Ribociclib plus Endocrine Therapy in Early Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ribociclib has been shown to have a significant overall survival benefit in patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. Whether this benefit in advanced breast cancer extends to early breast cancer is unclear. METHODS: In this international, open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive ribociclib (at a dose of 400 mg per day for 3 weeks, followed by 1 week off, for 3 years) plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI; letrozole at a dose of 2.5 mg per day or anastrozole at a dose of 1 mg per day for ≥5 years) or an NSAI alone. Premenopausal women and men also received goserelin every 28 days. Eligible patients had anatomical stage II or III breast cancer. Here we report the results of a prespecified interim analysis of invasive disease-free survival, the primary end point; other efficacy and safety results are also reported. Invasive disease-free survival was evaluated with the use of the Kaplan-Meier method. The statistical comparison was made with the use of a stratified log-rank test, with a protocol-specified stopping boundary of a one-sided P-value threshold of 0.0128 for superior efficacy. RESULTS: As of the data-cutoff date for this prespecified interim analysis (January 11, 2023), a total of 426 patients had had invasive disease, recurrence, or death. A significant invasive disease-free survival benefit was seen with ribociclib plus an NSAI as compared with an NSAI alone. At 3 years, invasive disease-free survival was 90.4% with ribociclib plus an NSAI and 87.1% with an NSAI alone (hazard ratio for invasive disease, recurrence, or death, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.91; P = 0.003). Secondary end points - distant disease-free survival and recurrence-free survival - also favored ribociclib plus an NSAI. The 3-year regimen of ribociclib at a 400-mg starting dose plus an NSAI was not associated with any new safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus an NSAI significantly improved invasive disease-free survival among patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative stage II or III early breast cancer. (Funded by Novartis; NATALEE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03701334.).

Single-agent metronomic versus weekly oral vinorelbine as first-line chemotherapy in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: The randomized Tempo Breast study.

INTRODUCTION: Single-agent oral vinorelbine is a standard of care for hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) that has progressed on endocrine therapy. Metronomic administration may offer a better balance of efficacy and safety than standard regimens, but data from previous trials are scarce. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase II trial, patients were randomized to oral vinorelbine administered on a metronomic (50 mg three times weekly) or weekly (60 mg/m2 in cycle 1, increasing to 80 mg/m2 if well tolerated) schedule. Treatment was continued until disease progression or intolerance. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR, the proportion of patients with a best overall confirmed response of CR, PR, or stable disease lasting 6 months or more). RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-three patients were randomized and treated. The DCR was 63.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52.0-73.8) with metronomic vinorelbine and 72.8% (95% CI: 61.8-82.1) with weekly vinorelbine. Weekly vinorelbine was also associated with longer progression-free survival (5.6 vs 4.0 months) and overall survival (26.7 vs 22.3 months) than metronomic vinorelbine, but was associated with more adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized phase II trial, single-agent metronomic oral vinorelbine was effective and well tolerated as first-line chemotherapy for patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative ABC. Formal comparisons are not done in this phase II study and one can simply observe that confidence intervals of all endpoints overlap. When deciding for a chemotherapy after failure of endocrine therapy and CDK 4/6 inhibitors, oral vinorelbine might be an option to be given with either schedule. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2014-003860-19.

Efficacy and Safety of Autologous Dendritic Cell-Based Immunotherapy, Docetaxel, and Prednisone vs Placebo in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The VIABLE Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: DCVAC/PCa is an active cellular immunotherapy designed to initiate an immune response against prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCVAC/PCa plus chemotherapy followed by DCVAC/PCa maintenance treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The VIABLE double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial enrolled patients with mCRPC among 177 hospital clinics in the US and Europe between June 2014 and November 2017. Data analyses were performed from December 2019 to July 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible patients were randomized (2:1) to receive DCVAC/PCa (add-on and maintenance) or placebo, both in combination with chemotherapy (docetaxel plus prednisone). The stratification was applied according to geographical region (US or non-US), prior therapy (abiraterone, enzalutamide, or neither), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0-1 or 2). DCVAC/PCa or placebo was administered subcutaneously every 3 to 4 weeks (up to 15 doses). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), defined as the time from randomization until death due to any cause, in all randomized patients. Survival was compared using 2-sided log-rank test stratified by geographical region, prior therapy with abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. RESULTS: A total of 1182 men with mCRPC (median [range] age, 68 [46-89] years) were randomized to receive DCVAC/PCa (n = 787) or placebo (n = 395). Of these, 610 (81.8%) started DCVAC/PCa, and 376 (98.4%) started placebo. There was no difference in OS between the DCVAC/PCa and placebo groups in all randomized patients (median OS, 23.9 months [95% CI, 21.6-25.3] vs 24.3 months [95% CI, 22.6-26.0]; hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.21; P = .60). No differences in the secondary efficacy end points (radiological progression-free survival, time to prostate-specific antigen progression, or skeletal-related events) were observed. Treatment-emergent adverse events related to DCVAC/PCa or placebo occurred in 69 of 749 (9.2%) and 48 of 379 (12.7%) patients, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (DCVAC/PCa [n = 749] vs placebo [n = 379]) were fatigue (271 [36.2%] vs 152 [40.1%]), alopecia (222 [29.6%] vs 130 [34.3%]), and diarrhea (206 [27.5%] vs 117 [30.9%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, DCVAC/PCa combined with docetaxel plus prednisone and continued as maintenance treatment did not extend OS in patients with mCRPC and was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02111577.

Randomized phase II study evaluating weekly oral vinorelbine versus weekly paclitaxel in estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative patients with advanced breast cancer (NorBreast-231 trial).

BACKGROUND: Single-agent paclitaxel and vinorelbine are recommended treatments for advanced breast cancer (ABC) non-responsive to hormone therapy and without visceral crisis. This phase II trial compared first-line oral vinorelbine versus weekly paclitaxel for ABC. METHODS: Eligible female patients had measurable locally recurrent/metastatic estrogen receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer and had received prior endocrine therapy (any setting) but no chemotherapy for ABC. Patients were stratified by prior taxane and visceral metastases and randomized to either oral vinorelbine 80 mg/m2 (first cycle at 60 mg/m2, escalated to 80 mg/m2 in the absence of grade 3/4 toxicity) or intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR; confirmed complete or partial response, or stable disease for ≥6 weeks). RESULTS: The 131 randomized patients had received a median of 2 prior endocrine therapies; >70% had prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and 79% visceral metastases. DCR was 75.8% (95% confidence interval: 63.6-85.5%) with vinorelbine and 75.4% (63.1-85.2%) with paclitaxel. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (52%), fatigue (11%), and vomiting (5%) with vinorelbine, and neutropenia (17%), dyspnea (6%), hypertension (6%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (5%) with paclitaxel. Grade 2 alopecia occurred in 2% of vinorelbine-treated and 34% of paclitaxel-treated patients. Neither arm showed relevant global health status changes. CONCLUSION: Oral vinorelbine and paclitaxel demonstrated similar DCRs (∼75%). Safety profiles differed and, together with administration route and convenience, may influence treatment choice (EudraCT number, 2012-003530-16).

Imbalance in circulatory iNKT, Th17 and T regulatory cell frequencies in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

T cells are important in B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma immunity, however the function of T cell subsets, including natural killer (iNKT), T helper (Th)17, and T regulatory cells remains to be elucidated. The present study analyzed the frequencies of iNKT, Th17 and T regulatory cells in the peripheral blood of 41 patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma at diagnosis, then during and following immunochemotherapy R-CHOP/R-CVP. At lymphoma diagnosis, iNKT and Th17 frequencies were decreased and T regulatory cell frequencies were increased compared with healthy control group. The Th17 cell percentage was lower in patients with a worse prognosis and at a more advanced clinical stage and in contrast, the percentage of T regulatory cells was increased in patients at advanced stages of lymphoma, compared to earlier stages. There was an increase of iNKT and Th17 cells following R-CHOP/R-CVP therapy. In patients that responded, both prior to and following-treatment, percentages of iNKT and Th17 were higher and T regulatory cells were lower compared with patients with subsequent disease progression. Taken together, the results obtained demonstrated the opposing effects of T cell subsets in B-cell lymphoma immunity, with iNKT and Th17 inhibiting and T regulatory cells enhancing tumor growth. These alterations may be caused by malignant B-cells, however there may also be an axis of inverse feedback between T regulatory cells and their interaction with Th17 and iNKT cells.

Primary and secondary prevention of breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women and is the second cancer frequently occurring worldwide of newly-diagnosed cancers. There is much evidence showing the influence of life style and environmental factors on the development of mammary gland cancer (high-fat diet, alcohol consumption, lack of physical exercise), the elimination of which (primary prevention) may contribute to a decrease in morbidity and mortality. Secondary prevention, comprising diagnostic tests (e.g. mammography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, breast self-examination, as well as modern and more precise imaging methods) help the early detection of tumours or lesions predisposing to tumours. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study paper is to review current knowledge and reports regarding primary and secondary prevention of breast cancer. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE: It is estimated that nearly 70% of malign tumours are caused by environmental factors, whereas in breast cancer this percentage reaches 90-95%. There are national programmes established in many countries to fight cancer, where both types of prevention are stressed as serving to decrease morbidity and mortality due to cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer prevention is currently playing a key role in the fight against the disease. Behaviour modification, as well as greater awareness among women regarding breast cancer, may significantly contribute towards reducing the incidence of this cancer. Another important aspect is the number of women undergoing diagnostic tests, which still remains at an unsatisfactory level.

Life quality of women with breast cancer after mastectomy or breast conserving therapy treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is the most frequent malignant neoplasm in women. The evaluation of the quality of life has become a treatment parameter as important as survival. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was evaluation of the quality of life among women treated for breast cancer who underwent surgical procedures using two alternative methods: mastectomy or breast conserving therapy (BCT). MATERIALS AND METHOD: 85 patients treated with BCT and 94 patients who underwent mastectomy were evaluated. Standard questionnaires for the evaluation of the quality of life of cancer patients were used - QLQ-C30 (Quality of life questionnaire - core 30) with QLQ-BR23 (Breast Cancer Module). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale was also applied. RESULTS: Social and demographic factors (age, education, marital status) influenced the evaluation of the life quality among both groups. Obtained data was also dependent on the type of surgical procedure and chemical treatment. The level of anxiety and depression also influenced the general quality of life and was higher in women who underwent mastectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life plays an important role in the treatment process. Women after BCT declared a higher quality of life compared to patients after mastectomy. The process of making the decision concerning the planned surgical procedure should take into consideration the influence of the intervention on the quality of patients' future life.