Adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy for breast cancer patients: Standard of care or future direction?

2009 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orit C. Freedman ◽  
Eitan Amir ◽  
Mark J. Clemons
2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18687-e18687
Author(s):  
Maya Leiva ◽  
Angela Pennisi ◽  
Kathleen Kiernan Harnden ◽  
Patricia Conrad Rizzo ◽  
Lauren Ann Mauro

e18687 Background: The long-acting injectable G-CSF, pegfilgrastim and its biosimilars have historically been given to patients 24 hours following the administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy for either primary or secondary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN). Previous literature has indicated that pegfilgrastim administration prior to 24 hours post chemotherapy, may result in a deepened and prolonged neutropenia due to the increase in circulating granulocytes exposed to chemotherapy. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and to reduce potential SAR-CoV-2 exposure to cancer patients on therapy, we implemented same day administration of injectable pegfilgrastim-cbqv among select breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens from March 2020 – February 2021. Methods: Utilizing retrospective EHR chart reviews, 55 patients among 4 medical oncologists in our breast cancer group were identified as meeting the criteria of same day pegfilgrastim-cbqv administration. Inclusion was based on completion of at least 2 consecutive cycles of same day pegfilgrastim-cbqv 6 mg subcutaneous injection for primary or secondary prophylaxis. The selected patient charts were reviewed for the incidence and severity of FN. Among the patients who had documented FN, further subgroup analyses were done regarding baseline characteristics, timing of neutropenia, regimens, regimen sequence, and reported ADRs associated with pegfilgrastim-cbqv. Results: 9 (16.4%) of the 55 patients experienced FN (Grades 3-4) and 6 (10.9%) patients were hospitalized. There were no Grade 5 events and none had therapy discontinued due to FN. 8 (88.9%) of the patients experienced FN between cycles 1 and 2. Of note, there were no cases of COVID-19 among the 9 patients who had an episode of FN. 52 (94.5%) of the 55 patients received treatment with curative intent and 3 (5.5%) had metastatic disease on a subsequent line of therapy. The median age was 49.1 years (range 29-71) and patients were 56.4% Caucasian, 18.1% Black or African American, 12.7% Asian, and 12.7% Hispanic/Latina. Conclusions: Based on the retrospective data analysis, same day pegfilgrastim-cbqv appears to be a safe and effective option in the primary and secondary prophylaxis of FN with myelosuppressive standard of care chemotherapy used in breast cancer treatment. Though our review was limited by a relatively small sample size and confined to younger (49.1 median age) breast cancer patients, this opens the door to further re-evaluation of same day pegfilgrastim-cbqv administration in other patient populations. In a post pandemic treatment world, this slight change in practice has the potential to reduce patient financial toxicity associated with multiple medical visits, provide an alternative to on-body injector formulations, and ensure treatment adherence.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 58-70
Author(s):  
Neelam Thacker ◽  
Perianayagam Taneja

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women and is a leading cause of cancer death in women worldwide. Despite the significant benefit of the use of conventional chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies in the prognosis of breast cancer patients and although the recent approval of the anti-PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab in combination with chemotherapy has been a milestone for the treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, immunologic treatment of breast tumors remains a great challenge. In this review, we summarize current breast cancer classification and standard of care, the main obstacles that hinder the success of immunotherapies in breast cancer patients, as well as different approaches that could be useful to enhance the response of breast tumors to immunotherapies.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 31-31
Author(s):  
Gitte Pedersen

31 Background: In the context of diagnostics, RNA is proxy for proteins and proteins are typically targets for drugs; e.g. breast cancer is typically driven by over-expression of various hormone receptors and Her2. In the current standard-of-care setting there is no measurement of mutations. Furthermore, all the markers for response to the new immune therapies are expressed as mRNA. Approximately 15% of the breast cancer patients are triple negative. Due to the poor outcome of chemo, standard-of-care guidelines (NCCN) suggests doctors encourage the patient to enroll in clinical trials. However, with more than 2000 ongoing trials in breast, which trial could potentially benefit the patient? Methods: Using the RNA-seq data from the TCGA study, we analyzed more than 120 triple negative datasets. Results: We found at least one over-expressed checkpoint inhibitor target in almost all the patients, suggesting that if you analyzed for all of the checkpoint targets, it would be possible to find a clinical study for these patients. Furthermore, when we analyzed over-expressed tumor antigens, we realized that it would be possible to design sophisticated combination trials with this information. In addition, we identified patients that were BRCAwt with an impaired DNA repair pathway; e.g. some had BRCA silencing and could potentially benefit from PARP inhibitors. Finally, a small number of patients overexpressed the androgen receptor for which there is a drug approved for prostate cancer. Conclusions: Compared to DNA analysis, tumor RNA profiling has the potential to guide a much broader set of drugs and treatment approaches including immunotherapy and chemotherapy. Messenger RNA (mRNA) analysis can reveal tumor antigens and drug targets expressed by cancer cells, as well as the vital status of the tumor microenvironment including immune response, the integrity of DNA repair mechanisms, and the engagement of angiogenesis and other cancer-related pathways.


2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (20) ◽  
pp. 6690-6696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan Lipton ◽  
Guenther G. Steger ◽  
Jazmin Figueroa ◽  
Cristina Alvarado ◽  
Philippe Solal-Celigny ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e11565-e11565
Author(s):  
M. Almatari ◽  
M. Moe ◽  
P. Ali ◽  
P. Willshaw

e11565 Background: Adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AI) therapy in breast cancer accelerates bone loss resulting in increased incidence of fracture. We evaluated the effect of AI on bone density changes among breast cancer patients. Method: A total of 85 patients who had adjuvant AI for more than 24 months and 3 Dual energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) scans were included in this study. Annual bone density change was calculated and correlated with various risk and prognostic factors. Results: Adjuvant AI was given in up-front (50), sequential (15) and extended adjuvant (17) therapy settings, with a median duration of 31 months. Intervals between scans varied from 6 - 33 months (median = 13 months), 63 patients had baseline DXA scans undertaken within 6 months from start of AI. Bisphosphonate was prescribed to 35 patients during AI therapy according to local practice. Changes in bone density according to WHO classification is shown in the table. Annual bone density change in the spine at 2nd scan was (-9.2% to +11%, mean = -0.89±4.11), after 3rd scan, (-11.7% to +10.7%, mean = 0.021±3.84). In the group of patients who had adjuvant chemotherapy (59 patients), significant bone loss was seen in the patients who did not have bisphosphonate (n=39), (-0.011 in BMD, Mean=0.88±0.02) compared to those who had bisphosphonate (n=20), (0.036 in BMD, Mean=0.93±0.02). In the patients who did not have chemotherapy (n=26), no bone loss was seen whether bisphosphonate was used or not. No clinical bone fracture was reported among patients who had osteoporosis at baseline. Conclusions: The patients who had chemotherapy are more likely to lose bone density and close monitoring is required for bisphosphonate therapy. Bone loss is more significant in the lumbar spine compared to the hip. Following intervention with bisphosphonate, the rate of bone loss was reduced, and as a result only 2.3% of patients developed osteoporosis during AI treatment. AI can be safely given from the bone health point of view with the appropriate use of bisphosphonate. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document