Implementation of CDK4/6 Inhibitors and its Influence on the Treatment Landscape of Advanced Breast Cancer Patients - Data from the Real-World Registry PRAEGNANT.

Background Comprehensive data from prospective clinical trials have led to a high level of evidence establishing CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with endocrine treatment (CDK4/6i + ET) as a standard for the treatment of HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive (HER2- HR+) breast cancer patients in the first-line advanced therapy setting. Data on patient populations that have been treated in the real-world setting may provide an insight into changes of patient characteristics and prognosis over time. Methods The data were extracted from the prospective real-world registry PRAEGNANT (NCT02338167). Patients had to have HER2- HR+ advanced breast cancer in the first-line metastatic setting. The chosen therapies were described as well as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relation to the given therapies and time periods during which they were indicated. Results CDK4/6 inhibitors have been rapidly implemented since their introduction in November 2016. In recent years (2018 - 2022), about 70 - 80% of the patient population have been treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors, while endocrine monotherapy was given to about 10% and chemotherapy to about 15% of all patients. The prognosis was worst in patients treated with chemotherapy. Recently, mainly patients with a good prognosis are being treated with endocrine monotherapy, and patients who are treated with chemotherapy have an unfavorable prognosis. The PFS and OS of patients treated with CDK4/6i + ET have remained similar over time despite changes in patient characteristics. Conclusion A treatment with CDK4/6i + ET has rapidly become the therapy standard for patients in the first-line advanced breast cancer setting. After the implementation of CDK4/6i + ET, endocrine monotherapy is only given to patients with a very favorable prognosis, while chemotherapy is provided to patients with a rather unfavorable prognosis. These changes in patient characteristics did not seem to influence the prognosis of patients treated with CDK4/6i + ET.

High adherence of patients with multiple myeloma who receive treatment with immunomodulatory drugs (IMIDS) in hematology/oncology group practices in Germany.

PURPOSE: Immunomodulatory drugs (IMIDS) have changed the treatment and outcome of patients suffering from multiple myeloma. However, with the oral administration adherence becomes an issue. Since there is no "gold standard" in measuring adherence, we assessed the adherence of myeloma patients with the help of different data sources. METHODS: All patients who have been receiving IMIDS for at least 3 months were eligible. Computer assisted personal interviews of patients and, if possible, their caregivers were carried out. Attending oncologists evaluated the patient's adherence with the help of a standardized questionnaire. In addition, a retrospective analysis of prescription data was conducted. All data were analyzed statistically using SPSS. RESULTS: One hundred myeloma patients, 35% female, 65% male, with a median age of 70 years (37-86) were interviewed. Prescription data could be evaluated in terms of adherence in 78 patients (78%), 56 caregivers could be questioned (56%). Ninety-seven percent of patients rated themselves as adherent in taking IMIDS. Data from treating oncologists, caregivers and prescriptions supported this result. IMID therapies were rated as very effective and significant, toxicities were acceptable and dosing regimens simple/uncomplicated. CONCLUSIONS: Myeloma patients seem to be highly adherent to IMID treatments.

Standard of care of patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) treated in community based oncology group practices between 2001-2015 in Rhineland- Palatinate (Germany)

Background: The aim of this study was to assess retrospectively treatment and outcome of CML-patients in community based oncology practices in Germany and whether European LeukemiaNET (ELN) recommendations were followed. Method: All Ph+, BCR-ABL1+ CML-patients who were treated between 11/2001 and 12/2015 in nine oncology group practices were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Two hundred sixty patients with a median age of 60 (18­90) were analyzed. 254 (98%) were in chronic phase, 5 (2%) in accelerated and 1 (0.4%) in blast crisis. 248 patients (95%) received some form of TKI-therapy. 1st line TKI was imatinib in 197 patients (79%), 51 (21%) received a second generation TKI. 75% of TKI-therapies were monitored by PCR. Overall survival after 10 years according to Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was: CCI 2: 100%; CCI 3­4: 83%; CCI 5­6: 52%; CCI ≥7: 39%. More patients died from comorbidities (8%) than from CML (5%). Whether patients died was strongly correlated to CCI at diagnosis: CCI 2: 3% of patients died, CCI 3­4: 16% of patients died, CCI 5­6: 38% of patients died, CCI ≥ 7: 42% of patients died. Conclusion: CML-patients treated in oncology group practices receive standard of care as recommended by ELN. Overall survival in routine care is comparable to international studies. Molecular monitoring should be improved (AU)

Bone pain reduction in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with ibandronate-results from a post-marketing surveillance study.

BACKGROUND: Pain relief is an important treatment goal for breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease and treatment should be associated with a low rate of side effects. This interim analysis of a prospective non-interventional study documents the efficacy and safety of the amino-bisphosphonate ibandronate in the treatment of metastatic bone disease under real-life conditions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For up to 24 weeks 913 breast cancer patients received IV infusions of 6 mg ibandronate every 3-4 weeks or 50 mg of oral ibandronate once daily. Efficacy variables included pain severity, analgesic use, and skeletal-related events; the major safety parameter was renal function, assessed by serum creatinine levels. Subgroup analyses were performed according to pretreatment with bisphosphonates (none, ibandronate, or other bisphosphonates). RESULTS: At baseline, patients with ibandronate pretreatment tended to have lower mean pain scores and lower serum creatinine levels than those pre-treated with other bisphosphonates. Over the observation period, analgesic use did not increase. Among the 712 patients reporting pain at baseline, 70% achieved an improvement in pain severity during treatment with ibandronate, and there was no evidence to suggest relevant differences in mean pain reductions with IV or oral administration of ibandronate or according to prior bisphosphonate treatment. Skeletal-related events were rare (7%). Changes in serum creatinine levels during ibandronate treatment were small and both formulations of ibandronate were rated as well tolerated by physicians and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this non-interventional study confirm the analgesic efficacy and safety profile of IV and oral ibandronate under real-life conditions.