Advocacy for a New Oncology Research Paradigm: The Model of Bevacizumab in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in a French Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer remains a disease with poor prognosis and few treatment options, due to the lack of therapeutic targets. Bevacizumab, the first anti-VEGF agent approved in the treatment of cancer, has demonstrated efficacy in breast cancer in combination with paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Despite the fact that the benefit was particularly significant for triple-negative breast cancer with its approval in 2008 by the FDA, this decision was later reversed as there was no improvement in overall survival in addition to significant costs. OBJECTIVES: The scope of the present study is to focus on the role of bevacizumab in triple-negative breast cancer through the analysis of overall survival, progression-free survival, and cost benefit among 45 patients in a French monocentric study and to discuss new paradigms of endpoints. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, for whom first-line treatment was bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel between January 2011 and April 2018 were included in this single-center retrospective study, and a chart review of all recruited subjects was performed from medical records. RESULTS: In this real-life study among 45 patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, bevacizumab provided a significant benefit for a category of patients, with longer median progression-free survival and the ability of maintenance therapy associated to limited side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond being the phoenix of breast oncology and a magnet of controversy, the case of bevacizumab in metastatic breast cancer highlights one of the greatest challenges in oncology, namely to balance modest clinical benefits with exponential costs. A balance needs to be found between health care affordability, high price of progress, and the best medical decision for the patients, in order to avoid the "unbreathable tipping point" we are actually dealing with.

Can treatment with Cocculine improve the control of chemotherapy-induced emesis in early breast cancer patients? A randomized, multi-centered, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major problem that seriously impairs the quality of life (QoL) in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy regimens. Complementary medicines, including homeopathy, are used by many patients with cancer, usually alongside with conventional treatment. A randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of a complex homeopathic medicine, Cocculine, in the control of CINV in non-metastatic breast cancer patients treated by standard chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with non-metastatic breast cancer scheduled to receive 6 cycles of chemotherapy including at least three initial cycles of FAC 50, FEC 100 or TAC were randomized to receive standard anti-emetic treatment plus either a complex homeopathic remedy (Cocculine, registered in France for treatment of nausea and travel sickness) or the matching placebo (NCT00409071 clinicaltrials.gov). The primary endpoint was nausea score measured after the 1st chemotherapy course using the FLIE questionnaire (Functional Living Index for Emesis) with 5-day recall. Secondary endpoints were: vomiting measured by the FLIE score, nausea and vomiting measured by patient self-evaluation (EVA) and investigator recording (NCI-CTC AE V3.0) and treatment compliance. RESULTS: From September 2005 to January 2008, 431 patients were randomized: 214 to Cocculine (C) and 217 to placebo (P). Patient characteristics were well-balanced between the 2 arms. Overall, compliance to study treatments was excellent and similar between the 2 arms. A total of 205 patients (50.9%; 103 patients in the placebo and 102 in the homeopathy arms) had nausea FLIE scores > 6 indicative of no impact of nausea on quality of life during the 1st chemotherapy course. There was no difference between the 2 arms when primary endpoint analysis was performed by chemotherapy stratum; or in the subgroup of patients with susceptibility to nausea and vomiting before inclusion. In addition, nausea, vomiting and global emesis FLIE scores were not statistically different at any time between the two study arms. The frequencies of severe (Grade ≥ 2) nausea and vomiting were low in our study (nausea: P: 17.6% vs C: 15.7%, p=0.62; vomiting: P: 10.8% vs C: 12.0%, p=0.72 during the first course). CONCLUSION: This double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomised Phase III study showed that adding a complex homeopathic medicine (Cocculine) to standard anti-emetic prophylaxis does not improve the control of CINV in early breast cancer patients.