Recommendations for cyclin­dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor treatments in the context of co­morbidity and drug interactions (Review).

Breast cancer is most frequently diagnosed among women aged 65-74 years and the prevalence of comorbidities in elderly patients with breast cancer is 32.2%. In addition, polypharmacy is quite common in these patients. Understanding the interaction between breast cancer treatment modalities and comorbidities is important, particularly in elderly patients, as comorbidities affect the choice of appropriate treatment and are independent risk factors for survival. A total of three oral cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i), palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib, notably prolonged progression-free survival when combined with endocrine therapy (ET), compared with ET alone in patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). The present review article therefore addressed the safety, tolerability and toxicity of CDK4/6i treatment in ABC management, compiled real-world data on how multiple clinical and pharmacological features may affect the choice of these drugs and provided practical recommendations for clinical approaches. Before starting treatment with CDK4/6i drugs, all ongoing medical conditions should be inventorized and re-graded, and examination should be performed for any additional disease that the patient may not be aware of. It is also important to obtain a detailed history of concomitant drugs, including prescription and over-the-counter drugs, vitamins, supplements and herbal products. In addition, patients should be advised to consult their oncologist before starting any new medication.

Beyond traditional therapies: clinical significance of complex molecular profiling in patients with advanced solid tumours-results from a Turkish multi-centre study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this multi-centre, real-world study was to examine the potential influence of comprehensive molecular profiling on the development of treatment decisions or adjustments for patients with advanced solid malignancies. We then evaluated the impact of these informed choices on patient treatment outcomes. METHODS: The study encompassed 234 adult patients (mean age: 52.7 ± 14.3 years, 54.7% women) who were diagnosed with solid tumours at 21 different medical centres in Turkey. Remarkably, 67.9% of the patients exhibited metastasis at the time of diagnosis. We utilized an OncoDNA (Gosselies, Belgium) platform (OncoDEEP) integrating next-generation sequencing with additional tests to harvest complex molecular profiling data. The results were analyzed in relation with two specific outcomes: (i) the impact on therapeutic decisions, including formulation or modifications, and (ii) associated treatment response. RESULTS: Out of the 228 patients with final molecular profiling results, 118 (50.4%) had their treatment modified, whilst the remaining 110 (47.0%) did not. The response rates were comparable, with 3.9 versus 3.4% for complete response, 13.6 versus 29.3% for partial response, 66.9 versus 51.7% for progressive disease and 15.5 versus 15.5% for stable disease for treatments informed and not informed by complex molecular profiling, respectively (P = 0.16). CONCLUSION: Our real-world findings highlight the significant impact of complex molecular profiling on the treatment decisions made by oncologists for a substantial portion of patients with advanced solid tumours. Regrettably, no significant advantage was detected in terms of treatment response or disease control rates.