scholarly journals Abemaciclib as initial therapy for advanced breast cancer: MONARCH 3 updated results in prognostic subgroups

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Johnston ◽  
Joyce O’Shaughnessy ◽  
Miguel Martin ◽  
Jens Huober ◽  
Masakazu Toi ◽  
...  

AbstractIn MONARCH 3, continuous dosing of abemaciclib with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) conferred significant clinical benefit to postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2− advanced breast cancer. We report data for clinically prognostic subgroups: liver metastases, progesterone receptor status, tumor grade, bone-only disease, ECOG performance status, and treatment-free interval (TFI) from an additional 12-month follow-up (after final progression-free survival [PFS] readout). In the intent-to-treat population, after median follow-up of approximately 39 months, the updated PFS was 28.2 versus 14.8 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.525; 95% confidence interval, 0.415–0.665) in abemaciclib versus placebo arms, respectively. Time to chemotherapy (HR, 0.513), time to second disease progression (HR, 0.637), and duration of response (HR, 0.466) were also statistically significantly prolonged with the addition of abemaciclib to AI. Treatment benefit was observed across all subgroups, as evidenced by objective response rate change from the addition of abemaciclib to AI, with the largest effects observed in patients with liver metastases, progesterone receptor-negative tumors, high-grade tumors, or TFI < 36 months. Extended follow-up in the MONARCH 3 trial further confirmed that the addition of abemaciclib to AI conferred significant treatment benefit to all subgroups, including those with poorer prognosis.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS660-TPS660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bent Ejlertsen ◽  
Guy Heinrich Maria Jerusalem ◽  
Sara A. Hurvitz ◽  
Richard H. De Boer ◽  
Tanya Taran ◽  
...  

TPS660 Background: Everolimus (EVE), an orally bioavailable inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), has shown clinical activity as monotherapy and in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) in hormone-receptor–positive (HR+; estrogen and/or progesterone receptors) advanced breast cancer (ABC). In a pivotal phase 3 trial in patients with HR+ ABC progressing on ET, EVE + exemestane (EXE) significantly prolonged median progression-free survival (PFS) vs EXE alone per local (7.8 vs 3.2 months; log-rank P<.0001) or central (11.0 months for EVE+EXE vs 4.1 months for EXE alone; log-rank P<.0001) assessment. Capecitabine, an orally administered fluoropyrimidine carbamate indicated as monotherapy in paclitaxel and/or anthracycline-refractory ABC, has shown clinical benefit in patients with HR+, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) ABC. The BOLERO-6 study in patients with HR+, HER2- ABC progressing on prior anastrozole or letrozole will compare PFS following EVE+EXE combination therapy vs EVE or capecitabine monotherapy. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, 3-arm, phase 2 study, 300 patients will be randomized to receive either EVE (10 mg/d) + EXE (25 mg/d) combination therapy, or EVE (10 mg/d) alone, or capecitabine (1,250 mg/m2twice daily for 14 d/3-wk cycle) alone, until disease progression. Patients will be stratified based on the presence of visceral disease. Key eligibility criteria include age ≥18 years, postmenopausal status; histologic or cytologic confirmation of estrogen-receptor–positive, HER2- ABC; radiologic or objective evidence of recurrence or progression on prior aromatase inhibitors; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2. The primary endpoint is PFS with EVE+EXE vs EVE, based on local radiologic assessment (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] 1.1). The key secondary endpoint is PFS with EVE+EXE vs capecitabine. Other secondary endpoints include overall survival, objective response rate, clinical benefit rate, safety, quality of life, and patient satisfaction with treatment. Enrollment will start in Q1 2013. Estimated study completion in Q1 2015. Clinical trial information: NCT01783444.


Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (21) ◽  
pp. 5432
Author(s):  
Luis de la Cruz-Merino ◽  
María Gion ◽  
Josefina Cruz-Jurado ◽  
Vanesa Quiroga ◽  
Raquel Andrés ◽  
...  

The PANGEA-Breast trial evaluated a new chemo-immunotherapeutic combination that would synergistically induce long-term clinical benefit in HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients. Treatment consisted of 21-day cycles of 200 mg of pembrolizumab (day 1) plus gemcitabine (days 1 and 8). The primary objective was the objective response rate (ORR). The tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) density and PD-L1 expression in tumor, and the myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) level in peripheral blood, were analyzed to explore associations with treatment efficacy. Considering a two-stage Simon’s design, the study recruitment was stopped after its first stage as statistical assumptions were not met. A subset of 21 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients was enrolled. Their median age was 49 years; 15 patients had visceral involvement, and 16 had ≤3 metastatic locations. Treatment discontinuation due to progressive disease (PD) was reported in 16 patients. ORR was 15% (95% CI 3.2–37.9). Four patients were on treatment >6 months before PD. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 8 patients, where neutropenia was the most common. No association was found between TILs density, PD-L1 expression or MDSCs levels and treatment efficacy. ORR in TNBC patients also did not meet the assumptions, but 20% were on treatment >6 months.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1064-1064
Author(s):  
Diana Bello ◽  
Alexandre Bertucci ◽  
Thibault De La Motte Rouge ◽  
Cyriac Blonz ◽  
Sarra Akla ◽  
...  

1064 Background: In 11.2018, the PIK3CA-inhibitor alpelisib was made available in France through an early access program (EAP), in combination with fulvestrant in pre-treated PIK3CA-mutant, HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients. Patients had to received two or more prior systemic treatments for ABC, including an aromatase inhibitor and a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the absence of contraindications. This retrospective real-life, EAP-based study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of alpelisib/fulvestrant combination in the post CDK4/6 inhibitor setting. Methods: The IRB-approved protocol and call for data were sent on 10.2020 to the cancer centers which participated the most in the EAP prospective registry. Eligible patients were women who started alpelisib/fulvestrant between 11. 2018 and 10.2020 as part of the EAP (which excluded patients with visceral crisis or inflammatory BC). Alpelisib and fulvestrant were used at standard doses. Primary endpoint was PFS by local investigators using RECIST1.1. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate and safety (NCI CTCAE v5.0). Results: 10 centers provided individual data regarding 209 consecutive patients. Patients had received a median number of 4 (1-14) previous systemic treatments for ABC, including CDK4/6 inhibitors, chemotherapy, fulvestrant (alone or in combination) and everolimus for 206 (98.8%), 159 (76.1%), 163 (78%) and 123 (58.8%) patients, respectively. With a median FU of 7.0 months, median PFS was 4.0 months (95%CI [3.5;5.0]) and 35.4% of 164 evaluable patients had an objective response. After stratification on the number of prior lines of treatment, prior exposure to everolimus had no impact on PFS (mPFS in the 123 patients pretreated with everolimus: 4.0m, 95%CI [3.5-5.5]). Of note, this population was enriched in patients who had a long disease control by everolimus (median time spent on everolimus: 7.0m, range (6.5-9.0)). In multivariable analysis, characteristics significantly associated with longer PFS were PS < 3 (HR = 0.03, 95%CI [0.02-0.29]) and prior treatment with fulvestrant (HR = 0.53, 95%CI [0.32-0.89]). N = 81(38.8%) patients discontinued alpelisib due to adverse events (AEs). Most frequent grade 3/4 AEs were hyperglycemia, skin rash, diarrhea and fatigue occurring in 13.4, 8.1, 4.8 and 1.9 % of patients, respectively. Conclusions: Despite heavy pre-treatments, alpelisib +fulvestrant had a clinically relevant efficacy in the French EAP population. Interestingly, prior treatment with either everolimus or fulvestrant did not overtly impair alpelisib-fulvestrant efficacy. The best treatment sequence for PI3KCA/mTOR inhibitors could be examined in future trials in PIK3CA-mutant ER+/HER2- ABC patients.


1995 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 241-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Ceci ◽  
Giancarlo Bisagni ◽  
Giorgio Cocconi ◽  
Carmelina Rodinò ◽  
Virginio Belsanti ◽  
...  

Aims and background The study was designed to define the activity of the combination of cisplatin and etoposide as third-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer and to investigate the role of the dosage of cisplatin on the effectiveness of the combination. Methods Ninety-five eligible patients with advanced breast cancer who had failed or relapsed on two previous lines of chemotherapy were randomized to receive cisplatin at a high dose (100 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, arm A) or a low dose (60 mg/m2 day 1, arm B), combined with etoposide (100 mg/m2 i.v. days 4, 6 and 8). Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. Results Of the 78 patients evaluable for response (39 in arm A and 39 in arm B), 9 (12%) showed complete or partial response, 5 (13%) in the high-dose arm and 4 (10%) in the low-dose arm. One complete response was seen in the high-dose arm and none in the low-dose arm. The only 2 patients with brain involvement showed an objective response (one CR in arm A and one PR in arm B). Median time to progression was 14 weeks in arm A and 10 weeks in arm B, median duration of remission 28 and 34 weeks, and survival 36 and 35 weeks, respectively. The differences were not significant. As expected, the patients in the high-dose arm experienced more severe toxicity. One toxic death was observed in each arm due to sepsis in agranulocytosis. The difference was statistically significant regarding nausea and vomiting. Neurotoxicity and ototoxicity were not relevant problems in this patient setting. Conclusions Considering the very poor prognostic factors presented by these patients, the combination showed a certain activity, and further evaluation in earlier stages of disease is warranted. A particular responsiveness on brain metastases is suggested. The dose of cisplatin was not proven to be of significant importance.


2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (15) ◽  
pp. 3500-3505 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Hainsworth ◽  
Howard A. Burris ◽  
Denise A. Yardley ◽  
James E. Bradof ◽  
Manuel Grimaldi ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel administered weekly to elderly or poor-performance status patients with advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients with advanced breast cancer who were either over the age of 65 or considered to be poor candidates for combination chemotherapy received docetaxel 36 mg/m2 weekly for 6 consecutive weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment. The median age of patients in this trial was 74 years, and 73% of patients had one or more visceral sites of metastases. Seventy-five percent of patients received weekly docetaxel as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer, and the other 25% received it as second-line treatment. Thirty-six patients were assessable for efficacy, and all patients were assessed for toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 448 doses of weekly docetaxel were administered to 41 patients. Thirteen patients (36%) had objective responses to treatment, and an additional 13 patients (36%) had stable disease or minor response. Median time to progression for responding and stable patients was 7 months (range, 3 to 27 months). Median survival for the entire group was 13 months, with 1- and 2-year actuarial survival rates of 61% and 29%, respectively. Severe neutropenia occurred in only 0.4% of courses, and no other hematologic toxicity was observed. Grade 3/4 fatigue was the most common toxicity, occurring in 20% of patients. CONCLUSION: Weekly docetaxel therapy is active and well tolerated by elderly and/or poor-performance status patients with advanced breast cancer. This treatment can be administered with minimal myelosuppression. Weekly docetaxel provides an additional option for treatment in this difficult subgroup of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Well-tolerated combination regimens containing weekly docetaxel merit evaluation for this patient population.


1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 453-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Dombernowsky ◽  
I Smith ◽  
G Falkson ◽  
R Leonard ◽  
L Panasci ◽  
...  

PURPOSE To compare two doses of letrozole and megestrol acetate (MA) as second-line therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with antiestrogens. PATIENTS AND METHODS Five hundred fifty-one patients with locally advanced, locoregionally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive letrozole 2.5 mg (n = 174), letrozole 0.5 mg (n = 188), or MA 160 mg (n = 189) once daily in a double-blind, multicenter trial. Data were analyzed for tumor response and safety variables up to 33 months of follow-up evaluation and for survival up to 45 months. RESULTS Letrozole 2.5 mg produced a significantly higher overall objective response rate (24%) compared with MA (16%; logistic regression, P = .04) or letrozole 0.5 mg (13%; P = .004). Duration of objective response was significantly longer for letrozole 2.5 mg compared with MA (Cox regression, P = .02). Letrozole 2.5 mg was significantly superior to MA and letrozole 0.5 mg in time to treatment failure (P = .04 and P = .002, respectively). For time to progression, letrozole 2.5 mg was superior to letrozole 0.5 mg (P = .02), but not to MA (P = .07). There was a significant dose effect in overall survival in favor of letrozole 2.5 mg (P = .03) compared with letrozole 0.5 mg. Letrozole was significantly better tolerated than MA with respect to serious adverse experiences, discontinuation due to poor tolerability, cardiovascular side effects, and weight gain. CONCLUSION The data show letrozole 2.5 mg once daily to be more effective and better tolerated than MA in the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with antiestrogens.


1994 ◽  
Vol 80 (4) ◽  
pp. 280-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandro Barni ◽  
Antonio Ardizzoia ◽  
Gianni Bernardo ◽  
Silvia Villa ◽  
Maria Rosa Strada ◽  
...  

Vinorelbine is a new semisynthetic vinca alkaloid with high activity against breast cancer. In this multicenter clinical study we evaluated the activity and toxicity of vinorelbine as a single agent in 30 advanced breast cancer patients pretreated with anthracycline and/or mitoxantrone (24 with recurrent tumor, 6 with non operable cancers). Vinorelbine was given at a weekly dose of 20 mg/m2 for a minimum of 3 weeks. Treatment was continued until there was disease progression or evidence of serious toxicity. Predominant sites of metastasis were viscera (14 cases), soft tissue (11 cases) and bone (5 cases). A median number of 12 doses of vinorelbine (range 3-34) were administered to each patient. Objective responses were recorded in 11 of them and 15 had minimal responses or stable disease. Four patients showed progression of disease during vinorelbine chemotherapy. The median duration of response was 5 months (2-14). The median survival time was 7 months (2-20+): 9 months for responders and 5 months for those with stable or progressive disease. The most important and dose-limiting toxicity was represented by leukopenia. The compliance of patients was very good and the treatment was well accepted by them all including those with low performance status. In conclusion, this study provides further evidence that a weekly schedule with vinorelbine as a single agent is effective and well-tolerated also in pretreated advanced breast cancer patients.


1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2722-2730 ◽  
Author(s):  
B L Weber ◽  
C Vogel ◽  
S Jones ◽  
H Harvey ◽  
L Hutchins ◽  
...  

PURPOSE We evaluated single-agent intravenous (IV) vinorelbine as first- and second-line treatment for advanced breast cancer (ABC) in patients who were not resistant to anthracyclines. Objective tumor response (TR) and toxicity were assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 107 women were enrolled onto this multicenter, nonrandomized, open-label phase II study. Patients were stratified into first- and second-line treatment groups, based on prior treatment history. Vinorelbine was initially given at 30 mg/m2/wk, with dose modification for toxicity as indicated. Therapy was continued until disease progression or severe toxicity mandated withdrawal or until the patient asked to be removed from the study. RESULTS The objective response rate for all patients was 34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25% to 44%): 35% (95% CI, 23% to 48%) for first-line patients and 32% (95% CI, 20% to 47%) for second-line patients. Nine first-line and three second-line patients obtained a complete response (CR). The median duration of objective response was 34 weeks in both groups. The overall survival durations of first- and second-line patients were 67 weeks and 62 weeks, respectively. Granulocytopenia was the predominant dose-limiting toxicity. Two patients died on study as a result of granulocytopenic sepsis. CONCLUSION Single-agent vinorelbine is an effective and well-tolerated agent for first- and second-line therapy of ABC. The results of this study confirm the findings of similar international trials and suggest vinorelbine should be considered a valid treatment option for patients with ABC and a potential component in future combination regimens for this disease.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document