Skip to content

Study of Sacituzumab Govitecan-hziy Versus Treatment of Physician's Choice in Participants With HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer

Phase 3 Study of Sacituzumab Govitecan (IMMU-132) Versus Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC) in Subjects With Hormonal Receptor-Positive (HR+) Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC) Who Have Failed at Least Two Prior Chemotherapy Regimens

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03901339
Acronym
TROPiCS-02
Enrollment
543
Registered
2019-04-03
Start date
2019-05-08
Completion date
2023-10-20
Last updated
2024-10-21

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Metastatic Breast Cancer

Brief summary

The primary objective of this study is to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of sacituzumab govitecan-hzi versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in participants with hormonal receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2-) negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

Interventions

DRUGSacituzumab Govitecan-hziy

Administered intravenously

DRUGEribulin

Administered intravenously per NCCN guidelines

DRUGCapecitabine

Administered orally per NCCN guidelines

DRUGGemcitabine

Administered intravenously per NCCN guidelines

DRUGVinorelbine

Administered intravenously per NCCN guidelines

Sponsors

Gilead Sciences
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Key Inclusion Criteria: * Documented evidence of hormone receptor-positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-negative) (hormonal receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) confirmed. * Refractory to or relapsed after at least 2, and no more than 4, prior systemic chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease: * At least 1 taxane in any setting. * At least 1 prior anticancer hormonal treatment in any setting. * At least 1 cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 4/6 in any setting. * Eligible for one of the chemotherapy options listed in the TPC arm. * Documented disease progression after the most recent therapy. * Adequate bone marrow function (hemoglobin ≥ 9 g/dL, absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≥ 1,500 per mm\^3, platelets ≥ 100,000 per mm\^3). * Adequate renal function: calculated creatinine clearance ≥ 30 mL/minute according to the Cockcroft and Gault formula . * Adequate liver function (bilirubin ≤ 1.5 institutional upper limit of normal (IULN), or ≤ 3 IULN for individuals with documented Gilbert's syndrome, aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ≤ 2.5 x IULN (in the case of liver metastases ≤ 5.0 x IULN)). * Females must not be lactating or pregnant at Screening or Baseline (as documented by a negative beta human chorionic gonadotropin (ß-hCG)). Key

Exclusion criteria

* Previous treatment with topoisomerase 1 Inhibitors as a free form or as other formulations. * History of significant cardiovascular disease or clinically significant electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormality. * Active serious infection requiring antibiotics. * Any medical or other condition which, in the opinion of the Investigator, causes the individual to be medically unfit to receive sacituzumab govitecan or unsuitable for any reason. * Locally advanced MBC (stage IIIc) in individuals who are candidates for curative intent therapy at the time of study enrollment. Note: Other protocol defined Inclusion/

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Progression-Free Survival (PFS) by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) AssessmentUp to 42.8 monthsPFS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of disease progression or death (whichever occurred first) according to BICR using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). Disease progression was defined as an increase of greater than 20% in the sum of the longest diameter (LD) of target lesions and a 5 mm absolute increase, taking as a reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the baseline assessment or the appearance of new non-target lesions. PFS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimate.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Objective Response Rate (ORR) by BICR and Local Investigator Review (LIR) AssessmentUp to 42.8 monthsORR was defined as the percentage of participants who had the best overall response of either complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) that was confirmed at 4 weeks or later after initial response by BICR and LIR using RECIST 1.1. CR: Disappearance of all target and non-target lesions; and normalization of tumor marker levels initially above upper limits of normal; PR: ≥30% decrease in the sum of the LD of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum LD.
Duration of Response (DOR) by BICR and LIR AssessmentUp to 42.8 monthsDOR was defined as the time from the date a response of CR or PR was first documented until the date of the first documentation of disease progression or date of death (whichever occurred first). DOR was analyzed based on both BICR and LIR assessments. CR: Disappearance of all target and non-target lesions; and normalization of tumor marker levels initially above upper limits of normal; PR: ≥30% decrease in the sum of the LD of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum LD. Disease progression was defined as an increase of greater than 20% in the sum of the LD of target lesions and a 5 mm absolute increase, taking as a reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the baseline assessment or the appearance of new non-target lesions. DOR was estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimate.
Clinical Benefit Rate (CBR) by BICR and LIR AssessmentUp to 42.8 monthsCBR was defined as the percentage of participants with the best overall response of CR, PR, or durable stable disease (duration of SD ≥ 6 months after randomization). CBR was analyzed based on both BICR and LIR assessments. CR: Disappearance of all target and non-target lesions; and normalization of tumor marker levels initially above upper limits of normal; PR: ≥30% decrease in the sum of the LD of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum LD. SD: Neither sufficient shrinkage to qualify for PR nor sufficient increase to qualify for progressive disease (PD), taking as reference the smallest sum LD since the treatment started. PD: Disease progression was defined as an increase of greater than 20% in the sum of the LD of target lesions and a 5 mm absolute increase, taking as a reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the baseline assessment or the appearance of new non-target lesions.
PFS by LIR AssessmentUp to 42.8 monthsPFS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of disease progression or death (whichever occurred first) according to LIR using RECIST 1.1. Disease progression was defined as an increase of greater than 20% in the sum of the LD of target lesions and a 5 mm absolute increase, taking as a reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the baseline assessment or the appearance of new non-target lesions. PFS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimate.
Time to Deterioration (TTD) of Global Health Status/Quality of Life (QoL) Scale as Measured by European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life for Cancer Patients, Core Questionnaire Version 3.0 (EORTC QLQ-C30)Up to 37.8 monthsTTD was defined as the time from randomization to the first date a subject achieves 10-point deterioration from baseline in the global health status/QoL scale.The EORTC QLQ-C30 is a 30-item questionnaire to assess QoL of cancer patients. It has 5 functional scales(physical,role,emotional,cognitive, social)1 global health status scale,3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain),and 6 single items(dyspnea, insomnia, loss of appetite, constipation, diarrhea, financial difficulties). Participant responses to global health status,'How would you rate your overall health during the past week?' (Item 29)and the QoL 'How would you rate your overall quality of life during the past week?'(Item 30)questions were scored on 7-point scale (1=very poor; 7=excellent). All scales and single-item measures range in score from 0 to 100. Summed raw scores were standardized by linear transformation so that scores ranged from 0 to 100. Higher scores for GHS show a better level of functioning.
Overall Survival (OS)Up to 42.8 monthsOS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of death from any cause. OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimate. Participants without documentation of death were censored on the date they were last known to be alive.
TTD of Fatigue Score as Measured by EORTC QLQ-C30Up to 37.8 monthsTTD was defined as the time from randomization to the first date a subject achieves 10-point deterioration from baseline in the fatigue score.The EORTC QLQ-C30 is a questionnaire to assess quality of life, it is composed of 30 questions(items) resulting in 5 functional scales(physical, role, emotional, cognitive, social),1 global health status scale,3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain),and 6 single items(dyspnea, insomnia, loss of appetite, constipation, diarrhea, financial difficulties).All of the scales and single-item measures range in score from 0 to 100.Participant responses to 3 questions about fatigue 'Did you need to rest', 'Have you felt weak' and 'Were you tired' were scored on a 4-point scale (1=not at all;4=very much).Summed raw scores were standardized by linear transformation so that scores ranged from 0 to 100. Higher scores on the symptom scales indicate a higher level of symptoms (i.e. a worse state of the participant).
Percentage of Participants Who Experienced Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs)Up to 43.4 monthsAn AE was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a subject administered a medicinal product that does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment. TEAEs were defined as any AEs that begin or worsen on or after the start of study drug through 30 days after the last dose of the study drug. The severity was graded based on the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0.
Percentage of Participants Who Experienced Treatment Emergent Serious Adverse Events (TESAEs)Up to 43.4 monthsTreatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were defined as any adverse events (AEs) that begin or worsen on or after the start of study drug through 30 days after the last dose of study drug. The severity was graded based on the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0. An AE that met one or more of the following outcomes was classified as serious: * Fatal * Life-threatening * Disabling/incapacitating * Results in hospitalization or prolongs a hospital stay * A congenital abnormality * Other important medical events may also be considered serious AEs if they may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above
Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineUp to 43.4 monthsBlood samples were collected for hematology, serum chemistry, and the laboratory abnormalities were assessed. A treatment-emergent laboratory abnormality was defined as an increase of at least 1 toxicity grade from baseline at any time postbaseline up to and including the date of last study drug dose plus 30 days.The most severe graded abnormality observed post-baseline for each graded test was counted for each participant. Safety as assessed by grading of laboratory values and AEs according to the National Cancer Institutes' Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE) covering grades 0-5 (0=Normal, 1=Mild, 2=Moderate, 3=Severe, 4=Life-threatening, 5=Death). The percentage of participants with worst postbaseline grades 3 or 4 are reported.
Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) - Shift From Baseline Value to Best Value During TreatmentUp to 43.4 monthsECOG performance status (PS) measured on-therapy assessed participant's performance status on 5 point scale: 0=Fully active/able to carry on all pre-disease performance without restriction;1=Restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature;2=Ambulatory and capable of all self-care but unable to carry out any work activities; up and about more than 50% of waking hours;3=Capable of only limited self-care;confined to bed or chair more than 50% of waking hours;4=Completely disabled; cannot carry on any self-care; totally confined to bed or chair;5=Dead. Lower score indicated good performance status. Percentage of participants with Baseline ECOG PS score and corresponding changes to the best values post-baseline have been reported.
TTD of Pain Score as Measured by EORTC QLQ-C30Up to 37.8 monthsTTD was defined as the time from randomization to the first date a subject achieves 10-point deterioration from baseline in the pain score.The EORTC QLQ-C30 is a questionnaire to assess quality of life, it is composed of 30 questions(items) resulting in 5 functional scales(physical, role, emotional, cognitive, social),1 global health status scale,3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain),and 6 single items(dyspnea, insomnia, loss of appetite, constipation, diarrhea, financial difficulties). All of the scales and single-item measures range in score from 0 to 100. Participant responses to 2 questions about pain, 'Have you had pain' and 'Did pain interfere with your daily activities' were scored on 4-point scale (1=not at all;4=very much). Summed raw scores were standardized by linear transformation so that scores ranges from 0 to 100. Higher scores on the symptom scales indicate a higher level of symptoms (i.e. a worse state of the participant).

Countries

Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Participants were enrolled at study sites in Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Pre-assignment details

776 participants were screened.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Sacituzumab Govitecan
Participants received sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg of body weight, administered as a slow IV infusion on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day treatment cycle until progression of disease, occurrence of unacceptable AEs, or another treatment discontinuation criterion was met (up to 40.1 months).
272
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)
Participants received TPC (ie, eribulin, capecitabine, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine), administered as a single-agent treatment that was determined by the investigator before participant randomization until progression of disease, occurrence of unacceptable AEs, or another treatment discontinuation criterion was met. Dosing per NCCN guidelines (with dose modifications for if toxic) * Eribulin was administered IV at a dose 1.4 mg/m\^2 at North American sites and 1.2 mg/m\^2 at European sites on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle (up to 22.5 months). * Capecitabine 1000 to 1250 mg/m\^2 was administered in a 21-day cycle, with capecitabine administered orally twice daily for 2 weeks followed by 1-week rest period (up to 12.9 months). * Gemcitabine 800 to 1200 mg/m\^2 was administered IV on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle (up to 22.3 months). * Vinorelbine 25 mg/m\^2 was administered as a weekly IV injection (up to 8.1 months). Vinorelbine was not allowed as TPC for any participant with Grade 2 neuropathy.
271
Total~(N=543)543
Total1,086

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyCovid1902
Overall StudyDeath220192
Overall StudyInformed consent withdrawn1340
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up47
Overall StudyReason not specified57
Overall StudySponsor request3023

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTotal~(N=543)Sacituzumab GovitecanTreatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
140 Participants73 Participants67 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
403 Participants199 Participants204 Participants
Age, Continuous56 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11
57 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.5
56 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.4
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
18 Participants6 Participants12 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
426 Participants222 Participants204 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
99 Participants44 Participants55 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
Asian
16 Participants11 Participants5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
Black or African American
21 Participants8 Participants13 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
Other or More Than One Race
4 Participants0 Participants4 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
Unknown or Not Reported
139 Participants69 Participants70 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
White
362 Participants184 Participants178 Participants
Region of Enrollment
Belgium
25 Participants16 Participants9 Participants
Region of Enrollment
Canada
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Region of Enrollment
France
137 Participants64 Participants73 Participants
Region of Enrollment
Germany
46 Participants20 Participants26 Participants
Region of Enrollment
Italy
15 Participants9 Participants6 Participants
Region of Enrollment
Netherlands
8 Participants6 Participants2 Participants
Region of Enrollment
Spain
69 Participants35 Participants34 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United Kingdom
14 Participants7 Participants7 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
228 Participants115 Participants113 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
538 Participants270 Participants268 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
5 Participants2 Participants3 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
234 / 272238 / 271
other
Total, other adverse events
264 / 268234 / 249
serious
Total, serious adverse events
74 / 26848 / 249

Outcome results

Primary

Progression-Free Survival (PFS) by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) Assessment

PFS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of disease progression or death (whichever occurred first) according to BICR using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). Disease progression was defined as an increase of greater than 20% in the sum of the longest diameter (LD) of target lesions and a 5 mm absolute increase, taking as a reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the baseline assessment or the appearance of new non-target lesions. PFS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimate.

Time frame: Up to 42.8 months

Population: The ITT Population included all participants who were randomized, regardless of whether they received study treatment or not.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Sacituzumab GovitecanProgression-Free Survival (PFS) by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) Assessment5.5 months
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Progression-Free Survival (PFS) by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) Assessment4.0 months
p-value: 0.000195% CI: [0.526, 0.812]Log Rank
Secondary

Clinical Benefit Rate (CBR) by BICR and LIR Assessment

CBR was defined as the percentage of participants with the best overall response of CR, PR, or durable stable disease (duration of SD ≥ 6 months after randomization). CBR was analyzed based on both BICR and LIR assessments. CR: Disappearance of all target and non-target lesions; and normalization of tumor marker levels initially above upper limits of normal; PR: ≥30% decrease in the sum of the LD of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum LD. SD: Neither sufficient shrinkage to qualify for PR nor sufficient increase to qualify for progressive disease (PD), taking as reference the smallest sum LD since the treatment started. PD: Disease progression was defined as an increase of greater than 20% in the sum of the LD of target lesions and a 5 mm absolute increase, taking as a reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the baseline assessment or the appearance of new non-target lesions.

Time frame: Up to 42.8 months

Population: Participants in the ITT Population with available data were analyzed.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Sacituzumab GovitecanClinical Benefit Rate (CBR) by BICR and LIR AssessmentCBR by BICR Assessment33.8 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanClinical Benefit Rate (CBR) by BICR and LIR AssessmentCBR by LIR Assessment32.4 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Clinical Benefit Rate (CBR) by BICR and LIR AssessmentCBR by BICR Assessment22.1 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Clinical Benefit Rate (CBR) by BICR and LIR AssessmentCBR by LIR Assessment21.0 percentage of participants
Comparison: CBR by BICR Assessmentp-value: 0.002595% CI: [1.227, 2.628]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: CBR by LIR Assessmentp-value: 0.002495% CI: [1.237, 2.717]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Duration of Response (DOR) by BICR and LIR Assessment

DOR was defined as the time from the date a response of CR or PR was first documented until the date of the first documentation of disease progression or date of death (whichever occurred first). DOR was analyzed based on both BICR and LIR assessments. CR: Disappearance of all target and non-target lesions; and normalization of tumor marker levels initially above upper limits of normal; PR: ≥30% decrease in the sum of the LD of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum LD. Disease progression was defined as an increase of greater than 20% in the sum of the LD of target lesions and a 5 mm absolute increase, taking as a reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the baseline assessment or the appearance of new non-target lesions. DOR was estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimate.

Time frame: Up to 42.8 months

Population: Participants in the ITT Population with confirmed objective response were analyzed.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Sacituzumab GovitecanDuration of Response (DOR) by BICR and LIR AssessmentDOR by BICR Assessment8.1 months
Sacituzumab GovitecanDuration of Response (DOR) by BICR and LIR AssessmentDOR by LIR Assessment7.0 months
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Duration of Response (DOR) by BICR and LIR AssessmentDOR by BICR Assessment5.6 months
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Duration of Response (DOR) by BICR and LIR AssessmentDOR by LIR Assessment4.3 months
Secondary

Objective Response Rate (ORR) by BICR and Local Investigator Review (LIR) Assessment

ORR was defined as the percentage of participants who had the best overall response of either complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) that was confirmed at 4 weeks or later after initial response by BICR and LIR using RECIST 1.1. CR: Disappearance of all target and non-target lesions; and normalization of tumor marker levels initially above upper limits of normal; PR: ≥30% decrease in the sum of the LD of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum LD.

Time frame: Up to 42.8 months

Population: Participants in the ITT Population with available data were analyzed.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Sacituzumab GovitecanObjective Response Rate (ORR) by BICR and Local Investigator Review (LIR) AssessmentORR by BICR Assessment21.3 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanObjective Response Rate (ORR) by BICR and Local Investigator Review (LIR) AssessmentORR by LIR Assessment16.5 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Objective Response Rate (ORR) by BICR and Local Investigator Review (LIR) AssessmentORR by BICR Assessment14.0 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Objective Response Rate (ORR) by BICR and Local Investigator Review (LIR) AssessmentORR by LIR Assessment9.2 percentage of participants
Comparison: ORR by BICR Assessmentp-value: 0.026895% CI: [1.058, 2.609]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: ORR by LIR Assessmentp-value: 0.009895% CI: [1.174, 3.369]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Overall Survival (OS)

OS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of death from any cause. OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimate. Participants without documentation of death were censored on the date they were last known to be alive.

Time frame: Up to 42.8 months

Population: Participants in the ITT Population were analyzed.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Sacituzumab GovitecanOverall Survival (OS)14.5 months
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Overall Survival (OS)11.2 months
p-value: 0.013395% CI: [0.652, 0.952]Log Rank
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-Baseline

Blood samples were collected for hematology, serum chemistry, and the laboratory abnormalities were assessed. A treatment-emergent laboratory abnormality was defined as an increase of at least 1 toxicity grade from baseline at any time postbaseline up to and including the date of last study drug dose plus 30 days.The most severe graded abnormality observed post-baseline for each graded test was counted for each participant. Safety as assessed by grading of laboratory values and AEs according to the National Cancer Institutes' Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE) covering grades 0-5 (0=Normal, 1=Mild, 2=Moderate, 3=Severe, 4=Life-threatening, 5=Death). The percentage of participants with worst postbaseline grades 3 or 4 are reported.

Time frame: Up to 43.4 months

Population: Participants in the Safety Population with post-baseline values were analyzed. 'Number Analyzed' indicates participants with post-baseline values with available data were analyzed.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHypoalbuminemia0 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineAlanine Aminotransferase Increased1.1 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineAlkaline Phosphatase Increased0 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineAspartate Aminotransferase Increased1.5 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineBilirubin Increased2.3 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineCreatinine Increased0.4 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineCreatinine Clearance Decreased2.3 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHypoglycemia1.1 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHypermagnesemia0.4 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHypomagnesemia0.8 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHyperkalemia1.9 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHypokalemia4.2 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHyponatremia0.8 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineAnemia7.5 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHemoglobin Increased1.1 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineLeukocytes Decreased38.9 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineLeukocytosis0.4 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineLymphocytes Decreased21.5 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineLymphocytes Increased1.9 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineNeutrophils Decreased53.2 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselinePlatelets Decreased1.9 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHyperkalemia0 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineLymphocytes Increased2.1 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineAlanine Aminotransferase Increased2.1 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHypoalbuminemia0.4 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHypokalemia0.4 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineAlkaline Phosphatase Increased0.8 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineLeukocytosis0.4 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineAspartate Aminotransferase Increased1.3 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHyponatremia0.4 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineBilirubin Increased0.8 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselinePlatelets Decreased3.7 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineCreatinine Increased1.7 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineAnemia5.0 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineCreatinine Clearance Decreased1.3 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineLymphocytes Decreased13.7 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHypoglycemia0.8 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHemoglobin Increased0 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHypermagnesemia0 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineNeutrophils Decreased40.2 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineHypomagnesemia0 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced the Worst Laboratory Abnormalities Grade 3 or 4 Post-BaselineLeukocytes Decreased25.7 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Who Experienced Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs)

An AE was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a subject administered a medicinal product that does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment. TEAEs were defined as any AEs that begin or worsen on or after the start of study drug through 30 days after the last dose of the study drug. The severity was graded based on the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0.

Time frame: Up to 43.4 months

Population: The Safety Population included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs)100.0 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs)96.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Who Experienced Treatment Emergent Serious Adverse Events (TESAEs)

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were defined as any adverse events (AEs) that begin or worsen on or after the start of study drug through 30 days after the last dose of study drug. The severity was graded based on the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0. An AE that met one or more of the following outcomes was classified as serious: * Fatal * Life-threatening * Disabling/incapacitating * Results in hospitalization or prolongs a hospital stay * A congenital abnormality * Other important medical events may also be considered serious AEs if they may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above

Time frame: Up to 43.4 months

Population: Participants in the Safety Population were analyzed.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants Who Experienced Treatment Emergent Serious Adverse Events (TESAEs)27.6 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants Who Experienced Treatment Emergent Serious Adverse Events (TESAEs)19.3 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) - Shift From Baseline Value to Best Value During Treatment

ECOG performance status (PS) measured on-therapy assessed participant's performance status on 5 point scale: 0=Fully active/able to carry on all pre-disease performance without restriction;1=Restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature;2=Ambulatory and capable of all self-care but unable to carry out any work activities; up and about more than 50% of waking hours;3=Capable of only limited self-care;confined to bed or chair more than 50% of waking hours;4=Completely disabled; cannot carry on any self-care; totally confined to bed or chair;5=Dead. Lower score indicated good performance status. Percentage of participants with Baseline ECOG PS score and corresponding changes to the best values post-baseline have been reported.

Time frame: Up to 43.4 months

Population: Participants in the Safety Population were analyzed.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) - Shift From Baseline Value to Best Value During TreatmentBaseline ECOG 0, During Treatment ECOG 17.8 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) - Shift From Baseline Value to Best Value During TreatmentBaseline ECOG 0, During Treatment ECOG 034.9 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) - Shift From Baseline Value to Best Value During TreatmentBaseline ECOG 0, During Treatment ECOG 20 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) - Shift From Baseline Value to Best Value During TreatmentBaseline ECOG 1, During Treatment ECOG 019.4 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) - Shift From Baseline Value to Best Value During TreatmentBaseline ECOG 1, During Treatment ECOG 136.4 percentage of participants
Sacituzumab GovitecanPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) - Shift From Baseline Value to Best Value During TreatmentBaseline ECOG 1, During Treatment ECOG 21.6 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) - Shift From Baseline Value to Best Value During TreatmentBaseline ECOG 1, During Treatment ECOG 138.3 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) - Shift From Baseline Value to Best Value During TreatmentBaseline ECOG 1, During Treatment ECOG 011.5 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) - Shift From Baseline Value to Best Value During TreatmentBaseline ECOG 0, During Treatment ECOG 038.7 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) - Shift From Baseline Value to Best Value During TreatmentBaseline ECOG 0, During Treatment ECOG 18.9 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) - Shift From Baseline Value to Best Value During TreatmentBaseline ECOG 1, During Treatment ECOG 22.1 percentage of participants
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) - Shift From Baseline Value to Best Value During TreatmentBaseline ECOG 0, During Treatment ECOG 20.4 percentage of participants
Secondary

PFS by LIR Assessment

PFS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of disease progression or death (whichever occurred first) according to LIR using RECIST 1.1. Disease progression was defined as an increase of greater than 20% in the sum of the LD of target lesions and a 5 mm absolute increase, taking as a reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the baseline assessment or the appearance of new non-target lesions. PFS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimate.

Time frame: Up to 42.8 months

Population: Participants in the ITT Population were analyzed.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Sacituzumab GovitecanPFS by LIR Assessment4.3 months
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)PFS by LIR Assessment3.1 months
p-value: 0.00195% CI: [0.602, 0.881]Log Rank
Secondary

Time to Deterioration (TTD) of Global Health Status/Quality of Life (QoL) Scale as Measured by European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life for Cancer Patients, Core Questionnaire Version 3.0 (EORTC QLQ-C30)

TTD was defined as the time from randomization to the first date a subject achieves 10-point deterioration from baseline in the global health status/QoL scale.The EORTC QLQ-C30 is a 30-item questionnaire to assess QoL of cancer patients. It has 5 functional scales(physical,role,emotional,cognitive, social)1 global health status scale,3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain),and 6 single items(dyspnea, insomnia, loss of appetite, constipation, diarrhea, financial difficulties). Participant responses to global health status,'How would you rate your overall health during the past week?' (Item 29)and the QoL 'How would you rate your overall quality of life during the past week?'(Item 30)questions were scored on 7-point scale (1=very poor; 7=excellent). All scales and single-item measures range in score from 0 to 100. Summed raw scores were standardized by linear transformation so that scores ranged from 0 to 100. Higher scores for GHS show a better level of functioning.

Time frame: Up to 37.8 months

Population: The HRQOL-Evaluable Population included all participants who had an evaluable assessment at baseline and at least 1 evaluable assessment at postbaseline visits. Participants with a baseline global health status/QOL score ≥ 10 were analyzed.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Sacituzumab GovitecanTime to Deterioration (TTD) of Global Health Status/Quality of Life (QoL) Scale as Measured by European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life for Cancer Patients, Core Questionnaire Version 3.0 (EORTC QLQ-C30)4.3 months
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)Time to Deterioration (TTD) of Global Health Status/Quality of Life (QoL) Scale as Measured by European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life for Cancer Patients, Core Questionnaire Version 3.0 (EORTC QLQ-C30)3.0 months
p-value: 0.005995% CI: [0.612, 0.922]Log Rank
Secondary

TTD of Fatigue Score as Measured by EORTC QLQ-C30

TTD was defined as the time from randomization to the first date a subject achieves 10-point deterioration from baseline in the fatigue score.The EORTC QLQ-C30 is a questionnaire to assess quality of life, it is composed of 30 questions(items) resulting in 5 functional scales(physical, role, emotional, cognitive, social),1 global health status scale,3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain),and 6 single items(dyspnea, insomnia, loss of appetite, constipation, diarrhea, financial difficulties).All of the scales and single-item measures range in score from 0 to 100.Participant responses to 3 questions about fatigue 'Did you need to rest', 'Have you felt weak' and 'Were you tired' were scored on a 4-point scale (1=not at all;4=very much).Summed raw scores were standardized by linear transformation so that scores ranged from 0 to 100. Higher scores on the symptom scales indicate a higher level of symptoms (i.e. a worse state of the participant).

Time frame: Up to 37.8 months

Population: Participants in the HRQOL-Evaluable Population with baseline fatigue score ≤ 90 were analyzed.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Sacituzumab GovitecanTTD of Fatigue Score as Measured by EORTC QLQ-C302.2 months
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)TTD of Fatigue Score as Measured by EORTC QLQ-C301.4 months
p-value: 0.002195% CI: [0.598, 0.894]Log Rank
Secondary

TTD of Pain Score as Measured by EORTC QLQ-C30

TTD was defined as the time from randomization to the first date a subject achieves 10-point deterioration from baseline in the pain score.The EORTC QLQ-C30 is a questionnaire to assess quality of life, it is composed of 30 questions(items) resulting in 5 functional scales(physical, role, emotional, cognitive, social),1 global health status scale,3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain),and 6 single items(dyspnea, insomnia, loss of appetite, constipation, diarrhea, financial difficulties). All of the scales and single-item measures range in score from 0 to 100. Participant responses to 2 questions about pain, 'Have you had pain' and 'Did pain interfere with your daily activities' were scored on 4-point scale (1=not at all;4=very much). Summed raw scores were standardized by linear transformation so that scores ranges from 0 to 100. Higher scores on the symptom scales indicate a higher level of symptoms (i.e. a worse state of the participant).

Time frame: Up to 37.8 months

Population: Participants in the HRQOL-Evaluable Population with baseline pain score ≤ 90 were analyzed.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Sacituzumab GovitecanTTD of Pain Score as Measured by EORTC QLQ-C303.8 months
Treatment of Physician's Choice (TPC)TTD of Pain Score as Measured by EORTC QLQ-C303.5 months
p-value: 0.415195% CI: [0.748, 1.126]Log Rank

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 28, 2026