Anthropometric, clinical and molecular determinants of treatment outcomes in postmenopausal, hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer patients treated with fulvestrant: Results from a real word setting.

To characterize determinants of treatment outcome in a real world population of 161 post-menopausal hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer patients treated with fulvestrant. Descriptive statistics for demographics, anthropometrics, clinical and molecular characteristic were compared across subgroups of sensitivity/resistance to prior endocrine therapy and tested in uni/multivariate models. Clinical benefit was more common in sensitive patients with higher estrogen receptor expression and when fulvestrant was given in first line (p=0.02 and 0.046). In resistant patients, PFS was longer with lower BMI (p=0.01). Among endocrine sensitive women, longer PFS was associated with fulvestrant in first-line, single metastasis and no visceral involvement (p=0.01, 0.003 and 0.01). OS was shorter in resistant patients with HER2-positive disease and if fulvestrant was given in second and subsequent line (p=0.03). In sensitive patients, we observed worse OS with multiple metastases (p=0.008). Multivariate analyses confirmed longer PFS in resistant patients with lower BMI and older age (p=0.002 and 0.007). OS in resistant patients was negatively influenced by HER2 positivity and fulvestrant in second and subsequent line (p=0.04). In sensitive women, multiple metastases were associated with poorer survival (p=0.002). This evidence encourages considering patient and disease characteristics in decision making and outcome interpretation for patients candidate to fulvestrant.

Fulvestrant 500 milligrams as endocrine therapy for endocrine sensitive advanced breast cancer patients in the real world: the Ful500 prospective observational trial.

The observational prospective trial herein presented aimed at evaluating the efficacy of fulvestrant 500 mg in the treatment of endocrine sensitive advanced breast cancer patients from the real world setting. The primary end point was clinical benefit rate (CBR). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and tolerability. One hundred sixty three patients were enrolled. At a median follow up of 20 months, the 61% of patients reached CBR, whose median duration was 10.8 months. Median PFS and OS were 7 and 35 months, respectively. Endocrine sensitive patients showed better PFS and OS. No relevant toxicity appeared when analyzing safety data. In multivariate analysis, visceral involvement, endocrine sensitivity and previous endocrine therapy were prognostic factor for PFS, whereas endocrine sensitivity and metastasis at diagnosis had prognostic relevance for OS. Estrogen receptor expression >50%, single metastatic site, and no prior endocrine therapy for advanced disease were predictive of CBR. In this prospective trial, fulvestrant 500 mg appeared to be a safe and active treatment and confirmed its efficacy in the daily clinical practice. A high percent expression of estrogen receptors (above 50%) was associated with higher CBR. Treatment was very well tolerated. Endocrine sensitivity had a major impact on treatment outcome. As expected, patients who had received first-line endocrine therapy for advanced disease exhibited worse outcome and a lower CBR.

Bevacizumab as first-line treatment in HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: pros and cons.

PURPOSE: Bevacizumab, a humanized, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor-A monoclonal antibody, has shown efficacy in a number of cancers. However, its use in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains controversial. METHODS: A literature review using the PubMed database was performed to update the currently available clinical trials evidence on bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of breast cancer. In addition, the proceedings of selected oncology annual meetings were searched for relevant presentations. RESULTS: This article reviews the available evidence for bevacizumab as first-line therapy for MBC and discusses its current and future applicability in the management of MBC. Three phase III trials (ECOG-2100, AVADO, RIBBON-1) demonstrated that the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy is well-tolerated and improves progression-free survival and objective response rates in the first-line setting. These findings were supported by a large clinical practice-based study (ATHENA) and a recent clinical trial in which bevacizumab added to paclitaxel showed notable activity in triple-negative MBC. However, bevacizumab has thus far not demonstrated a significant benefit in overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy is well-tolerated and produces substantial improvements in overall response rate and progression-free survival, compared with chemotherapy alone, in advanced HER2-negative breast cancer. Nevertheless, it has thus far not demonstrated a significant benefit in overall survival. Whether prolongation of progression-free survival is enough to consider bevacizumab efficacious is unclear. Based on the available clinical trials results, bevacizumab is a part of the complex therapeutic strategy of advanced HER2-negative breast cancer.

Identification of subgroups of early breast cancer patients at high risk of nonadherence to adjuvant hormone therapy: results of an Italian survey.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (HT) is suboptimal among breast cancer patients. A high rate of nonadherence might explain differences in survival between clinical trial and clinical practice. Tailored interventions aimed at improving adherence can only be implemented if subgroups of patients at higher risk of poor adherence are identified. Because no data are available for Italy, we undertook a large survey on adherence among women taking adjuvant HT for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were recruited from 10 cancer clinics in central Italy. All patients taking HT for at least 1 year were invited, during one of their follow-up visit, to fill a confidential questionnaire. The association of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants with adherence was assessed using logistic regression. The RECPAM method was used to evaluate interactions among variables and to identify subgroups of patients at different risk of nonadherence. RESULTS: A total of 939 patients joined the study and 18.6% of them were classified as nonadherers. Among possible predictors, only age, working status, and switching from tamoxifen to an aromatase inhibitor were predictive of nonadherence in multivariate analysis. RECPAM analysis led to the identification of 4 classes of patients with a different likelihood of nonadherence to therapy, the lowest being observed in retired women with a low level of education, the highest in the group of unmarried, employed women, or housewives. CONCLUSION: The identification of these subgroups of "real life" patients with a high prevalence of nonadherers might be functional in designing intervention studies aimed at improving adherence.

Is delayed chemotherapy-induced emesis well managed in oncological clinical practice? An observational study.

Nausea and vomiting have a negative influence on the quality of life of patients receiving chemotherapy. The Consensus Conference held in 1997 outlined the therapeutic procedure to prevent delayed emesis that might otherwise be induced by chemotherapy. So far, no study has evaluated the correct management of delayed emesis in clinical practice. This study was performed in an attempt to verify the conformity of the delayed emesis therapy administered in some oncological centres with the Consensus Conference guidelines. A total of 149 patients were observed for a minimum of one up to a maximum of four chemotherapy cycles; analysis of the data took account of whether the chemotherapy had a high (HEC), moderate (MEC) or low (LEC) emetogenic potential. Among 42 patients who received HEC, 18 (43%) received antiemetic prophylaxis conforming to standards; 23 (54.7%) of these 42 had delayed emesis, only 8 (34.7%) of whom were treated with adequate antiemetic protection. MEC was administered to 72 patients, 46 (64%) of whom received adequate prophylaxis; delayed emesis was observed in 31 (43%) of the 72 patients, 20 (64.5%) of whom received antiemetic prophylaxis according to established guidelines. Of 35 patients treated with LEC, 22.8% manifested delayed emesis; a high percentage of these patients, 68.5%, received prophylaxis, even though it was unnecessary. Of all patients observed, only 50.3% received correct antiemetic protection. We deduce from the study that antiemetic treatment for delayed emesis in clinical practice needs more attention. Correct prophylaxis is necessary when HEC is given, and antiemetic protection for patients receiving MEC must be improved; among patients treated with LEC those at high risk must be identified so that overtreatment can be avoided.