scholarly journals Comparative Overall Survival of CDK4/6 Inhibitors Plus Endocrine Therapy vs. Endocrine Therapy Alone for Hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (24) ◽  
pp. 7127-7136
Author(s):  
Mingxi Lin ◽  
Yang Chen ◽  
Yizi Jin ◽  
Xichun Hu ◽  
Jian Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Endocrine Therapy ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive

Improved survival supports primary endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor positive/ HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13034-e13034
Author(s):  
Robert Shenk ◽  
Lifen Cao ◽  
Jonathan T. Bliggenstorfer ◽  
James Michael Martin ◽  
Megan E. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Endocrine Therapy ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
Primary Endocrine Therapy

e13034 Background: Current ASCO guidelines recommend endocrine therapy as preferred primary treatment for hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We assessed survival outcomes of HR+/HER2- MBC patients undergoing endocrine therapy with and without chemotherapy. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried 2004-2016 for patients with de novo HR+/HER2- MBC. Exclusion criteria were treatment with surgery or radiation at the primary site and missing oncologic and follow up data. Overall survival was compared between systemic treatment groups using multivariable cox proportional hazards regression modes. Results: 19,317 patients met inclusion criteria, among whom 2,360 (12%) received no systemic therapy, 2,617 (14%) received chemotherapy only, 10,078 (52%) received endocrine therapy only and 4,262 (22%) received both chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Patients treated with chemotherapy only more frequently had lung (38%, p<0.001) or liver (36%, p<0.001) metastasis while those undergoing endocrine therapy only presented primarily with bone metastasis (82%, p<0.001). Patients with multiple metastatic sites more often received endocrine therapy alone than combined therapy (44 vs. 25%, p<0.001). Median overall survival was similar after combination therapy and endocrine therapy, and poorest after chemotherapy alone (33.1 vs 31.4 vs 19.8 months, p<0.001). After controlling for patient, facility, and tumor characteristics, endocrine therapy alone provided superior survival benefit to chemotherapy only, though combination systemic therapy resulted in the greatest overall survival (p<0.001). Conclusions: Primary endocrine therapy provided significant survival benefit over chemotherapy alone for HR+/HER2- MBC. Though combination systemic therapy may be warranted in progressive disease, our results align with recommendations for endocrine therapy as first line treatment for HR+/HER2- MBC. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Patterns of treatment and outcome of palbociclib plus endocrine therapy in hormone receptor-positive/HER2 receptor-negative metastatic breast cancer: a real-world multicentre Italian study

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592098765
Author(s):  
Raffaella Palumbo ◽  
Rosalba Torrisi ◽  
Federico Sottotetti ◽  
Daniele Presti ◽  
Anna Rita Gambaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Endocrine Therapy ◽  
Real World ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Her2 Receptor ◽  
Treatment Line ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive

Background: The CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) has proven to prolong progression-free survival (PFS) in women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Few data are available regarding the efficacy of such a regimen outside the clinical trials. Patients and methods: This is a multicentre prospective real-world experience aimed at verifying the outcome of palbociclib plus ET in an unselected population of MBC patients. The primary aim was the clinical benefit rate (CBR); secondary aims were the median PFS, overall survival (OS) and safety. Patients received palbociclib plus letrozole 2.5 mg (cohort A) or fulvestrant 500 mg (cohort B). Results: In total, 191 patients (92 in cohort A, 99 in cohort B) were enrolled and treated, and 182 were evaluable for the analysis. Median age was 62 years (range 47–79); 54% had visceral involvement; 28% of patients had previously performed one treatment line (including chemotherapy and ET), 22.6% two lines and 15.9% three. An overall response rate of 34.6% was observed with 11 (6.0%) complete responses and 52 (28.6%) partial responses. Stable disease was achieved by 78 patients (42.9%) with an overall CBR of 59.8%. At a median follow-up of 24 months (range 6–32), median PFS was 13 months without significant differences between the cohorts. When analysed according to treatment line, PFS values were significantly prolonged when palbociclib-based therapy was administered as first-line treatment (14.0 months), to decrease progressively in second and subsequent lines (11.7 and 6.7 months, respectively). Median OS was 25 months, ranging from 28.0 months in 1st line to 18.0 and 13.0 months in 2nd and subsequent lines, respectively. Conclusions: Our data indicate that palbociclib plus ET is active and safe in HR+/HER2− MBC, also suggesting a better performance of the combinations in earlier treatment lines.

Endocrine therapy-based strategies with different endocrine sensitivity statuses for hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer: A network meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1062-1062
Author(s):  
Jiani Wang ◽  
Yiqun Han ◽  
Jiayu Wang ◽  
Binghe Xu
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Endocrine Therapy ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Therapy Resistance ◽  
Optimal Treatment ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
Direct Head

1062 Background: Novel endocrine therapies (ETs) and targeted therapeutic regimens have been developed to dramatically improve the outcome of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Since the absence of direct head-to-head comparisons for all regimens, decision-making guidelines are urgently needed for different endocrine sensitivity statuses. This study is to evaluate the efficacy of ET-based regimens in patients with HR+/HER2- MBC and to assess the heterogeneity among different compounds with a particular focus on their ability to improve survival outcomes. Methods: This network meta-analysis of phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one ET in HR+/HER2- MBC were enrolled. Based on the endocrine responses, participants were stratified into endocrine therapy sensitivity (ETS) and endocrine therapy resistance (ETR) groups. Primary endpoints, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), were assessed by bayesian algorithms and primarily measured as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: A total of 42 trials (22917 patients) were included. Regarding PFS, cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) +fulvestrant 500mg (F500) was recommended for the ETS group (SUCRA = 76.92%), while chemotherapy was considered as the most effective option for the ETR group (SUCRA = 73.47%). For visceral metastases, CDK4/6i +aromatase inhibitors (AIs) could provide the extreme efficacy for the ETS group (SUCRA = 63.27%) while the CDK4/6i +F500 (SUCRA = 76.17%) as the prior regimen for the ETR group. For bone-only disease, CDK4/6i+F500 was preferred for both the ETS (SUCRA = 67.04%) and the ETR (SUCRA = 70.24%) group. Concerning OS, CDK4/6i+tamoxifen was estimated as the first-rank regimen for the ETS subgroup (SUCRA = 67.04%) and chemotherapy for the ETR subgroup (SUCRA = 60.02%). Regarding resistance category, abemaciclib +F500 was likely the best option with PFS, for both primary (SUCRA = 69.19%) and secondary ETR (SUCRA = 69.09%) settings, as well as primary ETR associated with OS improvement (SUCRA = 67.67%). Pictilisib +F500 could be the optimal treatment with OS for secondary ETR (SUCRA = 60.50%)group. Conclusions: The results showed that CDK4/6i + F500 was probably the most promising option in ETS, visceral ETR and bone-only disease settings in terms of PFS. OS subgroup analysis showed that different endocrine sensitivity statuses required various optimal treatment strategies.

The introduction of a third CDK4/6 inhibitor does not change the cost-effectiveness profile in first and subsequent-lines after progression or relapse during previous endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal receptor-2 negative (HER-2) advanced or metastatic breast cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1486-1491
Author(s):  
Jacopo Giuliani ◽  
Andrea Bonetti
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Dose Reduction ◽  
Endocrine Therapy ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Full Dose ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
Human Epidermal Receptor

The aim of this study was to assess the pharmacological costs of CDK4/6-inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib) in hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (BC). We have considered pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic BC in first-line in association with letrozole or anastrozole (scenario 1) and in subsequent-lines after progression or relapse during previous endocrine therapy (scenario 2).The costs of drugs are at the Pharmacy of our Hospital and are expressed in euros (€). Six phase III RCTs, including 3843 patients, were considered. In the scenario 1, abemaciclib resulted the less expensive at the full dose, with 2246 € per month of progression free survival (PFS)-gained. Overall ribociclib resulted the less expensive considering the reduction in dosage (36.1% in MONALEESA-2 trial versus (vs). 36.0% of palbociclib in PALOMA-2 trial vs. 43.4% of abemaciclib in MONARCH-3 trial). The price was the same for palbociclib and abemaciclib both at full and with dose reduction. In the scenario 2, the situation was similar to the scenario 1, but with lowest costs for ribociclib per month PFS-gained both at full dose (2070 €) and at dose reduction (1391 € and 690 € at 400 mg and 200 mg, respectively). Combining pharmacological costs of drugs with the measure of efficacy represented by the PFS, ribociclib was the less expensive in both scenarios.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document