Search

Background: An earlier analysis of the PEARL phase III study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) does not improve progression-free survival (PFS) over capecitabine in aromatase inhibitor-resistant, hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Here, we report the final overall survival (OS) analysis., Methods: Postmenopausal patients (N = 601) were randomized 1:1 to capecitabine or palbociclib plus ET (exemestane, Cohort 1; fulvestrant, Cohort 2). OS was analysed in Cohort 2, the wild-type ESR1 population and the overall population. Additionally, we analysed subsequent systemic therapies and explored PFS2 (time from randomization to the end of the first subsequent therapy/death)., Results: OS was 31.1 months for palbociclib plus fulvestrant and 32.8 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.50, P = 0.550). In the wild-type ESR1 population, OS was 37.2 months for palbociclib plus ET and 34.8 months for capecitabine (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.37, P = 0.683). In OS analyses, no subgroup showed superiority for palbociclib plus ET over capecitabine. OS in the overall population was 32.6 months for palbociclib plus ET and 30.9 months for capecitabine (P = 0.995). Subsequent systemic therapy was given to 79.8% and 82.9% of patients with palbociclib plus ET and capecitabine, respectively. Median PFS2 was similar between study arms (Cohort 2, P = 0.941; wild-type ESR1 population, P = 0.827). No new safety findings were observed., Conclusions: Palbociclib plus ET did not show a statistically superior OS compared to capecitabine in MBC patients progressing on aromatase inhibitors., Trial Registration: NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov), 2013-003170-27 (EudraCT)., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: M. Martín has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Taiho Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, PharmaMar, Eli Lilly, PUMA, Taiho Oncology and Pfizer; speakers' honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Daiichi-Sankyo and Pfizer; contracted research fees from Roche, Novartis and PUMA. C. Zielinski has received consulting fees and speaker's honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Imugene, Ariad, Pfizer, Merrimack, Merck KGaA, Fibrogen, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Gilead, Servier, Shire, Eli Lilly and Athenex. His institution, Central European Cancer Center, Wiener Privatklinik Hospital, has received fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Merck KGaA. M. Ruiz-Borrego has received speaker fees and advisory grants from Pfizer, Novartis and Lilly. E. Carrasco, who has a stock and other ownership interests from Lilly, has received travel and accommodation support from Roche, and her husband, who has participated in consulting and advisory board activities with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Roche Pharma, Janssen, Amgen, Incyte, Abbvie and Pfizer, has received travel and accommodation support from Celgene, Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. His institution has received research funding from Celgene, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Roche/Genentech, Amgen, Pfizer and Abbvie. GEICAM has received research funding from Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre and Takeda. E. M. Ciruelos has received advisory board honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Roche; speakers' honoraria from Roche, Lilly and Pfizer; travel and congress assistance support from Pfizer and Roche. M. Muñoz has received advisory board honoraria from Pierre Favre and Seagen; honoraria for expert testimony from Novartis, Roche and Eisai; travel and congress assistance support from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Eisai. B. Bermejo has received advisory board honoraria from Roche, Novartis and MSD; speakers' honoraria from Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer and Pierfabre; travel and congress assistance support from Pfizer. M. Margelí has received advisory board fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Eisai. Her institution, ICO-Badalona. B-ARGO (Badalona Applied Research Group in Oncology) Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, has received funding research from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Eisai and Kern, and she has received travel and congress assistance support from Roche. A. Antón has received advisory board fees from Bayer Spain, Lilly and Gilead. N. Turner has received advisory board honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Bicycle Therapeutics, Taiho, Zeno pharmaceuticals and Repare; therapeutics and research funding from Astra Zeneca, BioRad, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Clovis, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Guardant Health. E. Alba has received advisory board fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genomic Health and Nanostring. He has received travel support from Celgene. His institution, Hospitales Regional y Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, has received funding research from Roche, Pfizer, Sysmex, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Nanostring. J. de la Haba-Rodríguez has received speaker's honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis and Lilly. M. Ramos has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche and Pfizer. M. Corsaro is employed by Pfizer and has company stock options. X. Huang is employed by Pfizer and has company stock options. Z. Kahan has participated in advisory boards of and received speaker fees or travel support from Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca and Novartis. M. Gil-Gil has received honoraria from Pfizer, Ferrer International and Esteve Pharma. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of the PEARL trial collaborators is provided in the Supplementary Appendix., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The PEARL study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (palbociclib/ET) was not superior to capecitabine in improving progression-free survival in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitors, but was better tolerated. This analysis compared patient-reported outcomes., Patients and Methods: The PEARL quality of life (QoL) population comprised 537 patients, 268 randomised to palbociclib/ET (exemestane or fulvestrant) and 269 to capecitabine. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires. Changes from the baseline and time to deterioration (TTD) were analysed using linear mixed-effect and stratified Cox regression models, respectively., Results: Questionnaire completion rate was high and similar between treatment arms. Significant differences were observed in the mean change in global health status (GHS)/QoL scores from the baseline to cycle 3 (2.9 for palbociclib/ET vs. -2.1 for capecitabine (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-8.6; P = 0.007). The median TTD in GHS/QoL was 8.3 months for palbociclib/ET versus 5.3 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89; P = 0.003). Similar improvements for palbociclib/ET were also seen for other scales as physical, role, cognitive, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. No differences were observed between the treatment arms in change from the baseline in any item of the EQ-5D-L3 questionnaire as per the overall index score and visual analogue scale., Conclusion: Patients receiving palbociclib/ET experienced a significant delay in deterioration of GHS/QoL and several functional and symptom scales compared with capecitabine, providing additional evidence that palbociclib/ET is better tolerated., Trial Registration Number: NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov)., Eudract Study Number: 2013-003170-27., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Z.K. has participated in advisory boards of and received speaker fees or travel support from Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca and Novartis. M.G-G.- has received honoraria from Pfizer and Eisai and has participated in advisory boards of Genentech and Daiichi Sankyo. He has received travel support from Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche and Kern. M.R.B. has received speaker fees and advisory grants from Pfizer, Novartis and Lilly. E.Ca., who has a stock and other ownership interests from Lilly, has received travel and accommodation support from Roche, and her husband, who has participated in consulting and advisory board activities with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Roche Pharma, Janssen, Amgen, Incyte, AbbVie and Pfizer, has received travel and accommodation support from Celgene, Novartis and Bristol Myers Squibb. His institution has received research funding from Celgene, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Amgen, Pfizer and AbbVie. GEICAM has received research funding from Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre and Takeda. E.Ci. has received advisory board honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Roche and speakers' honoraria from Roche, Lilly and Pfizer, and she has received travel and congress assistance support from Pfizer and Roche. M.Mu. has received travel and congress assistance support from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Eisai. B.B. has received advisory board honoraria from Roche, Novartis and MSD and speakers' honoraria from Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer and Pierre Fabre, and she has received travel and congress assistance support from Pfizer. M.Marg. has received advisory board fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Eisai. Her institution, ICO-Badalona. B-ARGO (Badalona Applied Research Group in Oncology) Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, has received research funding from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Eisai and Kern, and she has received travel and congress assistance support from Roche. A.A. has received advisory board fees from Bayer, Spain. E.A. has received advisory board fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genomic Health and Nanostring. He has received travel support from Celgene. His institution, Hospitales Regional y Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, has received research funding from Roche, Pfizer, Sysmex, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Nanostring. J.d.l.H-R. has received speaker's honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis and Lilly. M.R. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche and Pfizer. I.M.A-L. has received consulting or advisory board honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Palex and Roche; speakers' honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche and Eisai; travel and congress assistance support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche and Eisai and research funding from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Roche. E.G-Y. has received honoraria and travel support and has participated in advisory boards for Pfizer, Roche, Novartis and Eli Lilly. S.G-S. has received consulting or advisory board honoraria from Pfizer, MSD, GSK and Roche and speakers' honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Novartis. C.A.R. has received consulting or advisory board honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, SeaGen, DaiiChi Sankyo and Roche and speakers' honoraria from MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Nanostring, Amgen and Eisai. S.S. has received consulting or advisory board or speakers' honoraria from Roche, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, MSD and Genomic Health. M.C. is employed by Pfizer and has the company's stock options. X.H. is employed by Pfizer and has the company's stock options. C.Z. has received consulting fees and speaker's honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Imugene, Ariad, Pfizer, Merrimack, Merck KGaA, FibroGen, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Gilead, Servier, Shire, Eli Lilly and Athenex. His institution, Central European Cancer Center, Wiener Privatklinik Hospital, has received fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Merck KGaA. M.Mart. has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Taiho Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, PharmaMar, Eli Lilly, PUMA, Taiho Oncology and Pfizer; speakers' honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer and contracted research fees from Roche, Novartis and PUMA. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of the PEARL trial collaborators is provided in the Supplementary Appendix., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) is the standard treatment of hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, its efficacy has not been compared with that of chemotherapy in a phase III trial., Patients and Methods: PEARL is a multicentre, phase III randomised study in which patients with aromatase inhibitor (AI)-resistant MBC were included in two consecutive cohorts. In cohort 1, patients were randomised 1 : 1 to palbociclib plus exemestane or capecitabine. On discovering new evidence about estrogen receptor-1 (ESR1) mutations inducing resistance to AIs, the trial was amended to include cohort 2, in which patients were randomised 1 : 1 between palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine. The stratification criteria were disease site, prior sensitivity to ET, prior chemotherapy for MBC, and country of origin. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in cohort 2 and in wild-type ESR1 patients (cohort 1 + cohort 2). ESR1 hotspot mutations were analysed in baseline circulating tumour DNA., Results: From March 2014 to July 2018, 296 and 305 patients were included in cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively. Palbociclib plus ET was not superior to capecitabine in both cohort 2 [median PFS: 7.5 versus 10.0 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.50] and wild-type ESR1 patients (median PFS: 8.0 versus 10.6 months; aHR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.87-1.41). The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities with palbociclib plus exemestane, palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine, respectively, were neutropenia (57.4%, 55.7% and 5.5%), hand/foot syndrome (0%, 0% and 23.5%), and diarrhoea (1.3%, 1.3% and 7.6%). Palbociclib plus ET offered better quality of life (aHR for time to deterioration of global health status: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.53-0.85)., Conclusions: There was no statistical superiority of palbociclib plus ET over capecitabine with respect to PFS in MBC patients resistant to AIs. Palbociclib plus ET showed a better safety profile and improved quality of life., Competing Interests: Disclosure MM has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Taiho Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, PharmaMar, Eli Lilly, PUMA, Taiho Oncology, and Pfizer; speakers' honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Pfizer; contracted research fees from Roche, Novartis, and PUMA. CZ has received consulting fees and speaker’s honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Imugene, Ariad, Pfizer, Merrimack, Merck KGaA, Fibrogen, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Gilead, Servier, Shire, Eli Lilly, and Athenex. His institution, Central European Cancer Center, Wiener Privatklinik Hospital, has received fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Merck KGaA. MRB has received speaker fees and advisory grants from Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly. EC, who has a stock and other ownership interests from Lilly, has received travel and accommodation support from Roche, and her husband who has participated in consulting and advisory board activities with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Roche Pharma, Janssen, Amgen, Incyte, Abbvie, and Pfizer, has received travel and accommodation support from Celgene, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. His institution has received research funding from Celgene, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Roche/Genentech, Amgen, Pfizer, and Abbvie. GEICAM has received research funding from Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Takeda. NT has received advisory board honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Bicycle Therapeutics, Taiho, Zeno Pharmaceuticals, and Repare Therapeutics and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bio-Rad, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Clovis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Guardant Health. MM has received travel and congress assistance support from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and Eisai. BB has received advisory board honoraria from Genentech, Novartis, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, speakers’ honoraria from Genentech, Eisai and she has received travel and congress assistance support from Pfizer. MM has received advisory board fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and Eisai. Her institution, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, has received funding research from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Eisai, and Kern. AA has received advisory board fees from Bayer, Spain. EA has received advisory board fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genomic Health, and Nanostring. He has received travel support from Celgene. His institution, Hospitales Regional y Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, has received funding research from Roche, Pfizer, Sysmex, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Nanostring. EG-Y has received honoraria, travel support, and has participated in advisory boards for Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, and Eli Lilly. ÁG-Z has received investigational fees and travel support from Pfizer. JdelaH has received honoraria from AstrazZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Agendia. MR has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, and Pfizer. IÁ has received consulting or advisory board honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche; speakers’ honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Eisai; travel and congress assistance support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, and Eisai. CH has a stock from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, she was an employee of Pfizer during the study, and is an employee of AstraZeneca currently, where she holds a stock. MK has Pfizer stock and was an employee of Pfizer during the study. MC is employed by Pfizer and has the company’s stock options. XH is employed by Pfizer and has the company’s stock options. JAG-S has consultancy/speaker fees from Novartis, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Eisai, and AstraZeneca. He received travel support from Novartis, Roche, and Pfizer. His institution, Hospital Clínico Universitario San Carlos, received research funding from AstraZeneca. MG-G has received honoraria from Pfizer and Eisai and has participated in advisory boards of Genentech and Daiichi-Sankyo. He has received travel support from Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche, and Kern. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of the PEARL trial collaborators is provided in the Supplementary Appendix., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background/aim: Anti-cancer therapies may deteriorate cognitive functioning, affective functioning and psychological well-being., Materials and Methods: In this prospective longitudinal pilot study, premenopausal and postmenopausal patients received adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) (tamoxifen with or without LHRH analog or aromatase inhibitor) or were observed only (control group). At baseline testing and 6, 12 and 24 months thereafter, cognitive, depression and anxiety tests and quality of life (QOL) measurements were performed., Results: Overall, 46 cases were evaluated. None of the studied cognitive parameters differed between the subgroups or changed by time. No differences were found regarding anxiety, depression or QOL measures either. Baseline cognitive test and QOL results were in association with later anxiety and depression., Conclusion: No cognitive impairment was found during the two years of ET. Baseline cognitive scores and QOL dimensions proved good predictors of later anxiety and depression., (Copyright© 2019, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment with recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is accepted standard for prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. RGB-02 (Gedeon Richter) is a proposed biosimilar to pegylated G-CSF (Neulasta®, Amgen) with sustained release properties. This is a randomized, comparative, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate efficacy and safety of RGB-02 in breast cancer patients receiving cytotoxic regimen., Methods: Two hundred thirty-nine women presenting with breast cancer were randomized to RGB-02 (n = 121) and the reference product (n = 118). All patients received up to 6 cycles of docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy combination and a once-per-cycle injection of a fixed 6 mg dose of pegfilgrastim. Primary endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.5 × 10 9 /L) in Cycle 1 (2-sided CI 95%). Secondary endpoints included incidence and duration of severe neutropenia (in cycles 2-4), incidence of febrile neutropenia, time to ANC recovery, depth of ANC nadir, and safety outcomes., Results: The mean duration of severe neutropenia in Cycle 1 was 1.7 (RGB-02) and 1.6 days (reference), with a difference (LS Mean) of 0.1 days (95% CI -0.2, 0.4). Equivalence could be established as the CI for the difference in LS Mean lay entirely within the pre-defined range of ±1 day. This positive result was supported by the analysis of secondary endpoints, which also revealed no clinical meaningful differences. Safety profiles were comparable between groups. No neutralizing antibodies against pegfilgrastim were identified., Conclusions: Treatment equivalence in reducing the duration of chemotherapy induced neutropenia between RGB-02 and Neulasta® could be demonstrated. Similar efficacy and safety profiles of the once-per-cycle administration of RGB-02 and the pegfilgrastim reference were demonstrated., Trial Registration: The trial was registered prospectively, prior to study initiation. EudraCT number ( 2013-003166-14 ). The date of registration was 12 July, 2013.

Background: Overexpression of fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1), found in ≤8% of hormone receptor-positive (HR + ), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2 - ) breast cancer cases, is correlated with decreased overall survival and resistance to endocrine therapy (ET). Dovitinib, a potent FGFR inhibitor, has demonstrated antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with FGFR pathway-amplified breast cancer., Methods: In this randomized, placebo-controlled phase II trial, we evaluated whether the addition of dovitinib to fulvestrant would improve outcomes in postmenopausal patients with HR + , HER2 - advanced breast cancer that had progressed during or after prior ET. Patients were stratified by FGF pathway amplification and presence of visceral disease, and they were randomized 1:1 to receive fulvestrant plus dovitinib or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: From 15 May 2012 to 26 November 2014, 97 patients from 36 centers were enrolled. The frequency of FGF pathway amplification was lower than anticipated, and the study was terminated early owing to slow accrual of patients with FGF pathway amplification. The median PFS (95% CI) was 5.5 (3.8-14.0) months vs 5.5 (3.5-10.7) months in the dovitinib vs placebo arms, respectively (HR, 0.68; did not meet predefined efficacy criteria). For the FGF pathway-amplified subgroup (n = 31), the median PFS (95% CI) was 10.9 (3.5-16.5) months vs 5.5 (3.5-16.4) months in the dovitinib vs placebo arms, respectively (HR, 0.64; met the predefined superiority criteria). Frequently reported adverse events in the dovitinib (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, asthenia, and headache) and placebo (diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and asthenia) arms were mostly low grade., Conclusions: The safety profile of dovitinib plus fulvestrant was consistent with the known safety profile of single-agent dovitinib. Dovitinib in combination with fulvestrant showed promising clinical activity in the FGF pathway-amplified subgroup. However, the data reported herein should be interpreted with caution, given that fewer PFS events occurred in the FGF pathway-amplified patients than was expected and that an effect of dovitinib regardless of FGR pathway amplification status cannot be excluded, because the population was smaller than expected., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01528345 . Registered 31 January 2012.

Background: The randomised phase III TANIA trial demonstrated that continuing bevacizumab with second-line chemotherapy for locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC) after progression on first-line bevacizumab-containing therapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy alone [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.93]. We report final results from the TANIA trial, including overall survival (OS) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)., Patients and Methods: Patients with HER2-negative LR/mBC that had progressed on or after first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy were randomised to receive standard second-line chemotherapy either alone or with bevacizumab. At second progression, patients initially randomised to bevacizumab continued bevacizumab with their third-line chemotherapy, but those randomised to chemotherapy alone were not allowed to cross over to receive third-line bevacizumab. The primary end point was second-line PFS; secondary end points included third-line PFS, combined second- and third-line PFS, OS, HRQoL and safety., Results: Of the 494 patients randomised, 483 received second-line therapy; 234 patients (47% of the randomised population) continued to third-line study treatment. The median duration of follow-up at the final analysis was 32.1 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm and 30.9 months in the bevacizumab plus chemotherapy arm. There was no statistically significant difference between treatment arms in third-line PFS (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.06), combined second- and third-line PFS (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.05) or OS (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.76-1.21). Third-line safety results showed increased incidences of proteinuria and hypertension with bevacizumab, consistent with safety results for the second-line treatment phase. No differences in HRQoL were detected., Conclusions: In this trial, continuing bevacizumab beyond first and second progression of LR/mBC improved second-line PFS, but no improvement in longer term efficacy was observed. The second-line PFS benefit appears to be achieved without detrimentally affecting quality of life., Clinicaltrialsgov: NCT01250379., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Correlations between development of hand-foot syndrome (HFS) and efficacy in patients receiving capecitabine (CAP)-containing therapy are reported in the literature. We explored the relationship between HFS and efficacy in patients receiving CAP plus bevacizumab (BEV) in the TURANDOT randomised phase III trial., Methods: Patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC) who had received no prior chemotherapy for LR/mBC were randomised to BEV plus paclitaxel or BEV-CAP until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. This analysis included patients randomised to BEV-CAP who received ⩾1 CAP dose. Potential associations between HFS and both overall survival (OS; primary end point) and progression-free survival (PFS; secondary end point) were explored using Cox proportional hazards analyses with HFS as a time-dependent covariate (to avoid overestimating the effect of HFS on efficacy). Landmark analyses were also performed., Results: Among 277 patients treated with BEV-CAP, 154 (56%) developed HFS. In multivariate analyses, risk of progression or death was reduced by 44% after the occurrence of HFS; risk of death was reduced by 56%. The magnitude of effect on OS increased with increasing HFS grade. In patients developing HFS within the first 3 months, median PFS from the 3-month landmark was 10.0 months vs 6.2 months in patients without HFS. Two-year OS rates were 63% and 44%, respectively., Conclusions: This exploratory analysis indicates that HFS occurrence is a strong predictor of prolonged PFS and OS in patients receiving BEV-CAP for LR/mBC. Early appearance of HFS may help motivate patients to continue therapy., Competing Interests: CZ has received honoraria from and acted as a consultant for Roche; SB has received honoraria from and acted as a consultant for Roche, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Novartis; ZK has acted as a consultant for Roche; DV has received honoraria from Roche and Novartis and has acted as a consultant for Roche and Sanofi Aventis; DM is an employee of a contract research organisation that provides services to F. Hoffmann-La Roche; and TB has received honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, GSK, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, PharmaMar, PrimeOncology, and Roche, and has acted as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, and PharmaMar. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Background: The randomised phase III TURANDOT trial compared first-line bevacizumab-paclitaxel (BEV-PAC) vs bevacizumab-capecitabine (BEV-CAP) in HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). The interim analysis revealed no difference in overall survival (OS; primary end point) between treatment arms; however, progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate were significantly superior with BEV-PAC. We sought to identify patient populations that may be most appropriately treated with one or other regimen., Methods: Patients with HER2-negative LR/mBC who had received no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomised to either BEV-PAC (bevacizumab 10 mg kg(-1) days 1 and 15 plus paclitaxel 90 mg m(-2) days 1, 8 and 15 q4w) or BEV-CAP (bevacizumab 15 mg kg(-1) day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg m(-2) bid days 1-14 q3w). The study population was categorised into three cohorts: triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), high-risk hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and low-risk HR+. High- and low-risk HR+ were defined, respectively, as having ⩾2 vs ⩽1 of the following four risk factors: disease-free interval ⩽24 months; visceral metastases; prior (neo)adjuvant anthracycline and/or taxane; and metastases in ⩾3 organs., Results: The treatment effect on OS differed between cohorts. Non-significant OS trends favoured BEV-PAC in the TNBC cohort and BEV-CAP in the low-risk HR+ cohort. In all three cohorts, there was a non-significant PFS trend favouring BEV-PAC. Grade ⩾3 adverse events were consistently less common with BEV-CAP., Conclusions: A simple risk factor index may help in selecting bevacizumab-containing regimens, balancing outcome, safety profile and patient preference. Final OS results are expected in 2015 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00600340).

Background: Reducing treatment delay improves outcomes in breast cancer. The aim of this study was to determine factors influencing patient- and system-related delays in commencing breast cancer treatment in different countries., Methods: A total of 6588 female breast cancer patients from 12 countries were surveyed. Total delay time was determined as the sum of the patient-related delay time (time between onset of the first symptoms and the first medical visit) and system-related delay time (time between the first medical visit and the start of therapy)., Results: The average patient-related delay time and total delay time were 4.7 (range: 3.4-6.2) weeks and 14.4 (range: 11.5-29.4) weeks, respectively. Longer patient-related delay times were associated with distrust and disregard, and shorter patient-related delay times were associated with fear of breast cancer, practicing self-examination, higher education level, being employed, having support from friends and family and living in big cities. The average system-related delay time was 11.1 (range: 8.3-24.7) weeks. Cancer diagnosis made by an oncologist versus another physician, higher education level, older age, family history of female cancers and having a breast lump as the first cancer sign were associated with shorter system-related delay times. Longer patient-related delay times and higher levels of distrust and disregard were predictors of longer system-related delay times., Conclusions: The delay in diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer remains a serious problem. Several psychological and behavioural patient attributes strongly determine both patient-related delay time and system-related delay time, but their strength is different in particular countries., (© The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.)

Background: Randomised phase 3 trials in metastatic breast cancer have shown that combining bevacizumab with either paclitaxel or capecitabine significantly improves progression-free survival and response rate compared with chemotherapy alone but the relative efficacy of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine has not been investigated. We compared the efficacy of the two regimens., Methods: In this open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received no chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomised (by computer-generated sequence; 1:1 ratio; block size six; stratified by hormone receptor status, country, and menopausal status) to receive either intravenous bevacizumab (10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) plus intravenous paclitaxel (90 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15) repeated every 4 weeks (paclitaxel group) or intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1) plus oral capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14) repeated every 3 weeks (capecitabine group) until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Treatment allocation was not masked because of the differences in routes of administration and cycle lengths. The primary objective was to show non-inferior overall survival with bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel. We report results of an interim overall survival analysis, which was planned for after 175 deaths in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00600340., Findings: Between Sept 10, 2008, and Aug 30, 2010, we randomised 564 patients (paclitaxel group n=285; capecitabine group n=279) from 51 centres in 12 countries. The per-protocol population consisted of 533 patients (paclitaxel group n=268; capecitabine group n=265). After median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 14·9-24·7), 181 patients in the per-protocol population had died (89 [33%] in the paclitaxel group; 92 [35%] in the capecitabine group). The hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival was 1·04 (97·5% repeated CI -∞ to 1·69; p=0·059); the non-inferiority criterion of the interim analysis (interim α=0·00105) was not met. More patients who received bevacizumab plus paclitaxel had an objective response than did those who received bevacizumab plus capecitabine (125 [44%] of 285 patients vs 76 [27%] of 279; p<0·0001). Similarly, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the paclitaxel group than in the capecitabine group (median progression-free survival 11·0 months [95% CI 10·4-12·9] vs 8·1 months [7·1-9·2]; HR 1·36 [95% CI 1·09-1·68], p=0·0052). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (51 [18%]), peripheral neuropathy (39 [14%]), and leucopenia (20 [7%]) in the paclitaxel group and hand-foot syndrome (44 [16%]), hypertension (16 [6%]), and diarrhoea (15 [5%]) in the capecitabine group. One treatment-related death occurred in the paclitaxel group; no deaths in the capecitabine group were deemed to be treatment-related., Interpretation: In this planned interim analysis, the non-inferiority criterion was not met and overall survival results are inconclusive. Final results are expected in 2014. Progression-free survival was better, and more patients achieved an objective response, with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel than with bevacizumab plus capecitabine. Efficacy results in both groups were consistent with previous reports., Funding: Central European Cooperative Oncology Group; Roche., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The presence of multifocality and the aggregate tumor size were retrospectively analysed in a database of 1071 operated breast cancers. Around a quarter of all these cancers involved multiple foci, while a tenth of the total demonstrated more than one invasive focus. Although the multifocal cancers were smaller and more often screen-detected than the unifocal cancers, their aggregate tumor size was larger, and they more frequently displayed casting-type calcifications in the mammogram and HER2 positivity. Lobular histology favoured larger tumor burden. The invasive multifocal cancers were more commonly lymph node-positive than the other tumors. In a subgroup of 584 patients with a median follow-up time of 5 years, the larger size of the invasive tumor, the presence of LVI or lymph node involvement, HER2 positivity and triple negativity were associated with a poorer RFS and OS, while the outcome of screen-detected tumors was superior to that of non-screen-detected or interval cancers. A large tumor size, lymph node positivity and HER2 positive or triple negative phenotypes were independent determinants of a poorer survival rate.

The Faslodex Investigation of Dose evaluation in Estrogen Receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (FINDER)2 study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of three fulvestrant dosing regimens. FINDER2 enrolled Western postmenopausal women recurring or progressing after prior endocrine therapy. Primary endpoint: objective response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints: time to progression (TTP), clinical benefit rate (CBR), tolerability, and PK parameters. Patients were randomized to receive fulvestrant: 250 mg/month (approved dose [AD]); 250 mg plus loading dose (loading dose [LD]; 500 mg on day 0, 250 mg on days 14, 28, and monthly thereafter); or 500 mg (high dose [HD]; 500 mg/month plus 500 mg on day 14 of Month 1). Treatment continued until disease progression or discontinuation. 144 patients were randomized: fulvestrant AD (n = 47); LD (n = 51); HD (n = 46). ORRs were: 8.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.4, 20.4%), 5.9% (1.2, 16.2%), and 15.2% (6.3, 28.9%) in the AD, LD, and HD arms, respectively. CBRs were: 31.9% (95% CI: 19.1, 47.1%), 47.1% (32.9, 61.5%), and 47.8% (32.9, 63.1%) for the AD, LD, and HD arms, respectively. Median TTP (months) was numerically longer for HD (6.0) and LD (6.1) versus AD (3.1). Tolerability was similar across dosing regimens. Steady-state plasma fulvestrant concentrations were predictable and achieved earlier with LD and HD. While there appeared to be a trend toward improved efficacy with HD and LD versus AD, no significant differences could be shown. A parallel study (FINDER1) has reported similar findings in Japanese patients.

Background: The objectives of this phase III trial were to compare the time to progressive disease (TtPD), overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, and toxicity of gemcitabine, epirubicin, and paclitaxel (GET) versus fluorouracil (FU), epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Patients and Methods: Female patients aged 18 to 75 years with stage IV and measurable MBC were enrolled and randomly assigned to either gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2), days 1 and 4), epirubicin (90 mg/m(2), day 1), and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), day 1) or FU (500 mg/m(2), day 1), epirubicin (90 mg/m(2), day 1), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m(2), day 1). Both regimens were administered every 21 days for a maximum of eight cycles., Results: Between October 1999 and November 2002, 259 patients (GET, n = 124; FEC, n = 135) were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across treatment arms. After a median of 20.4 months of follow-up, median TtPD was 9.1 months and 9.0 months in the GET and FEC arms, respectively (P = .557). The ORR was 62.3% in the GET arm (n = 114) and 51.2% in the FEC arm (n = 129; P = .093). Grade 3 and 4 toxicities, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, stomatitis, neurosensory toxicity, and allergy, occurred significantly more often in the GET arm., Conclusion: No significant differences in terms of TtPD and ORR were observed between the two treatment arms. Treatment-related toxicity was higher in the GET arm.

Objective: The feasibility of dose-dense sequential adjuvant chemotherapy with Adriamycin, paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide was evaluated., Methods: Fifty-five high-risk breast cancer patients were enrolled. The following chemotherapy schedule was used: 4 x Adriamycin --> 4 x paclitaxel --> 4 x cyclophosphamide, q 2 weeks (Adriamycin, 60 mg/m2; paclitaxel, 200 mg/m2 over 3 h, and cyclophosphamide, 800 mg/m2)., Results: The dose intensity was 95.0, 99.8 and 97.4% of that planned for treatment with Adriamycin, paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide, respectively. During treatment with Adriamycin, paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide, 20, 12.7 and 25.5% of the patients, respectively, did not need filgrastim to maintain the dose density. The average number of filgrastim doses per cycle, when necessary, was 3.6. Neutropenia of grade 3-4 was found in 67.3, 13.5 and 10.0% of the patients after treatment with Adriamycin, paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide, respectively. A single case of febrile neutropenia was observed. Anemia occurred in 96.4% of the patients, and was significantly more frequent (p = 0.031) and more severe (p = 0.002) during paclitaxel treatment than in the other chemotherapy cycles., Conclusions: Dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with Adriamycin, paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide is well tolerated and safe. Individual treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor is needed to maintain the dose density in most patients, but some tolerate this regimen without it, probably due to differences in drug clearances., ((c) 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel)