A Real-world Study of Everolimus Plus Aromatase Inhibitor in Hormone Receptor-positive, HER2-negative Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Everolimus in combination with exemestane was shown to offer benefit versus exemestane monotherapy in hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients who progressed after aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The medical records of metastatic breast cancer patients, treated with everolimus, were retrospectively reviewed to generate real life safety and efficacy data. RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent of the patients had received chemotherapy (for early or metastatic disease) and 26% had received chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Among the 25 included patients, the most common adverse events were fatigue, neutropenia, epistaxis, stomatitis, and pneumonitis. Toxicity led to treatment discontinuation in 3 patients (12%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months (95%CI=3.5-10.5). With a median follow-up of 73.3 months, the median overall survival was not reached. Twenty-five percent of the patients had received prior therapy with CDK4/6 inhibitors. Median PFS was significantly shorter in this subgroup (p=0.025). There was also a trend towards a longer PFS in patients with grade 3 breast cancer (p=0.085) and in patients receiving everolimus as first-line treatment (p=0.081). Some long responses were noted, with four patients exhibiting a PFS >5 years. CONCLUSION: These real-life data show that everolimus in combination with AI in patients with HER2-negative, HR-positive advanced breast cancer is an effective treatment with an acceptable toxicity profile.

Do we need prophylactic anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with lung cancer? A review.

Venous thromboembolism is a common complication of malignancy. Lung cancer is considered one of the most thrombogenic cancer types. Primary thromboprophylaxis is not currently recommended for all ambulatory patients with active cancer. In the present narrative review we aim to summarize recent data on the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis as well as on venous thromboembolism risk assessment, focusing on ambulatory patients with lung cancer. A potential benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparins in terms of venous thromboembolism risk reduction and increased overall survival in patients with lung cancer, without a significant increase in bleeding risk, has been reported in several studies. Recent studies also reveal promising results of direct oral anticoagulants regarding their efficacy as primary thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer, including those with lung cancer. However, the use of different study methodologies and the heterogeneity of study populations among the trials limit the extraction of definite results. More randomized, controlled trials, restricted to a well-characterized population of patients with lung cancer, are greatly anticipated. The use of risk assessment tools for stratification of venous thromboembolic risk is warranted. The development of an accurate and practical risk assessment model for patients with lung cancer represents an unmet need.