Abemaciclib plus trastuzumab with or without fulvestrant versus trastuzumab plus standard-of-care chemotherapy in women with HR+, HER2+ advanced breast cancer: plain language summary of the monarcHER study.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This article summarizes the results of a study called monarcHER. The study included participants with a certain type of aggressive breast cancer called HR+, HER2+ advanced breast cancer (ABC) that had their disease worsen or return after multiple previous therapies. This summary intends to help you understand the impact of a non-chemotherapy treatment called abemaciclib in people with HR+, HER2+ ABC. When the study was planned, HER2-targeted therapy (ie trastuzumab) was standard treatment and was typically combined with chemotherapy and endocrine therapy (ie fulvestrant). However drug resistance can develop when HER2+ targeted therapy is used for a long time, making it less effective and allowing cancer to grow or spread to other parts of the body. When this happens, few chemotherapy-free options are available. Because of the chemotherapy side effects, this is not desirable. There is an urgent need to develop new, effective, safe, and tolerable treatment options for patients with HR+, HER2+ ABC. The monarcHER study compared the effects of abemaciclib plus trastuzumab with or without fulvestrant compared to the standard of care treatment. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: Group A (abemaciclib, trastuzumab and fulvestrant), Group B (abemaciclib and trastuzumab), or Group C (trastuzumab and standard of care chemotherapy). The study compared the length of time patients took study treatments without worsening or dying from their breast cancer. This is called the progression free survival (PFS). Participants in Group A had a longer median PFS than those in groups B and C (8.3 months, 5.7 months and 5.7 months respectively). There was no notable difference in PFS between participants in Groups B and C. Additionally, the study looked at the side effects with each treatment group. The most common side effect which is considered severe or lifethreatening was neutropenia, defined as decreased white blood cell levels. Neutropenia may lead to an increased risk of getting infections. However, the percentage of patients experiencing neutropenia was similar in all groups A, B and C (27%, 22% and 26%, respectively). Patients in groups A (79%) and B (78%) who received abemaciclib experienced similar rates of diarrhea. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The data from the monarcHER study suggest that the combination of abemaciclib, trastuzumab, and fulvestrant may offer a chemotherapy-free option for patients with HR+, HER2+ ABC who have experienced worsening of disease despite multiple prior therapies.

Closed-loop assisted versus manual goal-directed fluid therapy during high-risk abdominal surgery: a case-control study with propensity matching.

INTRODUCTION: Goal-directed fluid therapy strategies have been shown to benefit moderate- to high-risk surgery patients. Despite this, these strategies are often not implemented. The aim of this study was to assess a closed-loop fluid administration system in a surgical cohort and compare the results with those for matched patients who received manual management. Our hypothesis was that the patients receiving closed-loop assistance would spend more time in a preload-independent state, defined as percentage of case time with stroke volume variation less than or equal to 12%. METHODS: Patients eligible for the study were all those over 18 years of age scheduled for hepatobiliary, pancreatic or splenic surgery and expected to receive intravascular arterial blood pressure monitoring as part of their anesthetic care. The closed-loop resuscitation target was selected by the primary anesthesia team, and the system was responsible for implementation of goal-directed fluid therapy during surgery. Following completion of enrollment, each study patient was matched to a non-closed-loop assisted case performed during the same time period using a propensity match to reduce bias. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were enrolled, 5 were ultimately excluded and 25 matched pairs were selected from among the remaining 35 patients within the predefined caliper distance. There was no significant difference in fluid administration between groups. The closed-loop group spent a significantly higher portion of case time in a preload-independent state (95 ± 6% of case time versus 87 ± 14%, P =0.008). There was no difference in case mean or final stroke volume index (45 ± 10 versus 43 ± 9 and 45 ± 11 versus 42 ± 11, respectively) or mean arterial pressure (79 ± 8 versus 83 ± 9). Case end heart rate was significantly lower in the closed-loop assisted group (77 ± 10 versus 88 ± 13, P =0.003). CONCLUSION: In this case-control study with propensity matching, clinician use of closed-loop assistance resulted in a greater portion of case time spent in a preload-independent state throughout surgery compared with manual delivery of goal-directed fluid therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02020863. Registered 19 December 2013.