A network meta-analysis of fulvestrant vs alternative first-line endocrine therapies for endocrine therapy-naive postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e12545-e12545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Telford ◽  
Shweta Takyar ◽  
Parth Joshi ◽  
Mattias Ekman ◽  
Nick Jones
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
First Line ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
American Society

e12545 Background: Fulvestrant (F) is a selective estrogen degrader for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC). This network meta-analysis examined the efficacy of F (500 mg) vs alternative endocrine therapies (ETs) for first-line treatment of ET-naïve HR+ LA/MBC. Methods: Randomized controlled trials of first-line F, tamoxifen (Tam), anastrozole (A), exemestane (E), letrozole (L), and toremifene (T) for women (≥18 years) with HR+ LA/MBC and no prior ET were identified in a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception to October 2016. Conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium from 2013-2016 were hand searched. Trials of targeted combination therapies were excluded. Studies were checked for heterogeneity. A standard fixed-effect Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted based on hazard ratios (HRs) and assuming proportional hazards for progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS). Results: Seven eligible studies (1 Phase [Ph] 2, 5 Ph 3, 1 Ph 2/3) were identified. All had PFS data; five had OS data. Two trials compared F vs A; PFS data were available for both trials; sufficiently mature OS data for F were available from Ph 2 only. The proportional hazards assumption was met for PFS only.F had significantly improved PFS vs Tam (HR 0.57, 95% credibility interval [Crl] 0.44-0.73), A (HR 0.75, 95% Crl 0.62-0.91), E (HR 0.65, 95% Crl 0.47-0.91), and T (HR 0.53, 95% Crl 0.37-0.78). Numerically improved PFS was observed for F vs L (HR 0.81, 95% Crl 0.59-1.11). F had significantly improved OS vs Tam (HR 0.63, 95% Crl 0.40-0.98), A (HR 0.63, 95% Crl 0.42-0.94), and E (HR 0.56, 95% Crl 0.33-0.95). OS was numerically improved with F vs L (HR 0.66, 95% Crl 0.41-1.04). Conclusions: This analysis suggests improved PFS and OS for fulvestrant vs tamoxifen, anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole, and PFS for fulvestrant vs toremifene. Further analysis should be conducted, using non-proportional hazard methods and more mature OS data, to confirm the OS results.

scholarly journals Olaparib in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer with a somatic BRCA2 mutation

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110069
Author(s):  
Lee S. Schwartzberg ◽  
Lesli A. Kiedrowski
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Brca2 Mutation ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Susceptibility Gene ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Breast Cancer Susceptibility Gene ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive

The oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib is approved for the treatment of patients with human epidermal growth factor 2-negative (HER2−) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and a germline breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation who have been treated with chemotherapy. This case report describes a 63-year-old postmenopausal woman with somatic BRCA2-mutated mBC who responded to olaparib treatment following multiple prior lines of therapy. The patient presented in January 2012 with locally advanced, hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2− BC which, despite initial response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, recurred as bone disease in February 2014, and subsequently skin (June 2016) and liver (October 2016) metastases. A comprehensive 592-gene next-generation sequencing panel (Caris Life Sciences), performed on a skin biopsy, detected a pathogenic frameshift mutation in BRCA2 (H3154fs, c.9460delC), which was not identified in a 28-gene hereditary cancer germline analysis (Myriad Genetics, Inc.), and was therefore considered to be a somatic mutation. In January 2017, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis (Guardant Health, Inc.) confirmed the BRCA2 H3154fs mutation in plasma. After several lines of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy, deriving clinical benefit from eribulin and capecitabine, the disease progressed by October 2017, and olaparib (300 mg orally twice daily) was initiated in January 2018. By April 2018, the liver lesions had shrunk by 80% and a >90% response in multiple skin lesions was noted. Clinical response was maintained for 8 months, followed by progression in the skin in September 2018. Biopsy of recurrent lesions revealed a novel BRCA2 mutation, E3152del (c.9455_9457delAGG), predicted to restore the open reading frame and presumably the mechanism of resistance to olaparib. Further likely resistance mutations were noted in subsequent cfDNA analyses. This case demonstrated a clinical response with olaparib as a later-line therapy for HR+, HER2− mBC with a somatic BRCA2 mutation.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document