Endocrine therapy or chemotherapy as first-line therapy in hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: For hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2-) negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC), international guidelines recommend endocrine therapy as first-line treatment, except in case of 'visceral crisis'. In the latter case, chemotherapy is preferred. Few studies have compared these two strategies. We used the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) programme, UNICANCER, a large national observational database (NCT03275311), to address this question. METHODS: All patients who initiated treatment for a newly diagnosed HR+ HER2-negative MBC between January 2008 and December 2014 in any of the 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centers participating to ESME were selected. Patients should be aromatase inhibitor (AI)-sensitive (no previous AI or relapse occurring more than 1 year after last adjuvant AI). Objectives of the study were evaluation of progression-free and overall survival (OS) according to the type of first-line treatment adjusted on main prognostic factors using a propensity score. RESULTS: Six thousand two hundred sixty-five patients were selected: 2733 (43.6%) received endocrine therapy alone, while 3532 (56.4%) received chemotherapy as first-line therapy. Among the latter, 2073 (58.7%) received maintenance endocrine therapy. Median OS was 60.78 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 57.16-64.09) and 49.64 months (95% CI, 47.31-51.64; p < 0.0001) for patients receiving endocrine therapy alone and chemotherapy ± maintenance endocrine therapy, respectively. However, this difference was not significant after adjusting on the propensity score (hazard ratio: 0.943, 95% CI 0.863-1.030, p = 0.19). CONCLUSION: In this large retrospective cohort of patients with AI-sensitive metastatic luminal BC, OS was similar, whether first-line treatment was chemotherapy or endocrine therapy. In agreement with international guidelines, endocrine therapy should be the first choice for first-line systemic treatment for MBC in the absence of visceral crisis.

Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab or paclitaxel as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in a multicenter national observational study.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab combined with paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has led to mixed results in randomized trials, with an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) but no statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. Real-life data could help in assessing the value of this combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study aimed to describe the outcome following first-line paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab in the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) database of MBC patients, established in 2014 by Unicancer. The primary and secondary end points were OS and PFS, respectively. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2013, 14 014 MBC patient files were identified, including 10 605 patients with a HER2-negative status. Of these, 3426 received paclitaxel and bevacizumab (2127) or paclitaxel (1299) as first-line chemotherapy. OS adjusted for major prognostic factors was significantly longer in the paclitaxel and bevacizumab group compared with paclitaxel [hazard ratio (HR) 0.672, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.601-0.752; median survival time 27.7 versus 19.8 months]. Results were consistent in all supportive analyses (using a propensity score for adjustment and as a matching factor for nested case-control analyses) and sensitivity analyses. Similar results were observed for the adjusted PFS, favoring the combination (HR 0.739, 95% CI 0.672-0.813; 8.1 versus 6.4 months). CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale, real-life setting, patients with HER2-negative MBC who received paclitaxel plus bevacizumab as first-line chemotherapy had a significantly better OS and PFS than those receiving paclitaxel. Despite robust methodology, real-life data are exposed to important potential biases, and therefore, results need to be treated with caution. Our data cannot therefore support extension of current use of bevacizumab in MBC.