Search

Objectives: Approximately 20% of UK women aged 70+ with early breast cancer receive primary endocrine therapy (PET) instead of surgery. PET reduces surgical morbidity but with some survival decrement. To complement and utilize a treatment dependent prognostic model, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of surgery plus adjuvant therapies versus PET for women with varying health and fitness, identifying subgroups for which each treatment is cost-effective., Methods: Survival outcomes from a statistical model, and published data on recurrence, were combined with data from a large, multicenter, prospective cohort study of over 3400 UK women aged 70+ with early breast cancer and median 52-month follow-up, to populate a probabilistic economic model. This model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of surgery plus adjuvant therapies relative to PET for 24 illustrative subgroups: Age {70, 80, 90} × Nodal status {FALSE (F), TRUE (T)} × Comorbidity score {0, 1, 2, 3+}., Results: For a 70-year-old with no lymph node involvement and no comorbidities (70, F, 0), surgery plus adjuvant therapies was cheaper and more effective than PET. For other subgroups, surgery plus adjuvant therapies was more effective but more expensive. Surgery plus adjuvant therapies was not cost-effective for 4 of the 24 subgroups: (90, F, 2), (90, F, 3), (90, T, 2), (90, T, 3)., Conclusion: From a UK perspective, surgery plus adjuvant therapies is clinically effective and cost-effective for most women aged 70+ with early breast cancer. Cost-effectiveness reduces with age and comorbidities, and for women over 90 with multiple comorbidities, there is little cost benefit and a negative impact on quality of life., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the Mammary Oncology Assessment of LEE011's (Ribociclib's) Efficacy and Safety (MONALEESA-2) study, combination treatment with the selective inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6 ribociclib with letrozole significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus letrozole alone in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive HR + /HER2 - advanced breast cancer (ABC). Herein we present results from the subset of US patients enrolled in MONALEESA-2., Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with HR + /HER2 - ABC without previous treatment for advanced disease were randomized (1:1) to ribociclib 600 mg/d (3 weeks on/1 week off) with letrozole 2.5 mg/d (continuous) or placebo with letrozole. The primary end point was locally assessed PFS., Results: Overall, 213 US patients were enrolled in MONALEESA-2 (ribociclib, n = 100; placebo, n = 113). Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups and consistent with the global population. With a median follow-up of 27 months, 38 (38%) and 29 (26%) patients in the ribociclib and placebo groups, respectively, had continued to receive treatment. Median PFS was 27.6 months with ribociclib and 15.0 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.53). The most common all-cause adverse events were neutropenia (ribociclib, 72.0% [n = 72]; placebo, 4.6% [n = 5]), nausea (ribociclib, 69.0% [n = 69]; placebo, 44.0% [n = 48]), and fatigue (ribociclib, 60.0% [n = 60]; placebo, 50.5% [n = 55]). Two patients (ribociclib, 2.0%; placebo, 0%) experienced febrile neutropenia., Conclusion: In the US subset of MONALEESA-2, ribociclib with letrozole showed superior efficacy versus letrozole alone. These findings are consistent with the global population and support first-line use of ribociclib with letrozole in patients with HR + /HER2 - ABC., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: The Janus-associated kinase (JAK)/signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway is a key regulator of inflammatory signaling, associated with tumorigenesis, cell survival, and progression. This randomized phase 2 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the addition of ruxolitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, to capecitabine in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and high systemic inflammation (modified Glasgow Prognostic Score [mGPS] ≥ 1)., Methods: Patients with ≤ 2 prior chemotherapy regimens for advanced or metastatic disease or hormone receptor-positive patients with disease progression on prior hormonal therapies were randomized 1:1 to 21-day cycles of ruxolitinib (n = 76) or placebo (n = 73) plus capecitabine. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS)., Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. For ruxolitinib plus capecitabine versus placebo plus capecitabine, median OS was 11.2 months versus 10.9 months (log-rank test P = 0.762); median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.5 months versus 2.5 months (log-rank test P = 0.151); and overall response rate (ORR) was 28.9% versus 13.7% (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test P = 0.024), respectively. A more favorable change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was observed with ruxolitinib plus capecitabine versus placebo plus capecitabine. Both regimens were generally tolerable. A higher incidence of grade 3/4 anemia (25.4% vs 5.6%) and a lower incidence of grade 3/4 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (1.4% vs 12.7%) occurred with ruxolitinib plus capecitabine versus placebo plus capecitabine., Conclusions: The addition of ruxolitinib to capecitabine for patients with advanced breast cancer and high systemic inflammation was generally tolerable; ORR was numerically greater, a more favorable change in HRQoL was observed, but neither OS nor PFS was improved compared with placebo plus capecitabine.

Purpose: The phase 3 MONALEESA-2 study demonstrated that addition of ribociclib (RIB) to letrozole (LET) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here, we evaluated duration of response (DoR), tumor shrinkage, PFS by treatment-free interval (TFI), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)., Methods: Postmenopausal women (N = 668) with HR+ , HER2- ABC and no prior systemic therapy for ABC were randomized to RIB (600 mg/day; 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus LET (2.5 mg/day; continuous) or placebo (PBO) plus LET. Primary end point was PFS; HRQoL was the secondary end point; DoR was exploratory end point and PFS by TFI was post hoc analysis., Results: Of 501 pts with measurable disease and confirmed complete or partial response, median DoR was 26.7 months (95% CI, 24.0-NR) in the RIB arm versus 18.6 months (95% CI, 14.8-23.1) in the PBO arm. At 8 weeks, more pts in the RIB arm (32%) versus the PBO arm (17%) experienced best percentage change ≥ 60%. The average pain reduction was greater in the RIB arm (26%) versus the PBO arm (15%). PFS benefit was seen with RIB vs PBO, irrespective of TFI., Conclusion: RIB plus LET versus PBO plus LET is associated with earlier and more durable tumor response, greater degree of tumor shrinkage and pain reduction, and PFS benefit irrespective of TFI. These data further support RIB plus LET as a first-line treatment option for postmenopausal women with HR+ , HER2- ABC.

Background: Pertuzumab became a standard part of neoadjuvant therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancers approximately halfway through Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST) enrollment, providing a unique opportunity to determine biologically which clinical HER2+ patients benefit most from dual targeting. As a neoadjuvant phase 4 study, NBRST classifies patients by both conventional and molecular subtyping., Methods: Of 308 clinical HER2+ patients enrolled in NBRST between 2011 and 2014 from 62 U.S. institutions, 297 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) with HER2-targeted therapy and underwent surgery. This study compared the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of BluePrint versus clinical subtypes with treatment, specifically differences between trastuzumab (T) treatment and trastuzumab and pertuzumab (T/P) treatment., Results: In this study, 60% of the patients received NCT-T, and 40% received NCT-T/P. The overall pCR rate (ypT0/isN0) was 47%. BluePrint classified 161 tumors (54%) as HER2 type, with a pCR rate of 65%. This was significantly higher than the pCR rate for the 91 HER2+ tumors (31%) classified as luminal (18%) (p = 0.00001) and the 45 tumors (15%) classified as basal (44%) (p = 0.0166). The patients treated with T/P had higher pCR rates than those treated with trastuzumab alone. The difference was most pronounced in the BluePrint luminal patients (8 vs. 31%). The highest pCR was reached by the BluePrint HER2-type patients treated with T/P (76%)., Conclusions: The addition of pertuzumab leads to increased pCR rates for all HER2+ patient groups except for the BluePrint basal-type patients. This better response was most pronounced for the BluePrint luminal-type patients.

Introduction: While breast cancer outcomes are improving steadily in younger women due to advances in screening and improved therapies, there has been little change in outcomes among the older age group. It is inevitable that comorbidities/frailty rates are higher, which may increase the risks of some breast cancer treatments such as surgery and chemotherapy, many older women are healthy and may benefit from their use. Adjusting treatment regimens appropriately for age/comorbidity/frailty is variable and largely non-evidence based, specifically with regard to rates of surgery for operable oestrogen receptor-positive disease and rates of chemotherapy for high-risk disease., Methods and Analysis: This multicentre, parallel group, pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) (2015-18) reported here is nested within a larger ongoing 'Age Gap Cohort Study' (2012-18RP-PG-1209-10071), aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention of decision support interventions to assist in the treatment decision making for early breast cancer in older women. The interventions include two patient decision aids (primary endocrine therapy vs surgery/antioestrogen therapy and chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy) and a clinical treatment outcomes algorithm for clinicians., Ethics and Dissemination: National and local ethics committee approval was obtained for all UK participating sites. Results from the trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed scientific journals., Iras Reference: 115550., Trial Registration Number: European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) number 2015-004220-61;Pre-results. Sponsor's Protocol Code Number Sheffield Teaching Hospitals STH17086. ISRCTN 32447*., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Use of antiangiogenic agents in treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains controversial. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ramucirumab and eribulin versus eribulin alone as third- to fifth-line therapy in women with advanced breast cancer., Patients and Methods: In this randomized (1:1), open-label, phase II study, US women aged 18 years or older with 2 to 4 previous chemotherapy regimens for locally recurrent or MBC, previous anthracycline and taxane treatment, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 received ramucirumab with eribulin or eribulin alone in 21-day cycles (eribulin 1.4 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1 and 8; ramucirumab 10 mg/kg intravenously on day 1). Randomization was stratified according to previous antiangiogenic therapy and triple-negative status. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention to treat population., Results: One hundred forty-one women were randomized to ramucirumab with eribulin (n = 71) or eribulin alone (n = 70). Median PFS for ramucirumab with eribulin was 4.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-6.7) compared with 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.2-5.6) for eribulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56-1.23; P = .35). Median overall survival in patients who received ramucirumab with eribulin was 13.5 months (95% CI, 10.4-17.9) compared with 11.5 months (95% CI, 9.0-17.3) in patients who received eribulin alone (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.59-1.41; P = .68); objective response rate was 21% (13 of 62 patients) for the combination and 28% (17 of 60 patients) for eribulin alone. No unexpected toxicity was identified for the combination., Conclusion: Ramucirumab combined with eribulin did not significantly improve PFS in advanced MBC., (Copyright © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Symphony Trial (NBRST) study found that MammaPrint/BluePrint functional molecular subtype is superior to conventional immunohistochemistry/fluorescence in situ hybridization subtyping for predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The purpose of this substudy was to determine if the rate of pCR is affected by tumor size., Methods: The NBRST study includes breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. MammaPrint/BluePrint subtyping classified patients into four molecular subgroups: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2), and Basal type. Probability of pCR (ypT0/isN0) as a function of tumor size and molecular subgroup was evaluated., Results: A total of 608 patients were evaluable with overall pCR rates of 28.5 %. Luminal A and B patients had significantly lower rates of pCR (6.1 and 8.7 %, respectively) than either basal (37.1 %) or HER2 (55.0 %) patients (p < 0.001). The probability of pCR significantly decreased with tumor size >5 cm [p = 0.022, odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.36, 0.93]. This relationship was statistically significant in the Basal (p = 0.026, OR 0.46, 95 % CI 0.23, 0.91) and HER2 (p = 0.039, OR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.14, 0.95) subgroups. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, the dichotomized tumor size variable was not significant in any of the molecular subgroups., Discussion: Even though tumor size would intuitively be a clinical determinant of pCR, the current analysis showed that the adjusted OR for tumor size was not statistically significant in any of the molecular subgroups. Factors significantly associated with pCR were PR status, grade, lymph node status, and BluePrint molecular subtyping, which had the strongest correlation.

Purpose: The purpose of the NBRST study is to compare a multigene classifier to conventional immunohistochemistry (IHC)/fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) subtyping to predict chemosensitivity as defined by pathological complete response (pCR) or endocrine sensitivity as defined by partial response., Methods: The study includes women with histologically proven breast cancer, who will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) or neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. BluePrint in combination with MammaPrint classifies patients into four molecular subgroups: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2, and Basal., Results: A total of 426 patients had definitive surgery. Thirty-seven of 211 (18 %) IHC/FISH hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2- patients were reclassified by Blueprint as Basal (n = 35) or HER2 (n = 2). Fifty-three of 123 (43 %) IHC/FISH HER2+ patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 36) or Basal (n = 17). Four of 92 (4 %) IHC/FISH triple-negative (TN) patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 2) or HER2 (n = 2). NCT pCR rates were 2 % in Luminal A and 7 % Luminal B patients versus 10 % pCR in IHC/FISH HR+/HER2- patients. The NCT pCR rate was 53 % in BluePrint HER2 patients. This is significantly superior (p = 0.047) to the pCR rate in IHC/FISH HER2+ patients (38 %). The pCR rate of 36 of 75 IHC/FISH HER2+/HR+ patients reclassified as BPLuminal is 3 %. NCT pCR for BluePrint Basal patients was 49 of 140 (35 %), comparable to the 34 of 92 pCR rate (37 %) in IHC/FISH TN patients., Conclusions: BluePrint molecular subtyping reclassifies 22 % (94/426) of tumors, reassigning more responsive patients to the HER2 and Basal categories while reassigning less responsive patients to the Luminal category. These findings suggest that compared with IHC/FISH, BluePrint more accurately identifies patients likely to respond (or not respond) to NCT.

Lapatinib, an oral, reversible inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) tyrosine kinase, has proven antitumor activity in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) is indicated for the treatment of breast cancer after failure of combination chemotherapy for metastatic disease or relapse within 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy. This was an open-label, single-arm, multicenter, Phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus lapatinib in women with HER2 over-expressing MBC who had received no more than one prior chemotherapeutic regimen. The primary efficacy endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). This was defined as the percentage of patients having either a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR). Secondary efficacy endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, duration of response (DoR), time to response (TTR), and time to progression (TTP). Investigator-assessed ORR was 53 % (n = 32, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 40.7-66.0) with the majority of patient responses demonstrating a PR (47 %). Four (7 %) patient responses demonstrated a CR, and ten (17 %) a stable disease. The median Kaplan-Meier estimate of investigator-assessed PFS, DoR, TTR, and TTP was 39.7 weeks (95 % CI 34.1-63.9), 48.7 weeks (95 % CI 31.7-57.1), 7.8 weeks (95 % CI 7.4-8.1), and 41 weeks (95 % CI 39.1-64.6), respectively. Lapatinib 1,000 mg with nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m(2) IV is feasible with manageable and predictable toxicity and an ORR of 53 % comparing favorably with other HER2-based combinations in this setting.

Introduction: A multicenter, open-label phase III study was conducted to test whether sunitinib plus paclitaxel prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) compared with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with HER2(-) advanced breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients with HER2(-) advanced breast cancer who were disease free for ≥ 12 months after adjuvant taxane treatment were randomized (1:1; planned enrollment 740 patients) to receive intravenous (I.V.) paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) every week for 3 weeks in 4-week cycles plus either sunitinib 25 to 37.5 mg every day or bevacizumab 10 mg/kg I.V. every 2 weeks. [corrected], Results: The trial was terminated early because of futility in reaching the primary endpoint as determined by the independent data monitoring committee during an interim futility analysis. At data cutoff, 242 patients had been randomized to sunitinib-paclitaxel and 243 patients to bevacizumab-paclitaxel. Median PFS was shorter with sunitinib-paclitaxel (7.4 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.63 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-2.25]; 1-sided P = .999). At a median follow-up of 8.1 months, with 79% of sunitinib-paclitaxel and 87% of bevacizumab-paclitaxel patients alive, overall survival analysis favored bevacizumab-paclitaxel (HR 1.82 [95% CI, 1.16-2.86]; 1-sided P = .996). The objective response rate was 32% in both arms, but median duration of response was shorter with sunitinib-paclitaxel (6.3 vs. 14.8 months). Bevacizumab-paclitaxel was better tolerated than sunitinib-paclitaxel. This was primarily due to a high frequency of grade 3/4, treatment-related neutropenia with sunitinib-paclitaxel (52%) precluding delivery of the prescribed doses of both drugs., Conclusion: The sunitinib-paclitaxel regimen evaluated in this study was clinically inferior to the bevacizumab-paclitaxel regimen and is not a recommended treatment option for patients with advanced breast cancer., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)