Capivasertib and fulvestrant for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (CAPItello-291): patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: CAPItello-291 is an ongoing phase 3 trial in which capivasertib-fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo-fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after aromatase inhibitor treatment, in both the overall population and in patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. This study further explored patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functioning, symptoms, and symptom tolerability in CAPItello-291. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which was conducted across 193 hospitals and cancer centres in 19 countries, enrolled women with any menopausal status or men, aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Japan), with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or 6 inhibitor therapy. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 and could have received up to two previous lines of endocrine therapy and up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (stratified according to the presence or absence of liver metastases, previous use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor [yes vs no], and geographical region) to receive oral capivasertib 400 mg (twice daily for 4 days, followed by 3 days off) plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (every 14 days for the first three injections, then every 28 days) or placebo with matching fulvestrant dosing. The dual primary endpoint of the trial was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module (QLQ-C30) and breast module (QLQ-BR23), Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Tolerability (PGI-TT) questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 were secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints, and these endpoints are the subject of analysis in this Article. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified timepoints. Patient-reported outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients with an evaluable baseline assessment and at least one evaluable post-baseline assessment. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed model with repeated measures for EORTC QLQ-C30 and summarised for QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle. Patient-reported outcomes were not prospectively powered for statistical comparison. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04305496. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2020, and Oct 13, 2021, 901 patients were enrolled, of whom 708 patients were randomly assigned to receive capivasertib-fulvestrant (n=355) or placebo-fulvestrant (n=353). The median age of the patients was 59 years (IQR 51-67) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 58 years (IQR 49-66) in the placebo-fulvestrant group. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2022), the median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival in censored patients was 13·0 months (IQR 9·1-16·7) for capivasertib-fulvestrant and 12·7 months (IQR 2·0-16·4) for placebo-fulvestrant in the overall population. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) scores were maintained from baseline and were similar between treatment groups throughout the study period (difference in mean change from baseline of -2·5 [95% CI -4·5 to -0·6] with capivasertib-fulvestrant vs -5·6 [-7·9 to -3·4] with placebo-fulvestrant; treatment difference 3·1 [95% CI 0·2 to 6·0]). Median time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL was 24·9 months (95% CI 13·8 to not reached) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 12·0 months (10·2 to 15·7) in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·53 to 0·92). Time to deterioration HRs for all EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 subscale scores showed little difference between the treatment groups, except for diarrhoea, which was worse in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group (HR 2·75, 95% CI 2·01-3·81). In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting loose and watery stools "frequently" or "almost constantly" was 29% higher at cycle 1, day 15 in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group, decreasing at subsequent cycles. Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, itchy skin, and numbness or tingling in hands or feet) were absent or mild in most patients in both groups throughout treatment. According to the PGI-TT, most patients in both groups reported "not at all" or "a little bit" of bother from treatment side-effects. INTERPRETATION: Patient-reported outcomes from CAPItello-291 demonstrated that capivasertib-fulvestrant delayed time to deterioration of GHS/QOL and maintained other dimensions of HRQOL (except symptoms of diarrhoea) similarly to fulvestrant. With the clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these exploratory results further support the positive benefit-risk profile of capivasertib-fulvestrant in this population. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Digital Workflow for Retrofitting a Surveyed Crown Using a Removable Partial Denture as an Antagonist.

Digital workflow expedites the procedure of retrofitting a surveyed crown against an existing removable partial denture (RPD). This article describes a simple and straightforward technique of digital workflow where an existing RPD is scanned as an antagonist to design the rest seat, guide plane, and height of contour of a surveyed crown.

Eflapegrastim versus Pegfilgrastim for Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Korean and Asian Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Results from the Two Phase III ADVANCE and RECOVER Studies.

PURPOSE: We investigated the consistent efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim, a novel long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), in Koreans and Asians compared with the pooled population of two global phase 3 trials. Materials and Methods: Two phase 3 trials (ADVANCE and RECOVER) evaluated the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose eflapegrastim (13.2 mg/0.6 mL [3.6 mg G-CSF equivalent]) compared to pegfilgrastim (6 mg based on G-CSF) in breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant docetaxel/cyclophosphamide. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of eflapegrastim compared to pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1, in Korean and Asian subpopulations. RESULTS: Among a total of 643 patients randomized to eflapegrastim (n=314) or pegfilgrastim (n=329), 54 Asians (29 to eflapegrastim and 25 to pegfilgrastim) including 28 Koreans (14 to both eflapegrastim and pegfilgrastim) were enrolled. The primary endpoint, DSN in cycle 1 in the eflapegrastim arm was non-inferior to the pegfilgrastim arm in Koreans and Asians. The DSN difference between the eflapegrastim and pegfilgrastim arms was consistent across populations: -0.120 days (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.227 to -0.016), -0.288 (95% CI, -0.714 to 0.143), and -0.267 (95% CI, -0.697 to 0.110) for pooled population, Koreans and Asians, respectively. There were few treatment-related adverse events that caused discontinuation of eflapegrastim (1.9%) or pegfilgrastim (1.5%) in total and no notable trends or differences across patient populations. CONCLUSION: This study may suggest that eflapegrastim showed non-inferior efficacy and similar safety compared to pegfilgrastim in Koreans and Asians, consistently with those of pooled population.

The incidence and clinical features of PEGylated filgrastim-induced acute aortitis in patients with breast cancer.

Although PEGylated filgrastim-induced aortitis is very rare and unknown clinically, some cases were reported and increasing, especially in breast cancer patients. The present study investigated the prevalence, clinical features and treatment of aortitis induced by PEGylated filgrastim in patients with breast cancer. A total of 2068 consecutive patients who underwent neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy with PEGylated filgrastim for breast cancer were enrolled. From the medical record, clinical, laboratory, medication, and imaging evaluation findings were collected. PEGylated filgrastim-induced aortitis was established in 0.3% of the study population. Common clinical presentations included extremely high fever and chest/back pain with high levels of inflammatory markers without any signs of infection. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans revealed typical enhancing wall thickening and periaortic soft tissue infiltration at various levels of aorta. All patients improved rapidly after treatment with modest doses of prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg/day) without any complications. Clinicians should be aware of aortitis as a possible complication of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor therapy, especially PEGylated filgrastim, given the frequent misdiagnoses in neutropenic patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Multicenter phase II trial of Genexol-PM, a Cremophor-free, polymeric micelle formulation of paclitaxel, in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Genexol-PM is a novel Cremophor EL-free polymeric micelle formulation of paclitaxel. This single arm, multicenter phase II study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Genexol-PM in patients with histologically confirmed metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Forty-one women received Genexol-PM by intravenous infusion at 300 mg/m2 over 3 h every 3 weeks without premedication until disease progression or intolerability. A total of 331 chemotherapy cycles were administered, with a median of 8 cycles per patient (range, 1-16). Overall response rate was 58.5% (95% CI: 43.5-72.3) with 5 complete responses and 19 partial responses. Thirty-seven patients who received Genexol-PM as a first-line therapy for their metastatic disease showed a response rate of 59.5% (95% CI: 43.5-73.7), and two responses were reported in four patients treated in the second-line setting for their metastatic disease. The median time to progression (TTP) for all patients was 9.0 months (range, 1.0-17.0+ months). Grade 3 non-hematologic toxicities included sensory peripheral neuropathy (51.2%), and myalgia (2.4%). Eight patients (19.5%) experienced hypersensitivity reactions, with grade 3 in two patients. Hematologic toxicities were grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (51.2 and 17.1%, respectively), and grade 1 and 2 thrombocytopenia (22.0%). Notably, no febrile neutropenia was observed. Genexol-PM appears a promising new paclitaxel in view of significant efficacies. Further trials with different dosing schedules, durations of delivery, or in combination with other drugs are warranted.