The relative effectiveness of eribulin for advanced breast cancer treatment: a study of the southeast Netherlands advanced breast cancer registry.

Background: Eribulin provided significant overall survival (OS) benefit in heavily pretreated advanced breast cancer patients in the EMBRACE trial. We investigated the use of eribulin in daily clinical practice, the relative effectiveness of eribulin versus non-eribulin chemotherapy, and the safety of eribulin in real-world patients included in the SOutheast Netherlands Advanced BREast cancer (SONABRE) registry.Material and methods: Patients treated with eribulin and eligible patients for eribulin who received a different chemotherapy (i.e., non-eribulin group) in ten hospitals in 2013-2017 were included. A multivariate matching algorithm was applied to correct for differences in baseline characteristics between the groups, including the number of previous treatment lines. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS of eribulin were compared with the matched non-eribulin group through Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. The occurrence of dose delay and reduction was described.Results: Forty-five patients received eribulin according to its registration criteria and 74 patients were eligible for eribulin but received non-eribulin chemotherapy. Matching increased the similarity in baseline characteristics between the eribulin and non-eribulin groups. Median PFS was 3.5 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7-5.5) in the eribulin group and 3.2 months (95% CI: 2.0-4.8) in the matched non-eribulin group (adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.83, 95% CI: 0.49-1.38). Median OS was 5.9 months (95% CI: 4.6-11.0) and 5.2 months (95% CI: 4.6-9.5) in the eribulin and non-eribulin groups, respectively (adjusted HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.38-1.13). Dose delay or reduction occurred in 14 patients (31%) receiving eribulin.Conclusions: No difference in PFS and OS was observed between eribulin and non-eribulin treated patients. Eribulin had a manageable toxicity profile.

A real-life study on the implementation and effectiveness of exemestane plus everolimus per hospital type in patients with advanced breast cancer. A study of the Southeast Netherlands Advanced Breast Cancer registry.

PURPOSE: We aimed to assess the implementation and effectiveness of exemestane plus everolimus treatment per hospital type in real-life, shortly after approval of everolimus. METHODS: Advanced breast cancer patients treated with exemestane plus everolimus in 2012-2014 were included from the SONABRE registry. Progression-free survival (PFS) and a 12-week conditional PFS (post-hoc) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was performed by type of hospital and adjusted for patient, tumour and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: We included 122 patients, comprising 48 patients treated in academic (N = 1), 56 in teaching (N = 4), and 18 in non-teaching (N = 2) hospitals. The median PFS was 6.3 months (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 4.0-8.6) overall, and 8.5 months (95% CI 7.7-9.3), 4.2 months (95% CI 2.0-6.3), and 5.5 months (95% CI 4.2-6.7) for the patients treated in academic, teaching and non-teaching hospitals, respectively. The adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) for PFS-events was 1.5 (95% CI 1.0-2.2) and 1.0 (95% CI 0.5-1.9) respectively for patients treated at teaching and non-teaching hospitals versus the academic hospital. The adjusted HR for 12-week conditional PFS-events was not different between hospital types. In the first 12-week treatment period, treatment was discontinued due to early progression in one out of 48 patients in the academic versus nine out of 74 patients in the non-academic hospitals, confirmed by imaging in one and two patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the median PFS was borderline significantly different between hospital types, possibly the result of a different assessment approach in the first 12-week treatment period.

Improved survival for sequentially as opposed to concurrently delivered neoadjuvant chemotherapy in non-metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The INTENS study was designed to determine whether delivering neoadjuvant chemotherapy at a higher dose in a shorter period of time improves outcome of breast cancer patients. METHODS: Women with newly diagnosed breast cancer were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant chemotherapy consisting of four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by four cycles of docetaxel (AC 60/600-T 100 mg/m2) or six cycles of TAC as triplet chemotherapy (75/50/500 mg/m2) every 3 weeks. The primary outcome was the pathologic complete response (pCR), with disease-free and overall survival as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: In total, 201 patients were included. The pCR rates were 28% for patients treated with AC-T and 19% for patients treated with TAC, with an odds ratio of 1.60 (95% CI 0.90-3.21). With a median follow-up of 6 years (range 0.04-8.41 years), the five-year disease-free survival was 81% for patients treated with sequentially AC-T and 71% for patients treated with concurrent triplet TAC chemotherapy with a stratified hazard ratio (HR) of 0.50 (95% CI 0.29-0.86). Five-year overall survival was 84% versus 76%, respectively, with a stratified HR of 0.55 (95% CI 0.29-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: No differences were observed between the two treatment arms with respect to pCR rate, but the sequentially delivered chemotherapy outperformed the triplet combination chemotherapy in terms of survival, despite a lower cumulative dose per agent. GOV nr NCT00314977.

Doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide with concurrent versus sequential docetaxel as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to determine whether delivering neo-adjuvant chemotherapy at a higher dose in a shorter period of time improves outcome of breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with newly diagnosed breast cancer were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant chemotherapy of four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by four cycles of docetaxel (AC 60/600 - T 100 mg/m(2)) or six cycles of TAC (75/50/500 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, defined as no invasive tumour present in the breast. RESULTS: In total, 201 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were well balanced. AC-T resulted in pCR in 21% and TAC in 16% of patients (odds ratio 1.44 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-3.10). AC-T without primary granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis was associated with more febrile neutropenia compared to TAC with primary G-CSF prophylaxis (23% versus 9%), and with more grade 3/4 sensory neuropathy (5% versus 0%). CONCLUSIONS: With a higher cumulative dose for the concurrent arm, no differences were observed between the two treatment arms with respect to pCR rate. The differential toxicity profile could partly be explained by different use of primary G-CSF prophylaxis.