scholarly journals Endocrine-Based Treatments in Clinically-Relevant Subgroups of Hormone Receptor-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1458
Author(s):  
Francesco Schettini ◽  
Mario Giuliano ◽  
Fabiola Giudici ◽  
Benedetta Conte ◽  
Pietro De Placido ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Comparable Efficacy ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive

A precise assessment of the efficacy of first-/second-line endocrine therapies (ET) ± target therapies (TT) in clinically-relevant subgroups of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has not yet been conducted. To improve our current knowledge and support clinical decision-making, we thus conducted a systematic literature search to identify all first-/second-line phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCT) of currently approved or most promising ET ± TT. Then, we performed a meta-analysis to assess progression-free (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) benefit in several clinically-relevant prespecified subgroups. Thirty-five RCT were included (17,595 patients). Pooled results show significant reductions in the risk of relapse or death of 26–41% and 12–27%, respectively, depending on the clinical subgroup. Combination strategies proved to be more effective than single-agent ET (PFS hazard ratio (HR) range for combinations: 0.60–0.65 vs. HR range for single agent ET: 0.59–1.37; OS HR range for combinations: 0.74–0.87 vs. HR range for single agent ET: 0.68–0.98), with CDK4/6-inhibitors(i) + ET being the most effective regimen. Single agent ET showed comparable efficacy with ET+TT combinations in non-visceral (p = 0.63) and endocrine sensitive disease (p = 0.79), while mTORi-based combinations proved to be a valid therapeutic option in endocrine-resistant tumors, as well as PI3Ki + ET in PIK3CA-mutant tumors. These results strengthen international treatment guidelines and can aid therapeutic decision-making.

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.

scholarly journals Patterns of treatment and outcome with 500-mg fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a real-life multicenter Italian experience

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175883591983386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raffaella Palumbo ◽  
Federico Sottotetti ◽  
Erica Quaquarini ◽  
Anna Gambaro ◽  
Antonella Ferzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Liver Metastasis ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Large Population ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive

Background: Fulvestrant 500 mg (F500) is the most active endocrine single agent in hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Few data are available regarding the effectiveness of the drug in a real-world setting. Patients and methods: This prospective, multicenter cohort study aimed to describe the patterns of treatment and performance of F500 in a large population of unselected women with MBC, focusing on potential prognostic or predictive factors for disease outcome and response. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and clinical benefit rate. Results: From January 2011 to December 2015, 490 consecutive patients treated with F500 were enrolled. Overall, three different cohorts were identified and analyzed: the first received F500 after progression from previous chemotherapy (CT) or endocrine therapy; the second received the drug for de novo metastatic disease; and the third was treated as maintenance following disease stabilization or a response from a previous CT line. Median overall survival (OS) in the whole population was 26.8 months, ranging from 32.4 in first line to 22.0 and 13.7 months in second line and subsequent lines, respectively. Both the presence of liver metastasis and the treatment line were significantly associated with a worse PFS, while only the presence of liver metastasis maintained its predictive role for OS in multivariate analysis. Conclusions: The effectiveness of F500 was detected in patients treated both upon disease progression and as maintenance. The relevant endocrine sensitivity of 80% of patients included in the study could probably explain the good results observed in terms of outcome.

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 Phase II study of pembrolizumab and capecitabine for triple negative and hormone receptor-positive, HER2−negative endocrine-refractory metastatic breast cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e000173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ami N Shah ◽  
Lisa Flaum ◽  
Irene Helenowski ◽  
Cesar A Santa-Maria ◽  
Sarika Jain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive

BackgroundResponse rates to single agent immune checkpoint blockade in unselected pretreated HER2−negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are low. However, they may be augmented when combined with chemotherapy.MethodsWe conducted a single-arm, phase II study of patients with triple negative (TN) or hormone receptor-positive endocrine-refractory (HR+) MBC who were candidates for capecitabine. Patients were treated with pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg/m2by mouth twice daily on days 1–14 of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was median progression-free survival (mPFS) compared with historic controls and secondary end points were overall response rate (ORR), safety and tolerability. The study had 80% power to detect a 2-month improvement in mPFS with the addition of pembrolizumab over historic controls treated with capecitabine alone.ResultsThirty patients, 16 TN and 14 HR+ MBC, were enrolled from 2017 to 2018. Patients had a median age of 51 years and received a median of 1 (range 0–6) prior lines of therapy for MBC. Of 29 evaluable patients, the mPFS was 4.0 (95% CI 2.0 to 6.4) months and was not significantly longer than historic controls of 3 months. The median overall survival was 15.4 (95% CI 8.2 to 20.3) months. The ORR was 14% (n=4), stable disease (SD) was 41% (n=12) and clinical benefit rate (CBR=partial response+SD>6 months) was 28% (n=8). The ORR and CBR were not significantly different between disease subtypes (ORR 13% and 14%, CBR 25% and 29% for TN and HR+, respectively). The 1-year PFS rate was 20.7% and three patients have ongoing responses. The most common adverse events were low grade and consistent with those seen in MBC patients receiving capecitabine, including hand-foot syndrome, gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue and cytopenias. Toxicities at least possibly from pembrolizumab included grade 3 or 4 liver test abnormalities (7%), rash (7%) and diarrhea (3%), as well as grade 5 hepatic failure in a patient with liver metastases.ConclusionsCompared with historical controls, pembrolizumab with capecitabine did not improve PFS in this biomarker unselected, pretreated cohort. However, some patients had prolonged disease control.Trial registration numberNCT03044730.

scholarly journals Hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: redrawing the lines

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 131 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Matutino ◽  
A.A. Joy ◽  
C. Brezden-Masley ◽  
S. Chia ◽  
S. Verma
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Treatment Algorithm ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Endocrine Treatment ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive

Estrogen receptor modulators and estrogen deprivation have become standards of care for hormone receptor– positive metastatic breast cancer. However, after traditional first-line endocrine monotherapy treatment, the disease typically progresses despite the initial high rate of clinical benefit. Multiple studies have aimed at optimizing treatment strategies to improve upon clinical benefit beyond the traditional single-agent endocrine treatment. With the availability of new data and novel therapies, the clinical practice challenge becomes how best to define the optimal treatment sequence to maximize clinical benefit. In this review, we present treatment options clinically relevant to the management of hormone-positive, her2-negative metastatic breast cancer, and we propose a treatment algorithm based on the current literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document