scholarly journals Racial Differences in 21-Gene Recurrence Scores Among Patients With Hormone Receptor–Positive, Node-Negative Breast Cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7) ◽  
pp. 652-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreana N. Holowatyj ◽  
Michele L. Cote ◽  
Julie J. Ruterbusch ◽  
Kristina Ghanem ◽  
Ann G. Schwartz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Racial Differences ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Distant Recurrence ◽  
Node Negative ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
Node Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Epidermal Growth

Purpose The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) breast cancer assay is clinically used to quantify risk of 10-year distant recurrence by category (low, < 18; intermediate, 18 to 30; high, ≥ 31) for treatment management among women diagnosed with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, lymph node–negative breast cancer. Although non-Hispanic black (NHB) women have worse prognosis compared with non-Hispanic white (NHW) women, the equivalency of 21-gene RS across racial groups remains unknown. Patients and Methods Using the Metropolitan Detroit Cancer Surveillance System, we identified women who were diagnosed with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, lymph node–negative invasive breast cancer between 2010 and 2014. Multinomial logistic regression was used to quantify racial differences in 21-gene RS category. Results We identified 2,216 women (1,824 NHW and 392 NHB) with invasive breast cancer who met clinical guidelines for and underwent 21-gene RS testing. The mean RS was significantly higher in NHBs compared with NHWs (19.3 v 17.0, respectively; P = .0003), where NHBs were more likely to present with high-risk tumors compared with NHWs (14.8% v 8.3%, respectively; P = .0004). These differences were limited to patients younger than 65 years at diagnosis, among whom NHBs had significantly higher RS compared with NHWs (20 to 49 years: 23.6 v 17.3, respectively; P < .001 and 50 to 64 years: 19.6 v 17.4, respectively; P = .023). NHBs remained more likely to have high-risk tumors compared with NHWs after adjusting for age, clinical stage, tumor grade, and histology (odds ratio [OR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.59). Conclusion NHBs who met clinical criteria for 21-gene RS testing had tumors with higher estimated risks of distant recurrence compared with NHWs. Further study is needed to elucidate whether differences in recurrence are observed for these women, which would have clinical implications for 21-gene RS calibration and treatment recommendations in NHB patients.

scholarly journals Japanese subpopulation analysis of MONARCH 2: phase 3 study of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant for treatment of hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer that progressed on endocrine therapy

Breast Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenichi Inoue ◽  
Norikazu Masuda ◽  
Hiroji Iwata ◽  
Masato Takahashi ◽  
Yoshinori Ito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Epidermal Growth Factor ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
Epidermal Growth

Abstract Background This was a Japanese subpopulation analysis of MONARCH 2, a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). Methods Eligible women had progressed on (neo)adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET), ≤ 12 months from end of adjuvant ET, or on first-line ET for ABC, and had not received chemotherapy for ABC. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo plus fulvestrant. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), pharmacokinetics (PK), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and safety. Results In Japan, 95 patients were randomized (abemaciclib, n = 64; placebo, n = 31). At final PFS analysis (February 14, 2017), median PFS was 21.2 and 14.3 months, respectively, in the abemaciclib and placebo groups (hazard ratio: 0.672; 95% confidence interval: 0.380–1.189). Abemaciclib had a higher objective response rate (37.5%) than placebo (12.9%). PK and safety profiles for Japanese patients were consistent with those of the overall population, without clinically meaningful differences across most HRQoL dimensions evaluated. The most frequent adverse events in the abemaciclib versus placebo groups were diarrhea (95.2 versus 25.8%), neutropenia (79.4 versus 0%), and leukopenia (66.7 versus 0%). At a second data cutoff (June 20, 2019), median OS was not reached with abemaciclib and 47.3 months with placebo (hazard ratio: 0.755; 95% confidence interval: 0.390–1.463). Conclusions Results of the Japanese subpopulation were consistent with the improved clinical outcomes and manageable safety profile observed in the overall population. Clinical trial registration NCT02107703; U.S. National Library of Medicine: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02107703.

MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib in Combination With Fulvestrant in Women With HR+/HER2− Advanced Breast Cancer Who Had Progressed While Receiving Endocrine Therapy

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (25) ◽  
pp. 2875-2884 ◽  
Author(s):  
George W. Sledge ◽  
Masakazu Toi ◽  
Patrick Neven ◽  
Joohyuk Sohn ◽  
Kenichi Inoue ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Epidermal Growth Factor ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
Epidermal Growth ◽  
To Receive

Purpose MONARCH 2 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107703) compared the efficacy and safety of abemaciclib, a selective cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, plus fulvestrant with fulvestrant alone in patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Patients and Methods MONARCH 2 was a global, double-blind, phase III study of women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative ABC who had progressed while receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET), ≤ 12 months from the end of adjuvant ET, or while receiving first-line ET for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo (150 mg twice daily) on a continuous schedule and fulvestrant (500 mg, per label). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and key secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, clinical benefit rate, quality of life, and safety. Results Between August 2014 and December 2015, 669 patients were randomly assigned to receive abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (n = 446) or placebo plus fulvestrant (n = 223). Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly extended PFS versus fulvestrant alone (median, 16.4 v 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.553; 95% CI, 0.449 to 0.681; P < .001). In patients with measurable disease, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant achieved an ORR of 48.1% (95% CI, 42.6% to 53.6%) compared with 21.3% (95% CI, 15.1% to 27.6%) in the control arm. The most common adverse events in the abemaciclib versus placebo arms were diarrhea (86.4% v 24.7%), neutropenia (46.0% v 4.0%), nausea (45.1% v 22.9%), and fatigue (39.9% v 26.9%). Conclusions Abemaciclib at 150 mg twice daily plus fulvestrant was effective, significantly improving PFS and ORR and demonstrating a tolerable safety profile in women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative ABC who progressed while receiving ET.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document