Quality of life with palbociclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with endocrine-sensitive hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: patient-reported outcomes from the FLIPPER trial.

Background: In the FLIPPER trial, palbociclib/fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo/fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). Objective: We assessed health-related quality of life (QoL) using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Design and methods: In this phase II double-blinded study, PROs were assessed at baseline after every three cycles and at the end of the treatment using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration (TTD) in global health status (GHS)/QoL was defined as a decrease of ⩾10 points. Changes from baseline (CFB) and TTD were analysed using linear mixed-effect and Cox regression models, respectively. Results: Of the 189 randomised (1:1) patients, 178 (94%) completed ⩾1 post-baseline assessment; 50% received ⩾22 cycles of study treatment, with a questionnaire compliance >90%. Mean baseline scores were comparable between arms. GHS/QoL scores were maintained throughout the palbociclib/fulvestrant treatment. CFB showed significant differences for GHS/QoL, appetite loss, constipation and systemic therapy side effect scores favouring placebo/fulvestrant. TTD in GHS/QoL was delayed in placebo/fulvestrant versus palbociclib/fulvestrant [30.3 versus 11.1 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.57, 95% CI: 1.03-2.39, p = 0.036]; this difference was not significant in patients with progressive disease (aHR: 1.2, 95% CI: 0.6-2.2, p = 0.658). No statistically significant differences in TTD were found for the other QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 scales. Conclusions: Although TTD in GHS/QoL was prolonged with placebo/fulvestrant, no differences were observed on other functional or symptom scales. This finding and the improvement in PFS support the combination of palbociclib/fulvestrant as a beneficial therapeutic option for HR+/HER2- ABC. Trial registration number: Sponsor Study Code: GEICAM/2014-12EudraCT Number: 2015-002437-21ClinTrials.gov reference: NCT02690480.

Real-world safety and effectiveness of maintenance niraparib for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: A GEICO retrospective observational study within the Spanish expanded-access programme.

AIM: To describe patient characteristics, effectiveness and safety in a real-world population treated with niraparib in the Spanish expanded-access programme. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study included women with platinum-sensitive recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer who received maintenance niraparib within the Spanish niraparib expanded-access programme. Eligible patients had received ≥2 previous lines of platinum-containing therapy, remained platinum-sensitive after the penultimate line of platinum and had responded to the most recent platinum-containing therapy. Niraparib dosing was at the treating physician's discretion (300 mg/day fixed starting dose or individualised starting dose [ISD] according to baseline body weight and platelet count). Safety, impact of dose adjustments, patient characteristics and effectiveness were analysed using data extracted from medical records. RESULTS: Among 316 eligible patients, 80% had BRCA wild-type tumours and 66% received an ISD. Median niraparib duration was 7.8 months. The most common adverse events typically occurred within 3 months of starting niraparib. Median progression-free survival was 8.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.6-10.0) months. One- and 2-year overall survival rates were 86% (95% CI 81-89%) and 65% (95% CI 59-70%), respectively. Dose interruptions, dose reductions, haematological toxicities and asthenia/fatigue were less common with ISD than fixed starting dose niraparib, but progression-free survival was similar irrespective of dosing strategy. Subsequent therapy included platinum in 71% of patients who received further treatment. CONCLUSION: Outcomes in this large real-world dataset of niraparib-treated patients are consistent with phase III trials, providing reassuring evidence of the tolerability and activity of niraparib maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT04546373.

SEOM-GECOD clinical guideline for unknown primary cancer (2021).

Cancer of unknown primary site (CUP) is defined as a heterogeneous group of tumors that appear as metastases, and of which standard diagnostic work-up fails to identify the origin. It is considered a separate entity with a specific biology, and nowadays molecular characteristics and the determination of actionable mutations may be important in a significant group of patients. In this guide, we summarize the diagnostic, therapeutic, and possible new developments in molecular medicine that may help us in the management of this unique disease entity.

Phase III Trial of Adjuvant Capecitabine After Standard Neo-/Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Early Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (GEICAM/2003-11_CIBOMA/2004-01).

PURPOSE: Operable triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) have a higher risk of relapse than non-TNBCs with standard therapy. The GEICAM/2003-11_CIBOMA/2004-01 trial explored extended adjuvant capecitabine after completion of standard chemotherapy in patients with early TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were those with operable, node-positive-or node negative with tumor 1 cm or greater-TNBC, with prior anthracycline- and/or taxane-containing chemotherapy. After central confirmation of TNBC status by immunohistochemistry, patients were randomly assigned to either capecitabine or observation. Stratification factors included institution, prior taxane-based therapy, involved axillary lymph nodes, and centrally determined phenotype (basal v nonbasal, according to cytokeratins 5/6 and/or epidermal growth factor receptor positivity by immunohistochemistry). The primary objective was to compare disease-free survival (DFS) between both arms. RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-six patients were randomly assigned to capecitabine (n = 448) or observation (n = 428). Median age was 49 years, 55.9% were lymph node negative, 73.9% had a basal phenotype, and 67.5% received previous anthracyclines plus taxanes. Median length of follow-up was 7.3 years. DFS was not significantly prolonged with capecitabine versus observation [hazard ratio (HR), 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06; P = .136]. In a preplanned subgroup analysis, nonbasal patients seemed to derive benefit from the addition of capecitabine with a DFS HR of 0.53 versus 0.94 in those with basal phenotype (interaction test P = .0694) and an HR for overall survival of 0.42 versus 1.23 in basal phenotype (interaction test P = .0052). Tolerance of capecitabine was as expected, with 75.2% of patients completing the planned 8 cycles. CONCLUSION: This study failed to show a statistically significant increase in DFS by adding extended capecitabine to standard chemotherapy in patients with early TNBC. In a preplanned subset analysis, patients with nonbasal phenotype seemed to obtain benefit with capecitabine, although this will require additional validation.

Anti-HER2 Therapy Beyond Second-Line for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Short Review and Recommendations for Several Clinical Scenarios from a Spanish Expert Panel.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this project was to provide an expert opinion regarding anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapy beyond second-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer (mBC). METHODS: A group of experts discussed specific issues concerning anti-HER2 therapy in late-line settings in mBC. RESULTS: Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) or dual HER2 blockade appeared to be good options for HER2-positive mBC after ≥ 2 HER2-targeted therapies. Once an objective response has been achieved with anti-HER2-containing therapy, the anti-HER2 agent can be continued until progression of the disease, unacceptable toxicity or patient decision. mBC treated with ≥ 3 consecutive lines of anti-HER therapy, ≥ 1 being a dual HER2 blockade and with early progression of disease during a fourth or later-line treatment, are clinically resistant to anti-HER therapy. For progression of metastasis in the brain after anti-HER2 therapy, lapatinib and chemotherapy appear to be a good alternative after best local treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Further clinical trials are needed to provide valuable knowledge about the best treatment options in the later settings of mBC.

Bevacizumab and temozolomide versus temozolomide alone as neoadjuvant treatment in unresected glioblastoma: the GENOM 009 randomized phase II trial.

We sought to determine the impact of bevacizumab on reduction of tumor size prior to chemoradiotherapy in unresected glioblastoma patients. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive temozolomide (TMZ arm) or temozolomide plus bevacizumab (TMZ + BEV arm). In both arms, neoadjuvant treatment was temozolomide (85 mg/m(2), days 1-21, two 28-day cycles), concurrent radiation plus temozolomide, and six cycles of adjuvant temozolomide. In the TMZ + BEV arm, bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) was added on days 1 and 15 of each neoadjuvant cycle and on days 1, 15 and 30 of concurrent treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed response to neoadjuvant treatment. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the impact on outcome of MGMT methylation in tumor and serum. One hundred and two patients were included; 43 in the TMZ arm and 44 in the TMZ + BEV arm were evaluable for response. Results favored the TMZ + BEV arm in terms of objective response (3 [6.7 %] vs. 11 [22.9 %]; odds ratio 4.2; P = 0.04). PFS and OS were longer in the TMZ + BEV arm, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. MGMT methylation in tumor, but not in serum, was associated with outcome. More patients experienced toxicities in the TMZ + BEV than in the TMZ arm (P = 0.06). The combination of bevacizumab plus temozolomide is more active than temozolomide alone and may well confer benefit in terms of tumor shrinkage in unresected patients albeit at the expense of greater toxicity.