementary
Formulations
Parenteral > General injections > IV:
100 mg in vial powder for injection ;
160 mg in vial powder for injection
Sex
All
Age
Adolescents and adults
Therapeutic alternatives
The recommendation is for this specific medicine
Patent information
Main patent is active in several jurisdictions. For more information on specific patents and
license status for developing countries visit www.MedsPal.org
Read more
about patents.
Wikipedia
DrugBank
Expert Committee recommendation
The Committee endorsed the recommendations of the EML Cancer Medicine
Working Group with regard to the proposed threshold of four to six months of
overall survival benefit as a guiding principle for prioritizing cancer medicines
for inclusion on the EML, and applied this principle to the consideration of
trastuzumab emtansine. The Committee acknowledged that for second-line
treatment of metastatic breast cancer, trastuzumab emtansine was associated
with a relevant survival benefit, within the range of the established threshold.
However, the Committee noted that survival benefits did not meet the four to six
month threshold when trastuzumab emtansine was used as first-line treatment
in the metastatic setting, or in early stage breast cancer.
Existing EML-listed options are available for metastatic disease and
may be suitable alternatives (e.g., trastuzumab, taxanes, etc.). However, the
Committee noted the current challenges in achieving full access to trastuzumab
in many settings. Taking this into account, trastuzumab emtansine for secondline treatment of metastatic disease (i.e. late in the care pathway) was considered
to be a lower priority for EML inclusion at this time.
Compared to the 2017 application, the Committee noted that few new
clinical data were included in the current application and that the request was
not based on a comprehensive review encompassing additional breast cancer
medicines, compared with the standard of care, which would allow countries to
understand the additional value of adding each option to national EMLs.
The Expert Committee therefore did not recommend the addition of
trastuzumab emtansine to the complementary list of the EML for the treatment
of unresectable, locally advanced and metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.
Background
The application requested the addition of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) to
the complementary list of the EML for the treatment of unresectable, locally
advanced and metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-
positive breast cancer.
Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), as a single agent, is indicated for the treatment
of adult patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-
positive, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who
had previously received trastuzumab and a taxane, separately or in combination.
Both trastuzumab and taxanes are already included in the WHO Model List.
T-DM1 was considered for inclusion on the EML by the Expert Committee
in 2017 and was not recommended. At that time the Committee acknowledged
the significant public health burden of breast cancer and noted the availability
of other medicines for this condition (e.g. pertuzumab, lapatinib), which have
never been proposed for evaluation for inclusion on the EML. The Committee
considered that it would have been preferable to consider T-DM1 as part of a
comprehensive review encompassing additional medicines, compared with the
standard of care, better understanding the additional value and implications of
adding them to national EMLs.
Trastuzumab is currently included on the EML for treatment of metastatic
HER2-positive breast cancer. EML-listed cytotoxic medicines for metastatic
breast cancer include capecitabine, cyclophosphamide, docetaxel, doxorubicin,
paclitaxel and vinorelbine. EML-listed hormonal therapies for MBC include
anastrozole and tamoxifen.
Public health relevance
Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among women globally,
responsible for 15% of all cancer deaths. In 2018, the global cancer burden
increased to 18.1 million cases, causing 9.6 million deaths (1). Changes in
lifestyle, life expectancy and reproductive factors are responsible in many lowand middle-income countries (LMICs) for a sharp increase in the incidence
of breast cancer, and the number of deaths as a percentage of incident cases is
greater than that seen in high-income countries. For example, in 2008, this figure
was 24% in high-income countries, 38% in high-middle-income countries, 40%
in low-middle-income and 48% in low-income (2).
The HER2 receptor has emerged as one of the most important targets
for the treatment of breast cancer. HER2 is involved in regulating cell growth,
survival, and differentiation (3). Amplification and/or overexpression of
HER2 occurs in approximately 18%–22% of breast cancers (4, 5). HER2
amplification/overexpression (HER2-positivity) is associated with increased
tumour aggressiveness, higher rates of recurrence, and increased mortality (5–
10). The median age of patients presenting with HER2-positive breast cancer is
in the mid-50s, approximately five years younger than the general breast cancer
population (11).
At the early stage, breast cancer is usually operable and can be treated
with curative intent. However, approximately 20%–35% of patients experience
relapse (12) and those with metastatic or unresectable disease are generally
incurable. Such tumours often continue to express high levels of HER2 (13).
Patients with metastatic disease have a 5-year life expectancy of approximately
18% in Europe (14).
Benefits
Locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer
The efficacy of single-agent T-DM1 at a dose of 3.6 mg/kg every three weeks
has been investigated in Phase II and III trials in HER2-positive advanced
breast cancer.
The pivotal Phase III EMILIA trial was a randomized, multicentre,
international, two-arm, open-label clinical trial that evaluated the efficacy and
safety of treatment with T-DM1 was compared with the efficacy and safety of
treatment with lapatinib plus capecitabine in 991 patients with HER2-positive,
unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had been
previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane (15, 16). The primary efficacy
endpoints were overall survival (OS) and independent review committeeassessed progression-free survival (PFS). The study demonstrated a statistically
significant improvement in both PFS (9.6 months vs 6.4 months, HR 0.65, 95%CI
0.59 to 0.77) and OS (30.9 months vs 25.1 months, HR 0.68, 95%CI 0.55 to 0.85)
for T-DM1 compared with lapatinib plus capecitabine. The final OS analysis was
scheduled to be conducted after the occurrence of 632 deaths. At the data cut-off
date for this analysis (December 2014), median OS was prolonged in patients
treated with T-DM1 (29.9 months) when compared with patients treated with
capecitabine plus lapatinib (25.9 months; HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.64 to 0.88) (16).
The comparator regimen of lapatinib plus capecitabine used in the
EMILIA trial has not been considered for inclusion on the Model List.
The Phase III TH3RESA trial was a randomized, open-label, multicentre
trial that compared T-DM1 with treatment of physician’s choice in 602 patients
with progressive HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, previously treated
with at least two HER2-directed regimens (17, 18). The study demonstrated a
statistically significant improvement in both PFS (6.2 months vs 3.3 months,
HR 0.53, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.66) and OS (median not reached at that time vs 14.9,
HR 0.55, 95%CI 0.37 to 0.83) for T-DM1 compared with treatment of physician’s
choice (17). At the data cut-off date for final OS analysis (February 2015), median
OS was prolonged in patients treated with T-DM1 compared with treatment
of physician’s choice (22.7 months vs 15.8 months; HR 0.68, 95%CI 0.54 to
0.85) (18).
Early breast cancer
The Phase III KRISTINE study evaluated neoadjuvant T-DM1 plus pertuzumab
compared with docetaxel, carboplatin and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab in
444 patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (19). The study found that
total pathological complete response rates (a surrogate outcome for survival)
were higher in patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab or
docetaxel, carboplatin, than trastuzumab plus pertuzumab. However, OS was not
significantly different between treatment groups (HR 1.21, 95%CI 0.37 to 3.96).
Event-free survival significantly favoured trastuzumab-containing regimens,
without T-DM1 (HR 2.61, 95%CI 1.36 to 4.98) (20).
In the KATHERINE study, adjuvant T-DM1 significantly improved
Invasive disease–free survival rates compared to trastuzumab group in 1486
patients with residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus
trastuzumab-based anti-HER2 treatment (HR for invasive disease or death 0.50,
95%CI 0.39 to 0.64) (21). OS did not significantly differ (HR 0.70, 95%CI 0.47
to 1.05). These results are based on an early interim analysis based on few events.
Harms
The safety profile of T-DM1 in MBC is based on pooled data from 1871
patients receiving single-agent T-DM1 treatment at 3.6 mg/kg every three
weeks (Studies TDM3569g, TDM4258g, TDM4374g, TDM4688g, TDM4450g/
BO21976, TDM4370g/BO21977, TDM4788g/BO22589, TDM4997g/BO25734
and TDM4529g/BO25430). The most common adverse events (AEs) for singleagent T-DM1 (AEs in ≥25% of patients) were nausea, fatigue and headache (22).
The Phase III EMILIA study compared T-DM1 with lapatinib plus
capecitabine treatment, in patients with HER2-positive locally-advanced or
metastatic breast cancer (15). In accordance with the differing mechanisms
of action, the safety profile of T-DM1 was different from that of lapatinib plus
capecitabine, as shown by differences in incidence of common AEs. In the
T-DM1 arm, the most common events (occurring in at least 25% of patients)
were nausea, fatigue, thrombocytopenia, headache, constipation, diarrhoea
and increased aspartate aminotransferase, whereas the most common events
associated with lapatinib plus capecitabine treatment were diarrhoea, palmarplantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, nausea, vomiting, fatigue and rash (Roche,
data on file). Fewer patients were reported with AEs of Grade 3 or higher, and
serious adverse events (SAEs) in the T-DM1 arm than in the lapatinib plus
capecitabine arm.
In the Phase III TH3RESA study, fewer patients receiving T-DM1
than those receiving treatment of physician’s choice had AEs of Grade 3 or
higher. Grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia was reported more frequently in
patients receiving T-DM1 (≥2% more patients than in the TPC arm), whereas
patients receiving TPC reported more Grade ≥3 neutropenia, leukopenia, febrile
neutropenia and diarrhoea (17).
Cardiac safety of T-DM1 in patients with early breast cancer was evaluated
in the Phase II study TDM4874g/BO22857 (23). There were no events of
symptomatic heart failure. One patient discontinued T-DM1 treatment as a result
of an asymptomatic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) decline. The most
common AEs while receiving T-DM1 (in at least 20% of patients) were nausea,
headache, epistaxis, asthenia, pyrexia, fatigue, arthralgia, thrombocytopenia
and myalgia. The most common Grade 3 or higher AEs (>2%) reported while
receiving T-DM1 were thrombocytopenia, alanine transaminase (ALT) increase,
aspartate aminotransferase (AST) increase, neutropenia, and hypertension; all of
which occurred in less than 10% of patients.
In the neoadjuvant KRISTINE (BO28408) study, safety was better
in the T-DM1 + pertuzumab arm compared with trastuzumab, pertuzumab
plus chemotherapy, with a lower incidence of, Grade 3 or higher: 13.0% in
the T-DM1 + pertuzumab arm vs 64.4% in the trastuzumab, pertuzumab plus
chemotherapy arm; serious AEs: 4.9% in T-DM1 + pertuzumab arm vs 28.8%
in trastuzumab, pertuzumab plus chemotherapy arm; and AEs leading to
treatment discontinuation: 3.1% in the T-DM1 + pertuzumab arm vs 8.7% in the
trastuzumab, pertuzumab plus chemotherapy arm. The most common Grade 3–4
adverse events in the docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab
group were neutropenia (55 [25%] of 219 vs one [<1%] of 223 with T-DM1 plus
pertuzumab), diarrhoea (33 [15%] vs 2 [<1%]), and febrile neutropenia (33 [15%]
vs 0). No deaths were reported during neoadjuvant treatment (19).
The overall safety profile of the T-DM1 arm in the adjuvant KATHERINE
(BO27938) study was consistent with the known safety profile of T-DM1 (21).
Any-grade AEs were more common in the T-DM1 arm (98.8% vs 93.3%).
Adverse events leading to randomized treatment discontinuation occurred in 133
(18.0%) T-DM1–treated patients and 15 (2.1%) trastuzumab-treated patients.
The most common adverse events leading to discontinuation in the T-DM1
arm were laboratory abnormalities (platelet count decreased (4.2%), blood
bilirubin increased (2.6%), aspartate aminotransferase increased (1.6%), alanine
aminotransferase increased (1.5%)), peripheral sensory neuropathy (1.5%), and
ejection fraction decreased (1.2%). The most common Grade 3 or higher adverse
events were decreased platelet count (5.7%) and hypertension (2.0%) in the
T-DM1 group. Serious adverse events occurred in 94 patients (12.7%) receiving
T-DM1. One fatal adverse event of intracranial haemorrhage after subject fall
occurred in the T-DM1 arm. Adjudicated cardiac events occurred in four patients
(0.6%) in the trastuzumab arm and in one patient in the T-DM1 arm (0.1%).
Additional evidence
The following is a summary of additional evidence presented as part of the 2017
Expert Committee consideration of T-DM1 in 2017 (24).
A 2016 meta-analysis of nine studies evaluated the safety and efficacy of
T-DM1 in advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. The overall hazard ratios for
PFS and OS were calculated by meta-analysing, respectively, three (EMILIA (15),
TH3RESA (17), BO21976 (25)) and two (EMILIA, TH3RESA,) controlled trials.
Median PFS significantly favoured T-DM1; difference ranged from 2.9 months
to 5 months (total HR 0.60; 95%CI 0.53 to 0.69). Cumulative OS was associated
with an improved survival for T-DM1 compared with treatment physician’s
choice (odds ratio (OR) 0.60; 95%CI 0.48 to 0.75). Heterogeneity was low in
both analyses.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published
its technology appraisal for T-DM1, assessing efficacy and cost–effectiveness
(26–28). As part of the process, NICE reviewed evidence submitted by Roche,
clinical experts and other stakeholders; clinical evidence came primarily
from EMILIA and TH3RESA clinical trials. Because head-to-head treatment
comparisons were available only for lapatinib in combination with capecitabine
(LC), the company conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis using a fixedeffect model involving five clinical trials (EMILIA, CEREBEL, EGF100151,
NCT00777101 and GBG26). NICE’s Evidence Review Group (ERG), reviewing
Roche’s submission, repeated the network meta-analysis using a random-effects
model. From the ERG’s model, compared with LC, T-DM1 was associated with
a 32% decrease in hazard of death (HR 0.68, 95% credible Interval (CrI) 0.37 to
1.25) and a 35% reduction in the hazard of tumour progression or death (HR
0.65, 95%CrI 0.35 to 1.20). However, the authors report that CrI values “do not
rule out the possibility that T-DM1 is less efficacious than comparators” (28).
After analysing the technology appraisal, NICE concluded that T-DM1
was clinically effective for treatment for HER2-positive, unresectable, locally
advanced or metastatic breast cancer after treatment with trastuzumab and a
taxane, but ultimately did not find it to be cost effective at the price that Roche
was offering at the time (27).
Comparison with trastuzumab
Trastuzumab is associated with relevant benefits in HER2-positive breast
cancer patients. In a systematic review of eight studies, total 11 991 patients,
the combined HRs for OS and disease-free survival (DFS) significantly favoured
trastuzumab-containing regimens (HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.57 to 0.77; p<0.00001;
and HR 0.60, 95%CI 0.50 to 0.71; p<0.00001, respectively) (29). Currently, a
combination of trastuzumab with a taxane is considered to be the standard of
care (i.e. first-line) in metastatic breast cancer. Medicines in this regimen are
included on the WHO EML.
The Phase III MARIANNE randomized controlled trial studied
untreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients receiving T-DM1
plus pertuzumab, T-DM1 plus placebo, or a combination of trastuzumab with
a taxane (paclitaxel or docetaxel) (30, 31). At the cut-off date of May 2016,
therapies containing T-DM1 were non-inferior to trastuzumab and taxane
treatments for PFS. However, OS curves essentially overlapped (trastuzumab
+ taxane vs trastuzumab emtansine + placebo, HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.73 to 1.20;
trastuzumab + taxane vs trastuzumab emtansine + pertuzumab HR 0.86, 95%CI
0.67 to 1.11) with survival medians approaching one another (trastuzumab +
taxane 50.86 months, trastuzumab emtansine + placebo 53.68, trastuzumab
emtansine + pertuzumab 51.78) (32). T-DM1 was better tolerated, contributing
to better quality of life secondary endpoints and less treatment discontinuation
related to adverse events (31).
Cost / cost effectiveness
A Canadian study demonstrated that the use of T-DM1 for the management
of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer results in substantial savings to the
public health care system when the costs of treatment related AEs are taken into
account, due to less toxicity compared with lapatinib plus capecitabine (33). The
findings were confirmed in sensitivity analyses in which the number and costs
of AEs were changed, however, the magnitude of cost savings varied. Whether
the same findings would be realized in other countries and health care systems
is not known.
T-DM1 has been accepted as a cost-effective treatment option in eligible
patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the United Kingdom
(34), Canada (35), Australia (36), Scotland (37), Ireland (38), France (39), and
Sweden (40).
WHO guidelines
None available.
Availability
T-DM1 was first granted marketing approval in United States on February
2013, followed by the European Union (EU) and Japan in the same year. As
of 15 November 2018, T-DM1 has been approved in more than 100 countries
worldwide.
Other considerations
Based on results of the EMILIA study (15, 41), T-DM1 received a score of 4 on
the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for use in the metastatic breast cancer setting as secondline therapy after trastuzumab failure (42).
The U.S. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) v3,
25 October 2018 clinical guidelines and compendium recommend use of T-DM1
as a first-line treatment option for patients with HER2-positive MBC in patients
not eligible for pertuzumab-trastuzumab plus a taxane. Based on the trial data
from Study BO22589/TDM4788g that demonstrated T-DM1 is noninferior
with better quality of life compared with trastuzumab plus taxane, and possibly
better tolerated for some patients, the NCCN panel included T-DM1 as one of
the first-line options for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive MBC.
Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and a taxane, however, remain the preferred firstline regimen for HER2-positive metastatic disease based on data demonstrating
improved overall survival compared with trastuzumab and a taxane. T-DM1
as first-line therapy should be considered only in patients not suitable for the
preferred treatment (43).
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) clinical practice
guideline recommends the use of T-DM1 for the treatment of HER2-positive
advanced breast cancer that has progressed during or after first-line HER2-
targeted therapy (Evidence quality: High; Strength of recommendation: Strong)
(44). The same guideline also recommends the use of T-DM1 in patients whose
HER2-positive breast cancer has progressed during or after second-line or
greater HER2-targeted therapy if they have not previously been treated with
T-DM1 (44).
Updated European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines
recommend T-DM1 in patients who have progressed through at least one line of
trastuzumab-based therapy based on its OS benefit (Category IA) (45).
Comments on the application were received from the WHO Department of
Management of NCDs, Disability, Violence and Injury Prevention. The technical
unit advised that it did not support inclusion of trastuzumab emtansine on
the EML at this time, though noting recent studies demonstrating its utility as
second-line therapy in metastatic and non-metastatic settings. At the current
time, given the narrow gain in overall survival and small benefit on disease control, the technical unit considered that trastuzumab did not currently meet criteria as a priority medicine for breast cancer.
1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018:
GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA
Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.
2. Shulman LN, Willett W, Sievers A, Knaul FM. Breast cancer in developing countries: opportunities
for improved survival. J Oncol. 2010;2010:595167.
3. Sundaresan S, Penuel E, Sliwkowski MX. The biology of human epidermal growth factor receptor
2. Curr Oncol Rep. 1999;1(1):16–22.
4. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ et al. American Society of
Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human
epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(1):118–45.
5. Ross JS, Slodkowska EA, Symmans WF, Pusztai L, Ravdin PM, Hortobagyi GN. The HER-2 receptor
and breast cancer: ten years of targeted anti-HER-2 therapy and personalized medicine.
Oncologist. 2009;14(4):320–68.
6. Borg A, Tandon AK, Sigurdsson H, Clark GM, Ferno M, Fuqua SA et al. HER-2/neu amplification
predicts poor survival in node-positive breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1990;50(14):4332–7.
7. Ross JS, Fletcher JA. The HER-2/neu oncogene in breast cancer: prognostic factor, predictive
factor, and target for therapy. Stem Cells. 1998;16(6):413–28.
8. Menard S, Fortis S, Castiglioni F, Agresti R, Balsari A. HER2 as a prognostic factor in breast cancer.
Oncology. 2001;61 Suppl 2:67–72.
9. Brown M, Tsodikov A, Bauer KR, Parise CA, Caggiano V. The role of human epidermal growth
factor receptor 2 in the survival of women with estrogen and progesterone receptor-negative,
invasive breast cancer: the California Cancer Registry, 1999-2004. Cancer. 2008;112(4):737–47.
10. Curigliano G, Viale G, Bagnardi V, Fumagalli L, Locatelli M, Rotmensz N et al. Clinical relevance of
HER2 overexpression/amplification in patients with small tumor size and node-negative breast
cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(34):5693–9.
11. Neven P, Van Calster B, Van den Bempt I, Van Huffel S, Van Belle V, Hendrickx W et al. Age interacts
with the expression of steroid and HER-2 receptors in operable invasive breast cancer. Breast
Cancer Res Treat. 2008;110(1):153–9.
12. Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, Taylor C, Arriagada R, Clarke M et al. Effect of radiotherapy after
breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: metaanalysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;
378(9804):1707–16.
13. Spector NL, Xia W, Burris H, 3rd, Hurwitz H, Dees EC, Dowlati A et al. Study of the biologic effects
of lapatinib, a reversible inhibitor of ErbB1 and ErbB2 tyrosine kinases, on tumor growth and
survival pathways in patients with advanced malignancies. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(11):2502–12.
14. Sant M, Allemani C, Capocaccia R, Hakulinen T, Aareleid T, Coebergh JW et al. Stage at diagnosis
is a key explanation of differences in breast cancer survival across Europe. Int J Cancer.
2003;106(3):416–22.
15. Verma S, Miles D, Gianni L, Krop IE, Welslau M, Baselga J et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-
positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(19):1783–91.
16. Dieras V, Miles D, Verma S, Pegram M, Welslau M, Baselga J et al. Trastuzumab emtansine versus
capecitabine plus lapatinib in patients with previously treated HER2-positive advanced breast
cancer (EMILIA): a descriptive analysis of final overall survival results from a randomised, openlabel, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(6):732–42.
17. Krop IE, Kim SB, Gonzalez-Martin A, LoRusso PM, Ferrero JM, Smitt M et al. Trastuzumab emtansine
versus treatment of physician’s choice for pretreated HER2-positive advanced breast cancer
(TH3RESA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(7):689–99.
18. Krop IE, Kim SB, Martin AG, LoRusso PM, Ferrero JM, Badovinac-Crnjevic T et al. Trastuzumab
emtansine versus treatment of physician’s choice in patients with previously treated HER2-
positive metastatic breast cancer (TH3RESA): final overall survival results from a randomised
open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(6):743–54.
19. Hurvitz SA, Martin M, Symmans WF, Jung KH, Huang CS, Thompson AM et al. Neoadjuvant
trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and chemotherapy versus trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab
in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer (KRISTINE): a randomised, open-label, multicentre,
phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):115–26.
20. A Study Evaluating Trastuzumab Emtansine Plus Pertuzumab Compared With Chemotherapy Plus
Trastuzumab and Pertuzumab for Participants With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2
(HER2)-Positive Breast Cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02131064) [website]. Bethesda:
U.S. National Library of Medicine; 2019. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT02131064,
accessed 29 September 2019).
21. von Minckwitz G, Huang CS, Mano MS, Loibl S, Mamounas EP, Untch M et al. Trastuzumab
Emtansine for Residual Invasive HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(7):617–28.
22. Kadcyla: Summary of Product Characteristics. Amsterdam: Eurpean Medicines Agency. Available
from https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/kadcyla-epar-productinformation_en.pdf.
23. Krop IE, Suter TM, Dang CT, Dirix L, Romieu G, Zamagni C et al. Feasibility and cardiac safety of
trastuzumab emtansine after anthracycline-based chemotherapy as (neo)adjuvant therapy
for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol.
2015;33(10):1136–42.
24. The selection and use of essential medicines. Report of the WHO Expert Committee, 2017
(including the 20th WHO Model List of Essential Medicines and the 6th WHO Model List of
Essential Medicines for Children) (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1006). Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2017. Available from https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/259481/
9789241210157-eng.pdf, accessed 30 October 2019.
25. Hurvitz SA, Dirix L, Kocsis J, Bianchi GV, Lu J, Vinholes J et al. Phase II randomized study of
trastuzumab emtansine versus trastuzumab plus docetaxel in patients with human epidermal
growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(9):1157–63.
26. Elsada A, Doss S, Robertson J, Adam EJ. NICE guidance on trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-
positive advanced breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(2):143–4.
27. Trastuzumab emtansine for treating HER-2 positive, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic
breast cancer after treatment with trastuzumab and a taxane. Technology appraisal guidance
(TA371) 2015. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: 2015. Available from
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta371/resources/trastuzumab-emtansine-for-treatingher2positive-unresectable-locally-advanced-or-metastatic-breast-cancer-after-treatment-withtrastuzumab-and-a-taxane-82602784201669, accessed 29 September 2019.
28. Squires H, Stevenson M, Simpson E, Harvey R, Stevens J. Trastuzumab Emtansine for Treating
HER2-Positive, Unresectable, Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer After Treatment with
Trastuzumab and a Taxane: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology
Appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(7):673–80.
29. Moja L, Tagliabue L, Balduzzi S, Parmelli E, Pistotti V, Guarneri V et al. Trastuzumab containing
regimens for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;4:CD006243.
30. Ellis PA, Barrios CH, Eiermann W, Toi M, Im YH, Conte PF et al. Phase III, randomized study of
trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) ± pertuzumab (P) vs trastuzumab + taxane (HT) for first-line
treatment of HER2-positive MBC: Primary results from the MARIANNE study. 2015 ASCO Annual
Meeting - Abstract 507 J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts). 2015;33(Suppl).
31. Perez EA, Barrios C, Eiermann W, Toi M, Im YH, Conte P et al. Trastuzumab Emtansine With or
Without Pertuzumab Versus Trastuzumab Plus Taxane for Human Epidermal Growth Factor
Receptor 2-Positive, Advanced Breast Cancer: Primary Results From the Phase III MARIANNE
Study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(2):141–8.
32. A Study of Trastuzumab Emtansine (T-DM1) Plus Pertuzumab/Pertuzumab Placebo Versus
Trastuzumab [Herceptin] Plus a Taxane in Participants With Metastatic Breast Cancer (MARIANNE)
(ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01120184). Bethesda: U.S. National Library of Medicine: 2017.
Available from https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT01120184?term=01120184&rank=
1&view=results.
33. Piwko C, Prady C, Yunger S, Pollex E, Moser A. Safety Profile and Costs of Related Adverse Events
of Trastuzumab Emtansine for the Treatment of HER2-Positive Locally Advanced or Metastatic
Breast Cancer Compared to Capecitabine Plus Lapatinib from the Perspective of the Canadian
Health-Care System. Clin Drug Investig. 2015;35(8):487-93.
34. Trastuzumab emtansine for treating HER-2 positive, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic
breast cancer after treatment with trastuzumab and a taxane. Technology appraisal guidance
(TA458) 2017. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Available from https://
www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA458, access 29 September 2019.
35. Trastuzumab emtansine for Metastatic Breast Cancer - Details. CADTH pan-Canadian Oncology
Drug Review [website]. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2014.
(https://www.cadth.ca/trastuzumab-emtansine-metastatic-breast-cancer-details, accessed 29
September 2019).
36. Public Summary Document – November 2014 PBAC Meeting [website]. Canberra: Australian
Government Department of Health; 2014. (http://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/
pbac-meetings/psd/2014-11/files/pertuzumab-trastuzumab-psd-11-2014.pdf, accessed 29
September 2019).
37. Trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla) is accepted for use within NHS Scotland [website]. Glasgow:
Scottish Medicines Consortium; 2017. (https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/medicines-advice/
trastuzumab-emtansine-kadcyla-resubmission-99014/, accessed 29 September 2019).
38. Trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla) Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations [website]. Dublin: National
Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) Ireland; 2015. (http://www.ncpe.ie/drugs/trastuzumabemtansine-kadcyla/, accessed 29 September 2019).
39. Kadcyla (trastuzumab emtansine), anticorps ciblant le récepteur HER 2 couplé à un cytotoxique.
Cancérologie – Nouveau Médicament et Avis d’efficience [website]. Saint-Denis La Plaine:
Haute Autorité de santé (HAS); 2014. (https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/c_1735595/fr/kadcylatrastuzumab-emtansine-anticorps-ciblant-le-recepteur-her-2-couple-a-un-cytotoxique?xtmc=
&xtcr=1, accessed 29 September 2019).
40. Kadcyla (trastuzumab-emtansin) [website]. Stockholm: Hälsoekonomiskt kunskapsunderlag.
Tandvårds och läkemedelsförmånsverket (TLV); 2014. (https://www.tlv.se/download/18.4679
26b615d084471ac339c1/1510316400449/halsoekonomiskt-kunskapsunderlag-kadcyla.pdf,
accessed 29 September 2019).
41. Welslau M, Dieras V, Sohn JH, Hurvitz SA, Lalla D, Fang L et al. Patient-reported outcomes from
EMILIA, a randomized phase 3 study of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) versus capecitabine and
lapatinib in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive locally advanced or metastatic
breast cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(5):642–51.
42. ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. The ESMO-MCBS Score Card [website]. Lugano:
European Society for Medical Oncology. (https://www.esmo.org/score/cards, accessed 29
September 2019).
43. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.
Breast Cancer Version 2; 2019. Available from https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/
pdf/breast.pdf, accessed 29 September 2019.
44. Giordano SH, Temin S, Kirshner JJ, Chandarlapaty S, Crews JR, Davidson NE et al. Systemic
therapy for patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast
cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2014;
32(19):2078–99.
45. Cardoso F, Costa A, Senkus E, Aapro M, Andre F, Barrios CH et al. 3rd ESO-ESMO International
Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 3). Ann Oncol. 2017;28(1):16–33.