Back to Search Start Over

Post-Progression Treatments after Palbociclib plus Endocrine Therapy in HR+/HER2– Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients: What Is the Better Choice?

Authors :
Alessandra Fabi
Mariangela Ciccarese
Sinome Scagnoli
Michelangelo Russillo
Francesco Schettini
Giuseppe Buono
Vito Lorusso
Katia Cannita
Grazia Arpino
Simonetta Stani
Michela Palleschi
Rosalba Rossello
Giuseppina Sarobba
Agnese Fabbri
Marianna Giampaglia
Patrizia Pellegrini
Vincenzo Adamo
Francesca Morelli
Vittoria Barberi
Gianluigi Ferretti
Giovanna Catania
Simona Pisegna
Francesco Cognetti
Diana Giannarelli
Fabi, Alessandra
Ciccarese, Mariangela
Scagnoli, Sinome
Russillo, Michelangelo
Schettini, Francesco
Buono, Giuseppe
Lorusso, Vito
Cannita, Katia
Arpino, Grazia
Stani, Simonetta
Palleschi, Michela
Rossello, Rosalba
Sarobba, Giuseppina
Fabbri, Agnese
Giampaglia, Marianna
Pellegrini, Patrizia
Adamo, Vincenzo
Morelli, Francesca
Barberi, Vittoria
Ferretti, Gianluigi
Catania, Giovanna
Pisegna, Simona
Cognetti, Francesco
Giannarelli, Diana
Source :
Oncology.
Publication Year :
2021
Publisher :
S. Karger AG, 2021.

Abstract

Background: To date, a consensus has not yet been reached about the therapy sequence after disease progression (PD) on CDK4/6 inhibitors in patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Objectives: The present study assesses, in a real-world setting, the activity of different subsequent therapies in patients who experienced a PD on palbociclib (P) + endocrine therapy (ET), to evaluate the best therapy sequence. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective observational study. Records of consecutive HR+/HER2- MBC patients from January 2017 to May 2019 were reviewed. The primary endpoint was the evaluation of progression-free survival (PFS) according to subsequent treatment lines after progression on P+ET. Toxicity data were also collected. Results: The outcomes were analyzed in 89 MBC patients that had progressed on previous P+ET: 17 patients were on hormone therapy (HT) and 31 patients on chemotherapy (CT) as second-line treatments; seven patients were on HT and 34 on CT as third-line therapies. PFS of patients treated with HT as second-line therapy is significantly improved when compared with patients treated with CT (p=0.01). Considering third-line settings, the difference in PFS was not statistically different between HT and CT. A better outcome in terms of toxicity is observed among HT patients for both second- and third-line therapies. Conclusions: patients who were progressive on P+ET could still benefit from a subsequent ET. In patients who experienced a good efficacy from prior ET, without visceral metastatic sites, HT seems the most suitable option, when compared to CT, also in terms of safety.

Details

ISSN :
14230232 and 00302414
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Oncology
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....07bf479c74f4fed56095b4c362bf2b58