Search

Purpose: Due to the clinical significance of radiogenic heart damage, it is important to investigate it with clinical and biological methods. Our aim was to develop reliable in vitro and in vivo animal models which help to study the effect of radiation to the heart and to test potential radiation protective materials.Materials and Methods: In in vitro experiments, cardiomyocyte cells were isolated and cultured from newborn rats. The 24-hour cultures were exposed to different doses (5, 10, 15, 20 Gy) of radiation, and the effect was examined at different latency times (0, 24, 48, 72, 96, 120 h). The cells were cultured in a medium containing 1% fetal bovine serum (FBS), but the experiments were completed in serum-free conditions, too. The toxicity of the radiation was evaluated with calcein fluorescence viability assay.In our in vivo model using adult male rats, we developed a selective heart irradiation technique and determined the dose effect curve. The irradiation was carried out with 20, 25, 30 and 40 Gy. After the irradiation animals were continuously monitored for 3 months (weight, heart ultrasound, measurement of circulating cytokines), and at the end of the third month, they were sacrificed and pathological analyses was performed on the cardiac and lung tissues.Results: In the in vitro experiments, 48 hours after 10 Gy irradiation, 50% of the myocytes, grown in medium containing serum were lost, thus, these circumstances seemed to be the most suitable for the study of the radiation damage. We examined the survival of the cardiac muscle cells in serum-free environment, in this case the radiation dose and latency required for a 50%-cell loss were 10 Gy and 24 hours, respectively.In the in vivo model, echocardiography indicated septal wall motion disturbance in animals receiving a radiation dose of 40 Gy 3 months after the treatment. With histological examination, significant myocardial or vascular damage was not found, however, in animals irradiated with the highest dose (40 Gy) mild radiation pericarditis, fibrotic heart lesions and lung damage were observed by hematoxylin-eosin and Crossman's trichrome staining.Conclusions: In accordance with our initial results, the described in vitro and in vivo models appear to be suitable for studying the mechanisms of radiogenic heart damage. In the following experiments, we intend to raise the radiation dose and to extend the time of observation in order to better evaluate the mechanisms of action of radiation and the effects of radiation protective materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: BEV has been shown to significantly improve the efficacy of both paclitaxel (PAC) and capecitabine (CAP) as first-line therapy for HER2-negative mBC. TURANDOT, a randomized phase III trial comparing BEV-PAC vs BEV-CAP, includes extensive QoL evaluation. Methods: Patients (pts) with HER2-negative mBC who had received no prior chemotherapy for mBC were randomized to receive either BEV-PAC (BEV 10 mg/kg d1 & 15 + PAC 90 mg/m² d1, 8, & 15 q4w) or BEV-CAP (BEV 15 mg/kg d1 + CAP 1000 mg/m² bid d1-14 q3w) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS); QoL, assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30, is a secondary endpoint. Pts were asked to complete QLQ-C30 at baseline, q12w during study therapy, at the end of treatment, and 28 days after discontinuing from the study. Results: On-treatment QoL questionnaires were available from all 561 of the treated pts at baseline, 394 at week 12, 266 at week 24, 186 at week 36, 129 at week 48, and <100 at subsequent assessments. For time points up to week 48, there were more questionnaires available from the BEV-PAC than the BEV-CAP arm; the pattern reversed thereafter. Mean global health score was similar in the two treatment arms with little change from baseline over time. In the BEV-PAC arm, mean baseline score was 58.0, remaining above the baseline score up to week 60; mean changes from baseline ranged from +8.3 at week 96 (n = 4) to -9.2 at week 60; mean changes for time points with data from >50 pts ranged from +1.5 to +2.6. In the BEV-CAP arm, mean baseline score was 56.0; the mean score remained above the baseline mean score until week 96. Mean change from baseline ranged from -3.9 at week 84 to +4.9 at week 96. Mean scores for most individual symptom scales were low (typically <20) at baseline and remained low until week 96, suggesting that symptoms evaluated in QLQ-C30 did not represent a major burden to pts. The highest mean baseline symptom scores in both treatment arms were for fatigue (34.1 with BEVPAC vs 38.8 with BEV-CAP), pain (30.4 vs 34.3, respectively), and insomnia (29.3 vs 32.4, respectively). Mean scores for these symptom scales showed no meaningful increase (representing a deterioration in QoL) over time. Mean scores for the appetite loss and dyspnea scales slightly favored the BEV-CAP arm from week 36 onwards. Scores for financial difficulties fluctuated over time. Physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning scales showed slight or no change over time and no difference between treatment regimens. Conclusion: Extensive QoL evaluation in the TURANDOT trial revealed no clear difference in global health score and little or no difference in functioning and symptom scales between the treatment regimens. Importantly, BEV-containing therapy was not associated with a deterioration in global health score in either arm. This has important implications when considering the potential benefit of a treatment, particularly in the first-line mBC setting, where clinically meaningful endpoints continue to be debated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. We earlier reported patient-related factors influencing the delay in first medical advice for signs of BC in selected countries (J Clin Oncol 2012;30[15S]:578s). The present analysis, which includes additional countries, addresses the factors influencing time from first symptoms of BC to initiation of treatment (Total Delay Time; TDT). Methods. A total of 6,588 female BC patients from 11 countries were surveyed using a uniform questionnaire translated into local languages. TDT was determined using 8 individual scales, including one pertaining to patient delay and 7 related to subsequent steps in a typical diagnostic process. Regression models were constructed using 18 variables concerning diverse contextual and personal patient characteristics. Due to expected differences in the relevant sets of predictors, time between first symptoms and first medical visit (Patient Delay Time; PDT) and time between first medical visit and start of therapy (System Delay Time; SDT) were modeled separately, with multilevel regression. Results. Mean TDT varied in individual countries from 11.5 to 29.4 weeks (grand mean of 14.3 weeks; see table), with 43% of cases with a delay of >12 weeks. Multilevel regression equation indicated that factors significantly correlated with longer PDT were distrust in the medical system and ignoring disease. Patients with fear of the disease, stronger self-examination habits, at least secondary education, being employed, reporting more support from friends and family, and living in cities of >100,000 inhabitants had shorter PDT. Predictors of shorter SDT included being diagnosed by an oncologist vs. other physician, having at least secondary education, being older than 60 years, having a history of cancer in female relatives and having breast lump vs. other BC symptoms. Indicators of longer SDT were PDT >4 weeks, more than one BC symptom detected by patient, distrust in the medical system, disregard of BC signs, less support from friends and family, and having first medical examination in a public vs. private medical center. Individual countries differed significantly with regard to intercept of the multilevel models and slopes of regression coefficients for selected psychological and behavioral attributes. Conclusions. An extensive set of variables potentially impacting delay times, mainly related to psychological and behavioral patient attributes, was examined. Several of them strongly determined both PDT and SDT, but their strength differed between individual countries. Both models (for PDT and SDT), although statistically significant, accounted for approximately 20% of variance in time; therefore other variables, e.g. related to the differences in national healthcare systems (not addressed in this study) might have a stronger impact on delays in the initiation of BC therapy and warrant further analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Prognostic and predictive biomarkers to cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors are lacking. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can be used to profile these patients and dynamic changes in ctDNA could be an early predictor of treatment efficacy. Here, we conducted plasma ctDNA profiling in patients from the PEARL trial comparing palbociclib+fulvestrant versus capecitabine to investigate associations between baseline genomic landscape and on-treatment ctDNA dynamics with treatment efficacy., Experimental Design: Correlative blood samples were collected at baseline [cycle 1-day 1 (C1D1)] and prior to treatment [cycle 1-day 15 (C1D15)]. Plasma ctDNA was sequenced with a custom error-corrected capture panel, with both univariate and multivariate Cox models used for treatment efficacy associations. A prespecified methodology measuring ctDNA changes in clonal mutations between C1D1 and C1D15 was used for the on-treatment ctDNA dynamic model., Results: 201 patients were profiled at baseline, with ctDNA detection associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS)/overall survival (OS). Detectable TP53 mutation showed worse PFS and OS in both treatment arms, even after restricting population to baseline ctDNA detection. ESR1 mutations were associated with worse OS overall, which was lost when restricting population to baseline ctDNA detection. PIK3CA mutations confer worse OS only to patients on the palbociclib+fulvestrant treatment arm. ctDNA dynamics analysis (n = 120) showed higher ctDNA suppression in the capecitabine arm. Patients without ctDNA suppression showed worse PFS in both treatment arms., Conclusions: We show impaired survival irrespective of endocrine or chemotherapy-based treatments for patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer harboring plasma TP53 mutations. Early ctDNA suppression may provide treatment efficacy predictions. Further validation to fully demonstrate clinical utility of ctDNA dynamics is warranted., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: To establish a transborder virtual tumor board (VTB) fostering state-of-the-art management of cancer patients by exchanging knowledge and expertise among oncologists in Central and Southeastern Europe (CEE)., Methods: We established and implemented a VTB based on the WebEx platform. This allowed for password-protected and secure upload of patient cases to be presented and discussed among colleagues from various oncology centers scattered throughout CEE in order to arrive at a recommendation for further diagnoses and/or treatment., Results: A total of 73 cases from 16 oncology centers located in 11 CEE countries were uploaded by 22 physicians; 71 were discussed over the course of 17 virtual meetings between June 2018 and May 2019 and 12 different kinds of malignant diseases were discussed with lung cancer (46.6%), melanoma (19.2%) and bladder cancer (13.6%) being the most commonly presented tumor entities. Of the discussed patients, 93.3% had stage IV disease at the time of presentation, 62.6% received chemotherapy or targeted treatment and 67.1% were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs). The most common causes for presentation and discussion of patient cases were related to the use of ICPIs (80%)., Conclusion: When the need for expertise exceeds locally available resources, web-based VTBs provide a feasible way to discuss patient cases and arrive at conclusions regarding diagnoses and/or treatment across large geographic distances. Moreover, VTBs provide an innovative way for proper, state-of-the-art management of patients with malignant diseases in times of social distancing and the resulting need for restricted interaction during the current SARS-CoV‑2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2) pandemic., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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/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: 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: 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.)