12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Initial experience with CDK4/6 inhibitor-based therapies compared to antihormone monotherapies in routine clinical use in patients with hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative breast cancer — Data from the PRAEGNANT research network for the first 2 years of drug availability in Germany

      research-article
      a , 1 , b , 1 , c , d , e , d , , f , g , d , h , i , j , k , l , f , l , m , n , b , d , o , d , p , q , o , j , a , r , s , t , u , v , w , x , y , z , d , j , r , j
      The Breast : Official Journal of the European Society of Mastology
      Elsevier
      Advanced breast cancer, Metastatic, Chemotherapy, Endocrine therapy, CDK4/6, Ribociclib, Palbociclib, Abemaciclib

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy (CDK4/6i + ET) is a standard for patients with advanced hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (HR + HER2–) breast cancer (BC). However, real-world data on the implementation of therapy usage, efficacy, and toxicity have not yet been reported.

          Methods

          The PRAEGNANT registry was used to identify advanced HR + HER2– BC patients (n = 1136). The use of chemotherapy, ET, everolimus + ET, and CDK4/6i + ET was analyzed for first-line, second-line, and third-line therapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were also compared between patients treated with CDK4/6i + ET and ET monotherapy. Also toxicity was assessed.

          Results

          CDK4/6i + ET use increased from 38.5% to 62.7% in the first 2 years after CDK4/6i treatment became available (November 2016). Chemotherapy and ET monotherapy use decreased from 2015 to 2018 from 42.2% to 27.2% and from 53% to 9.5%, respectively. In this early analysis no statistically significant differences were found comparing CDK4/6i + ET and ET monotherapy patients with regard to PFS and OS. Leukopenia was was seen in 11.3% of patients under CDK4/6i + ET and 0.5% under ET monotherapy.

          Conclusions

          In clinical practice, CDK4/6i + ET has been rapidly implemented. A group of patients with a more unfavorable prognosis was possibly treated in the real-world setting than in the reported randomized clinical trials. The available data suggest that longer follow-up times and a larger sample size are required in order to identify differences in survival outcomes. Studies should be supported that investigate whether chemotherapy can be avoided or delayed in this patient population by using CDK4/6i + ET.

          Highlights

          • CDK4/6i + ET use increased from 39% to 63% after becoming available.

          • Chemotherapy and ET monotherapy use decreased from 42% to 27% and 53%–10%.

          • There was no difference between CDK4/6i + ET and ET monotherapy regarding PFS and OS.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Real-world data: towards achieving the achievable in cancer care

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            LBA15_PRA phase III trial of empiric chemotherapy with cisplatin and gemcitabine or systemic treatment tailored by molecular gene expression analysis in patients with carcinomas of an unknown primary (CUP) site (GEFCAPI 04)

            CUP are heterogeneous tumors that share the unique characteristic of metastases with no identifiable origin. The outcome of patients (pts) with CUP is poor despite empiric chemotherapy that has activity against a wide variety of neoplasms such as the cisplatin-gemcitabine combination (Culine S, JCO 2002). Molecular tests may identify primary sites in up to 80% of pts, and results suggest that at least 1/3 of identified primaries may not be sensitive to empiric chemotherapy used in CUPs (Gross-Goupil G 2012). In the GEFCAPI 04 phase III trial, we hypothesized that tailored treatment will improve outcomes. Eligible pts had pathologically-confirmed metastatic CUPs and were treatment naïve. Pts belonging to pre-defined favorable subsets were excluded. After relevant workup had identified no primary site, pts were randomized 1:1 to either Arm A (Cisplatin 100 mg/m² d1+ Gemcitabine 1250 mg/m², day 1 and 8, q3w) or Arm B (gene expression test followed by à la carte treatment according to the suspected primary). The test consisted of the Tissue Of Origin (Pathwork, n = 21) or CancerTYPE ID (Biotheranostics, n = 222). The primary endpoint was PFS (HR = 0.625, power=80%, 5% bilateral test). Stratification was on site, PS and LDH level. Secondary endpoints were PFS in pts with pre-defined cancers likely insensitive to cisplatin-gemcitabine and OS. From 03/12 to 02/18, 243 pts from 4 EU countries were randomized (Arm A: 120, Arm B: 123). Primary cancers most often reported by tests were pancreatico-biliary cancer (19%), squamous cell carcinoma (11%, kidney cancer (8%), and lung cancer (8%). Treatment was tailored by molecular test results in 91/123 arm B pts (74%). PFS by central review was similar: HR = 0.95 (0.72-1.25); p = 0.7; medians: 5.3 m arm A vs 4.6 m arm B. PFS by local review also showed no significant difference: HR = 0.80 (0.60-1.06); p = 0.12; medians 5.8 vs 6.4 m. OS was also similar in the overall population (HR: 0.92 (0.69-1.23), medians: 10 vs 10.7 m) and in 60 pts with suspected cancers likely insensitive to GC. In GEFCAPI 04, using a molecular test followed by tailored systemic treatment did not improve outcomes of pts with CUP. 2011-A01202-39. Institut Gustave Roussy. Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (PHRC) from the French Ministry of Health. K. Fizazi: Advisory / Consultancy: Astellas; Advisory / Consultancy: AAA; Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy: Clovis; Advisory / Consultancy: Curevac; Advisory / Consultancy: Incyte; Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Orion; Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi. R. Morales Barrera: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Sanofi; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Astrazeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Asofarma; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Johnson and Jonhson; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche. C.A. Schnabel: Full / Part-time employment: bioTheranostics. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Predicting Real-World Effectiveness of Cancer Therapies Using Overall Survival and Progression-Free Survival from Clinical Trials: Empirical Evidence for the ASCO Value Framework.

              To measure the relationship between randomized controlled trial (RCT) efficacy and real-world effectiveness for oncology treatments as well as how this relationship varies depending on an RCT's use of surrogate versus overall survival (OS) endpoints.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Breast
                Breast
                The Breast : Official Journal of the European Society of Mastology
                Elsevier
                0960-9776
                1532-3080
                29 August 2020
                December 2020
                29 August 2020
                : 54
                : 88-95
                Affiliations
                [a ]National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
                [b ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
                [c ]Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Department of Hematology, Oncolo0gy and Tumour Immunology, Berlin, Germany
                [d ]Erlangen University Hospital, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany
                [e ]ClinSol GmbH & Co KG, Würzburg, Germany
                [f ]Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Düsseldorf University Hospital, Germany
                [g ]Gynäkologische Praxisklinik Am Rosengarten, Mannheim, Germany
                [h ]Biostatistics Unit, Erlangen University Hospital, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen, Germany
                [i ]Frankfurt Center of Bone Health Frankfurt, Germany
                [j ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
                [k ]GSUND Gynäkologie Kompetenzzentrum Stralsund, Stralsund, Germany
                [l ]Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
                [m ]Marienhospital Bottrop, Bottrop, Germany
                [n ]Gynecology I (Gynecologic Oncology), Gynäkologisches Zentrum Bonn Friedensplatz, Bonn, Germany
                [o ]Department of Gynecology, Hamburg-Eppendorf University Medical Center, Hamburg, Germany
                [p ]Oncologianova GmbH, Recklinghausen, Germany
                [q ]Oncology Practice at Bethanien Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany
                [r ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
                [s ]Department of Gynecology, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
                [t ]Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Helios Clinics Berlin Buch, Berlin, Germany
                [u ]National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Dresden, Germany
                [v ]German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
                [w ]Carl Gustav Carus Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany
                [x ]Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
                [y ]German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
                [z ]Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Breast Center, and CCC Munich, Munich University Hospital, Germany
                Author notes
                [] Corresponding author. Erlangen University Hospital, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics; Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen EMN; Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen–Nuremberg Universitätsstrasse 21–23, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; Tel.: +49 (0)9131-85-33553; fax: +49 (0)9131-85-33938; peter.fasching@ 123456uk-erlangen.de
                [1]

                Shared co-authorship.

                Article
                S0960-9776(20)30164-8
                10.1016/j.breast.2020.08.011
                7509062
                32956934
                c672524d-3f9f-4258-8e01-4d7fac5e25a9
                © 2020 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 29 December 2019
                : 27 July 2020
                : 10 August 2020
                Categories
                Original Article

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                advanced breast cancer,metastatic,chemotherapy,endocrine therapy,cdk4/6,ribociclib,palbociclib,abemaciclib

                Comments

                Comment on this article