Adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib for patients with resected BRAF -mutated melanoma: DESCRIBE-AD real-world retrospective observational study.

BRAF and MEK inhibitor, dabrafenib plus trametinib, adjuvant therapy is effective for high-risk resected melanoma patients with BRAF - V600 mutations. However, real-world evidence is limited. We aimed to determine the feasibility of this therapy in routine clinical practice. DESCRIBE-AD, a retrospective observational study, collected real-world data from 25 hospitals in Spain. Histologically confirmed and resected BRAF -mutated melanoma patients aged ≥18 years who were previously treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib adjuvant therapy, were included. The primary objectives were treatment discontinuation rate and time to discontinuation. The secondary objectives included safety and efficacy. From October 2020 to March 2021, 65 patients were included. Dabrafenib and trametinib discontinuation rate due to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade was 9%. Other reasons for discontinuation included patients' decisions (6%), physician decisions (6%), unrelated adverse events (3%), disease progression (5%), and others (5%). The median time to treatment discontinuation was 9 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 5-11]. G3-4 TRAEs occurred in 21.5% of patients, the most common being pyrexia (3%), asthenia (3%), and diarrhoea (3%). Unscheduled hospitalisations and clinical tests occurred in 6 and 22% of patients, respectively. After 20-month median follow-up (95% CI, 18-22), 9% of patients had exitus due to disease progression, with a 12-month relapse-free survival and overall survival rates of 95.3% and 100%, respectively. Dabrafenib and trametinib adjuvant therapy proved effective for melanoma patients in a real-world setting, with a manageable toxicity profile. Toxicity frequencies were low leading to low incidence of unscheduled medical visits, tests, and treatment discontinuations.

Analysis of the pathologic response to primary chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer grouped according to estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status.

PURPOSE: In clinical practice, it is possible to classify breast tumors according to estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), and HER2 overexpression: ER negative, PgR negative, and HER2 overexpressing; ER negative, PgR negative, and HER2 negative; ER positive, PgR positive, and HER2 negative; ER positive, PgR positive, and HER2 overexpressing; and the less frequent remaining 4 combinations. The aim of this study was to determine the percentage of pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) treated with neoadjuvant or primary chemotherapy with anthracyclines and taxanes grouped according to ER, PgR, and HER2 status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with LABC treated with primary chemotherapy including anthracyclines and taxanes were grouped according to ER, PgR, and HER2 status; pCR rates were analyzed using the chi(2) test; and correlations with a P value of < or = 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were treated. Only 100 patients were included for the analysis of pCR. Eighteen patients exhibited pCR. The pCR rate for each subgroup was as follows: 39.1% (9 of 23) had ER-negative, PgR-negative, and HER2-negative disease (P < 0.01); 35.7% (5 of 14) had ER-negative, PgR-negative, and HER2-overexpressing disease; 33.3% (3 of 9) had ER-positive, PgR-positive, and HER2-overexpressing disease; and 2.8% (1 of 36) had ER-positive, PgR-positive, and HER2-negative disease (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In patients with LABC, grouping breast tumors according to ER, PgR, and HER2 status can help predict pCR to primary chemotherapy.

Incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide in early breast cancer patients and aprepitant efficacy as salvage therapy. Results from the Spanish Breast Cancer Group/2009-02 study.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (TC) has become a common regimen in moderate-high-risk early breast cancer (EBC), but the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with this regimen is not well established. This trial investigates the effect of guideline-consistent prophylaxis on CINV related to TC regimen and explores the efficacy of aprepitant among resistant patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective multicentre study enrolled 212 chemotherapy-naïve EBC patients receiving T-75 mg/m(2) and C-600 mg/m(2). Antiemetic therapy on the first cycle consisted of dexamethasone for 3 d plus 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) antagonists on day 1, according to Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer guidelines. The primary end-point was complete response (CR) (no emesis and no need of rescue treatment within the initial 120 h). Patients failing CR on cycle 1 entered in a single-arm study exploring the efficacy of aprepitant on the second cycle. Patients' diaries and Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaires were collected in cycles 1 and 2. RESULTS: Among the 185 evaluable patients on cycle 1, 161 (87%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.2-91.8) achieved a CR. Twenty-three patients received aprepitant on cycle 2, and 12 reached a CR (52.2%, 95% CI: 31.8-72.6). The absence of CR had a very substantial impact on quality of life on cycles 1 (FLIE before and after: 23.8-38.1, p = 0.0124) and 2 (18.3-42.9, p = 0.0059). CONCLUSIONS: Guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis for the TC regimen is associated with a low incidence of CINV. Aprepitant is effective as secondary prevention of CINV and should be considered as rescue therapy in patients treated with moderate emetogenic chemotherapy.