Effectiveness, safety and quality of life of trifluridine/tipiracil in pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Real-world data from the noninterventional TACTIC study in Germany.

The prospective, multicenter, noninterventional TACTIC study assessed effectiveness and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a real-world setting in Germany, thus evaluating the external validity of the findings from the pivotal RECOURSE trial. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and quality of life (QoL). Subgroups comprised patients with good (<3 metastatic sites at inclusion, ≥18 months from diagnosis of first metastasis to inclusion) or poor (remaining patients) prognostic characteristics (GPC/PPC). GPC without liver metastases was considered best prognostic characteristics (BPC). In total, 307 eligible patients (pretreated or not suitable for other available therapies) were treated with FTD/TPI. Overall, median [95%-CI] OS was 7.4 months [6.4-8.6], median PFS was 2.9 months [2.8-3.3]. In BPC (n = 65) and GPC (n = 176) compared to PPC (n = 124) subgroup, median OS (13.3 [9.1-17.6] vs 8.9 [7.6-9.8] vs 5.1 [4.4-7.0] months) and median PFS (4.0 [3.3-5.3] vs 3.4 [3.0-3.7] vs 2.6 [2.4-2.8] months) were longer. Patient-reported QoL, assessed by validated questionnaires (EQ-5D-5L, PRO-CTCAE), was stable throughout FTD/TPI treatment. Predominant FTD/TPI-related adverse events of grades 3 or 4 were neutropenia (13.0%), leukopenia (7.5%), and anemia (5.2%). Altogether, palliative FTD/TPI therapy in patients with pretreated mCRC was associated with prolonged survival, delayed progression, maintained health-related QoL, and manageable toxicity. Low metastatic burden and indolent disease were favorable prognostic factors for survival. TACTIC confirms the effectiveness and safety of FTD/TPI, highlighting its value in routine clinical practice.

Overall Survival with Ribociclib plus Fulvestrant in Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In an earlier analysis of this phase 3 trial, ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than fulvestrant alone in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. Here we report the results of a protocol-specified second interim analysis of overall survival. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either ribociclib or placebo in addition to fulvestrant as first-line or second-line treatment. Survival was evaluated by means of a stratified log-rank test and summarized with the use of Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: This analysis was based on 275 deaths: 167 among 484 patients (34.5%) receiving ribociclib and 108 among 242 (44.6%) receiving placebo. Ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a significant overall survival benefit over placebo plus fulvestrant. The estimated overall survival at 42 months was 57.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52.0 to 63.2) in the ribociclib group and 45.9% (95% CI, 36.9 to 54.5) in the placebo group, for a 28% difference in the relative risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92; P = 0.00455). The benefit was consistent across most subgroups. In a descriptive update, median progression-free survival among patients receiving first-line treatment was 33.6 months (95% CI, 27.1 to 41.3) in the ribociclib group and 19.2 months (95% CI, 14.9 to 23.6) in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a significant overall survival benefit over placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. (Funded by Novartis; MONALEESA-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02422615.).

Surveillance of Myelodysplastic Syndrome via Migration Analyses of Blood Neutrophils: A Potential Prognostic Tool.

Autonomous migration is a central characteristic of immune cells, and changes in this function have been correlated to the progression and severity of diseases. Hence, the identification of pathologically altered leukocyte migration patterns might be a promising approach for disease surveillance and prognostic scoring. However, because of the lack of standardized and robust assays, migration patterns have not been clinically exploited so far. In this study, we introduce an easy-to-use and cross-laboratory, standardized two-dimensional migration assay for neutrophil granulocytes from peripheral blood. By combining time-lapse video microscopy and automated cell tracking, we calculated the average migration of neutrophils from 111 individual participants of the German Heinz Nixdorf Recall MultiGeneration study under steady-state, formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine-, CXCL1-, and CXCL8-stimulated conditions. Comparable values were obtained in an independent laboratory from a cohort in Belgium, demonstrating the robustness and transferability of the assay. In a double-blinded retrospective clinical analysis, we found that neutrophil migration strongly correlated with the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System scoring and risk category of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients. In fact, patients suffering from high-risk subtypes MDS with excess blasts I or II displayed highly significantly reduced neutrophil migration. Hence, the determination of neutrophil migration patterns might represent a useful tool in the surveillance of MDS. Taken together, we suggest that standardized migration assays of neutrophils and other leukocyte subtypes might be broadly applicable as prognostic and surveillance tools for MDS and potentially for other diseases.

Ribociclib as First-Line Therapy for HR-Positive, Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) could potentially overcome or delay resistance to endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer that is positive for hormone receptor (HR) and negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the selective CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib combined with letrozole for first-line treatment in 668 postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced disease. We randomly assigned the patients to receive either ribociclib (600 mg per day on a 3-weeks-on, 1-week-off schedule) plus letrozole (2.5 mg per day) or placebo plus letrozole. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed on January 29, 2016, after 243 patients had disease progression or died. Prespecified criteria for superiority required a hazard ratio of 0.56 or less with P<1.29×10-5. RESULTS: The duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ribociclib group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.72; P=3.29×10-6 for superiority). The median duration of follow-up was 15.3 months. After 18 months, the progression-free survival rate was 63.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.6 to 70.3) in the ribociclib group and 42.2% (95% CI, 34.8 to 49.5) in the placebo group. In patients with measurable disease at baseline, the overall response rate was 52.7% and 37.1%, respectively (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in more than 10% of the patients in either group were neutropenia (59.3% in the ribociclib group vs. 0.9% in the placebo group) and leukopenia (21.0% vs. 0.6%); the rates of discontinuation because of adverse events were 7.5% and 2.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving initial systemic treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, the duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving ribociclib plus letrozole than among those receiving placebo plus letrozole, with a higher rate of myelosuppression in the ribociclib group. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01958021 .).

A randomized phase II study of paclitaxel alone versus paclitaxel plus sorafenib in second- and third-line treatment of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (PASO).

BACKGROUND: We conducted an open-label, randomized, two-arm multi-center study to assess the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel versus paclitaxel + sorafenib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel monotherapy (80 mg/m2) weekly (3 weeks on, 1 week off) plus sorafenib 400 mg orally, twice a day taken continuously throughout 28 day cycles. Sorafenib dose was gradually escalated from a starting dose of 200 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A pre-planned efficacy interim analysis was performed on the data of 60 patients, 30 patients in each treatment arm. Median PFS was estimated at 6.6 months (95% CI: 5.1 to 9.0) in patients randomized to single-agent paclitaxel (Arm A) and 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.8 to 6.5) in patients randomized to paclitaxel-sorafenib combination (Arm B) therapy. Contrary to the hypothesis, the treatment effect was statistically significant in favor of paclitaxel monotherapy (hazard ratio 1.80, 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.20; log-rank test P = 0.0409). It was decided to stop the trial early for futility. Median OS was also in favor of Arm A (20.7 months (95% CI: 16.4 to 26.7) versus 12.1 months (95% CI: 5.8 to 20.4) in Arm B. Clinical control was achieved in 28 patients (93.3%) in Arm A and in 21 patients 70.0% in Arm B. Overall response rate was met in 43.3% of patients in Arm A and in 40.0% in Arm B. Toxicities were increased in Arm B with higher rates of diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) and anorexia, Grad 3 and 4 toxicities were rare. CONCLUSIONS: In this pre-planned interim analysis, paclitaxel-sorafenib combination therapy was not found to be superior to paclitaxel monotherapy with regard to the primary end point, progression-free survival. The trial was therefore discontinued early. There was no indication of more favorable outcomes for combination therapy in secondary efficacy end points. As expected, the safety and toxicity profile of the combination therapy was less favorable compared to monotherapy. Overall, this trial did not demonstrate that adding sorafenib to second- or third-line paclitaxel provides any clinical benefit to patients with HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Cautious dosing using a sorafenib ramp up schedule might have contributed to negative results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at EudraCT (No 2009-018025-73) and retrospectively registered at Clinical trials.gov on March 17, 2011 ( NCT01320111 ).

Disease-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in HR+/HER2- early breast cancer: A correlation analysis.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival (OS) is a universally accepted measure of clinical benefit; however, prolonged follow-up is needed to observe sufficient events. Disease-free survival (DFS) has been widely adopted as a primary endpoint for early breast cancer (EBC) trials, as follow-up is comparatively shorter. Here, we present an analysis evaluating DFS as a surrogate for OS for adjuvant treatment of hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) EBC. METHODS: A systematic literature review which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with ≥80% of adult patients with HR+/HER2- EBC was conducted. The RCTs evaluated various systemic therapeutic categories; key inclusion criteria included reporting of DFS and OS hazard ratios (HRs) and mature OS data. Spearman rank correlation and weighted linear regression analyses evaluated DFS and OS HR correlation. A scenario analysis tested base-case analysis robustness, and a parallel analysis using patient-level data was conducted. RESULTS: The base case (N = 14 RCTs) showed an unweighted Spearman coefficient of 0.81 between OS and DFS (weighted: 0.81), with 84% of the variability in OS explained by DFS differences (R2 from weighted regression). The surrogate threshold effect (Burzykowski T, Buyse M. Pharm Stat. 2006;5:173-186) was 0.82 for DFS/OS HR. Scenario analysis (n = 9 RCTs), which excluded chemotherapy trials, and patient-level analysis using FACE trial data were consistent with the base-case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses support DFS as a reliable surrogate endpoint for OS in adjuvant HR+/HER2- EBC trials. Using DFS as a surrogate measure will permit timelier access to novel treatments for patients with HR+/HER2- EBC.

Efficacy, safety, and prognosis prediction in patients treated with ribociclib in combination with letrozole: Final results of phase 3b RIBECCA study in hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In MONALEESA-2, addition of ribociclib to letrozole resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) in postmenopausal women with HR+HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). RIBociclib for the treatment of advanCed breast CAncer (RIBECCA) study investigated ribociclib plus letrozole in a patient population reflecting routine clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 3b study, patients with HR+HER2- ABC not amenable to curative therapy and ECOG performance status ≤ 2 received ribociclib plus letrozole (cohort A: postmenopausal women and men in first-line; cohort B: pre-/perimenopausal women in first-line [B1], patients pretreated for advanced disease [B2]). The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) by week 24; secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), PFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. Association of patient and tumor characteristics with PFS was analyzed by multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 487 patients were evaluable for efficacy, 502 for safety. By week 24, CBR was 60.8 % (95 % CI, 56.3-65.1), ORR was 19.3 % (95 % CI, 15.9-23.1). Median PFS was 21.8 months (95 % CI, 13.9-25.3) in first-line postmenopausal patients and 11.0 months (95 % CI, 8.2-16.4) in premenopausal and pretreated patients. Median OS was not reached. Higher baseline ECOG performance status, higher histological grade, and negative progesterone receptor status showed an unfavorable effect on PFS. Most common adverse events were neutropenia (50.0 %), nausea (42.0 %), and fatigue (39.2 %). CONCLUSION: In this broad population of patients with HR+HER2- ABC, efficacy and safety results of ribociclib plus letrozole were similar to those observed in pivotal trials.

Quality-Adjusted Survival with Ribociclib Plus Fulvestrant Versus Placebo Plus Fulvestrant in Postmenopausal Women with HR±HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer in the MONALEESA-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: MONALEESA-3 demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for ribociclib plus fulvestrant (R+F) in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2 negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study estimated quality-adjusted (QA) survival outcomes for patients receiving R+F vs. placebo (P)+F in MONALEESA-3. METHODS: Kaplan-Meier OS was partitioned into health states: (1) toxicity (TOX)=time spent with grade 3 -4 adverse events before progression (DP); (2) progression (PROG)=time between DP and death; and (3) time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST)=time not in TOX or PROG. QA time was calculated by combining estimated mean time in each health state with treatment-group specific health-state utility values estimated using EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Outcomes included QA progression-free survival (QAPFS), QAOS, and QA TWiST (Q-TWiST). Q-TWiST was calculated with health-state utility values for TOX and PROG defined relative to TWiST. RESULTS: Mean PFS and OS were significantly greater with R+F vs. P+F (difference 0.56 and 0.19 years). Mean time in TOX and TWiST were greater with R+F; mean time in PROG was greater with P+F. QAPFS was 0.45 years (95% CI 0.27 -0.63) greater with R+F than P+F (P <.001). QAOS was numerically greater with R+F vs. P+F (0.16 years, 95% CI 0.07 -0.45, P = .0569). Q-TWiST was 0.23 years greater with R+F (95% CI 0.07 -0.45, P = .0069). In a sensitivity analysis using an estimate of disutility for PROG, the difference in QAOS was 0.23 years (95% CI 0.08 -0.41, P = .0022). CONCLUSION: R+F in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC improves QAPFS, resulting in clinically important improvements in Q-TWiST and may improve QAOS.

Real-world patient-reported outcomes of breast cancer or prostate cancer patients receiving antiresorptive therapy for bone metastases: Final results of the PROBone registry study.

Background: In breast cancer and prostate cancer patients, bone metastases (BM) present the main cause of morbidity and often cause debilitating pain, impaired functioning and subsequent deterioration of quality of life (QoL). The management of BM is still challenging. Maintenance or improvement in QoL is the main goal of treatment. Antiresorptive treatment, such as denosumab and bisphosphonates, can help to reduce the frequency of skeletal complications, to control bone pain and potentially to improve QoL. The optimal time point for initiation of antiresorptive therapy is still discussed controversially. In patients with BM, bone pain can be used as a surrogate measure of QoL. However, limited data exist on health-related QoL in patients with BM under antiresorptive treatment. The PROBone registry study evaluated complaints and limitations caused by BM of breast and prostate cancer patients using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in real-world in Germany. Methods: Between 2014 and 2019, 500 patients with histological confirmation of advanced breast or prostate cancer, diagnosed with BM at start of their first antiresorptive therapy were prospectively enrolled in 65 outpatient-centers specialized in medical oncology across Germany. Changes of QoL were assessed monthly from baseline until a maximum of 12 months using the validated pain score Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Quality of Life Measurement in patients with bone pain (FACT-BP) supplemented by questions on general pain and on the impact of time spent for treatment of illness on patients' daily activities. Statistical analysis was performed descriptively by relative and absolute frequencies. Results: In total, 486 patients were eligible for final analysis, of these 310 were diagnosed with breast cancer and 176 with prostate cancer. Median age was 67 years for breast cancer and 76 years for prostate cancer patients. 79.7% of breast cancer and 59.7% of prostate patients started antiresorptive treatment within 3 months after diagnosis of BM. More than 75% of patients suffered from bone pain at study inclusion. In total 52% of breast cancer patients and 47.9% of prostate cancer patients reported to take pain medication during the observation period. In breast and prostate cancer patients an initial pain reduction after start of BTA was observed: General pain and bone pain levels as well as the median FACT-BP score showed a constant improvement over the first months and maintained stable at a constant level afterwards. Subgroup analysis showed that patients without pain at baseline reported distinctly better FACT-BP scores throughout the whole observation period than patients with pain at baseline. Looking at time-stress (M)-scores, younger breast cancer patients (<65 years) showed highest burden especially during the first months of treatment. Conclusions: Our results indicate overall good adherence to current guideline recommendation, with most breast and prostate cancer patients starting antiresorptive therapy within the first 3 months after diagnosis of BM. This point gains even more importance as our data support current recommendations by ESMO guidelines as well as by German evidence-based S3-guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of breast and prostate cancer to initiate bone-targeted agents (BTA) as soon as BM are diagnosed, to keep pain levels at the lowest level possible, to minimize the debilitating effects of metastatic bone pain and maintain a good QoL. Bone pain management by an early use of BTA following BM diagnosis might improve patient care.

Biomarker testing in non-small cell lung cancer in routine care: Analysis of the first 3,717 patients in the German prospective, observational, nation-wide CRISP Registry (AIO-TRK-0315).

OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of treatment-determining biomarkers has been identified in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and molecular testing is recommended to enable optimal individualized treatment. However, data on implementation of these recommendations in the "real-world" setting are scarce. This study presents comprehensive details on the frequency, methodology and results of biomarker testing of advanced NSCLC in Germany. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis included 3,717 patients with advanced NSCLC (2,921 non-squamous; 796 squamous), recruited into the CRISP registry at start of systemic therapy by 150 German sites between December 2015 and June 2019. Evaluated were the molecular biomarkers EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, KRAS, MET, TP53, RET, HER2, as well as expression of PD-L1. RESULTS: In total, 90.5 % of the patients were tested for biomarkers. Testing rates were 92.2 % (non-squamous), 70.7 % (squamous) and increased from 83.2 % in 2015/16 to 94.2% in 2019. Overall testing rates for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF were 72.5 %, 74.5 %, 66.1 %, and 53.0 %, respectively (non-squamous). Testing rates for PD-L1 expression were 64.5 % (non-squamous), and 58.5 % (squamous). The most common testing methods were immunohistochemistry (68.5 % non-squamous, 58.3 % squamous), and next-generation sequencing (38.7 % non-squamous, 14.4 % squamous). Reasons for not testing were insufficient tumor material or lack of guideline recommendations (squamous). No alteration was found in 37.8 % (non-squamous), and 57.9 % (squamous), respectively. Most common alterations in non-squamous tumors (all patients/all patients tested for the respective biomarker): KRAS (17.3 %/39.2 %), TP53 (14.1 %/51.4 %), and EGFR (11.0 %/15.1 %); in squamous tumors: TP53 (7.0 %/69.1 %), MET (1.5 %/11.1 %), and EGFR (1.1 %/4.4 %). Median PFS (non-squamous) was 8.7 months (95 % CI 7.4-10.4) with druggable EGFR mutation, and 8.0 months (95 % CI 3.9-9.2) with druggable ALK alterations. CONCLUSION: Testing rates in Germany are high nationwide and acceptable in international comparison, but still leave out a significant portion of patients, who could potentially benefit. Thus, specific measures are needed to increase implementation.

A multicentric observational trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) is active in metastatic breast cancer. This observational study evaluated the efficacy and safety of PLD in patients treated during routine clinical practice. METHODS: Eligible patients had metastatic breast cancer and were treated with PLD according to the dose and schedule determined by their physician as part of routine practice. The primary objectives were to analyze the efficacy and toxicity of PLD therapy. RESULTS: 125 patients were assessable. Median age was 62 years, 78% had performance status 0-1, and 60% had estrogen-receptor-positive disease. PLD treatment was second- or third-line in 69% of patients. Prior anthracyclines (adjuvant or metastatic) had been used in 56% of patients. The majority of patients (79%) received PLD every 4 weeks at a median dose of 40 mg/m2. Overall response rate was 43% in all patients and 34% in those previously treated with anthracyclines. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were skin toxicity/hand-foot syndrome (6%), and leukopenia (3%). CONCLUSIONS: This observational study supports the activity and tolerability of PLD in metastatic breast cancer as demonstrated in PLD clinical trials.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Nab-paclitaxel in Younger versus Elderly Patients With Metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative Breast Cancer: Results From the Noninterventional, Prospective Study NABUCCO.

BACKGROUND: There are only scarce data on treatment of elderly patients with nab-paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer, especially from the real-world setting. Here we present data from the noninterventional study NABUCCO with special focus on taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) in younger and elderly patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 407 patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer were enrolled between April 2012 and April 2015 into the prospective, multicenter, noninterventional study NABUCCO. Details on effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of nab-paclitaxel were evaluated for younger (<70 years) and elderly (≥70 years) patients. RESULTS: Neither median time to progression (TTP, younger 6.0 months, 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5-7.1; elderly 6.9 months, 95% CI, 5.5-8.6) nor median overall survival (younger 16.4 months, 95% CI, 14.2-18.1; elderly 14.5 months, 95% CI, 11.9-17.4) differed by age group, also not in view of prior treatments. A multivariate regression model revealed that age did not significantly influence the TTP. TIPN was reported by 49.0% younger (44.3% common terminology criteria for adverse events [CTCAE] grade 1/2, 4.7% grade 3/4) and 45.8% elderly patients (41.1% CTCAE grade 1/2, 4.7% grade 3/4). The cumulative nab-paclitaxel dose did not correlate with the severity/grading of TIPN. CONCLUSION: Treatment with nab-paclitaxel in first- or further-line of metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer resulted in similar effectiveness and safety, irrespective of age. Therefore, nab-paclitaxel is a valid treatment option for elderly and partially heavily pretreated patients. However, incidence of TIPN is high, influencing the patients' quality of life. A close monitoring and awareness for early TIPN symptoms is warranted.

Association of Disease Progression With Health-Related Quality of Life Among Adults With Breast, Lung, Pancreatic, and Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Mortality, morbidity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are patient-relevant end points generally considered in the early benefit assessments of new cancer treatments. Progression-related end points, such as time to progression or progression-free survival, are not included, although patients and physicians testify to the detrimental association of disease progression with HRQoL. Objective: To examine the association of disease progression and HRQoL in 4 prevalent solid-cancer entities in routine clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated data from 4 prospective, nonintervention, multicenter registries collected between 2011 and 2018 in 203 centers in Germany. Patients' HRQoL was assessed regularly for up to 5 years. The change in HRQoL scores after disease progression was examined with linear mixed models, adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. Patients with metastatic breast, pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancer were recruited at the start of systemic first-line treatment. Data analysis was performed from February 2019 to April 2019. Exposures: All patients received systemic, palliative first-line treatment according to their physician's choice. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was deterioration of HRQoL associated with disease progression, as measured by 4 validated questionnaires: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General version 4, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 version 3.0, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C15-PAL version 1, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Results: More than 8000 questionnaires from 2314 patients with 2562 documented disease progressions were analyzed. In total, 464 patients had breast cancer (464 [100.0%] female; median [range] age, 61.6 [26.4-90.1] years), 807 patients had pancreatic cancer (352 [43.6%] female; median [range] age, 70.0 [39.0-93.0] years), 341 patients had lung cancer (118 [34.6%] female; median [range] age, 65.9 [28.4-88.2] years), and 702 patients had colorectal cancer (248 [35.3%] female; median [range] age, 66.9 [26.9-92.1] years). The first disease progression was associated with a statistically significant worsening of 37 of 45 HRQoL scales; for 17 of these scales, the worsening was clinically meaningful. Scale scores for appetite loss (pancreatic cancer, 10.2 points [95% CI, 6.8-13.5 points]; lung cancer, 10.8 points [95% CI, 5.4-16.2 points]; colorectal cancer, 8.8 points [95% CI, 5.5-12.2]; all P < .001), physical functioning (pancreatic cancer, 6.2 points [95% CI, 3.8-8.5 points]; lung cancer, 8.4 points [95% CI, 5.4-11.5 points]; colorectal cancer, 5.0 points [95% CI, 3.0-7.0 points]; all P < .001), and fatigue (pancreatic cancer, 5.5 points [95% CI, 3.0-7.9 points]; lung cancer, 7.7 points [95% CI, 4.3-11.1]; colorectal cancer, 4.5 points [95% CI, 2.1-6.9 points]; all P < .001) were most affected, irrespective of the type of cancer. The association with global HRQoL was most pronounced in lung cancer (6.7 points [95% CI, 3.5-9.9 points]; P < .001) and pancreatic cancer (5.4 points [95% CI, 3.3-7.5 points]; P < .001) and less in colorectal cancer (3.5 points [95% CI, 1.3-5.7 points]; P = .002) and breast cancer (2.4 points [95% CI, 1.0-3.9 points]; P = .001). The second progression was associated with an even larger decrease in HRQoL. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that disease progression is associated with a deterioration in HRQoL among patients with metastatic breast, pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancer. This evidence highlights the importance of progression-related end points, such as time to progression and progression-free survival, as additional patient-relevant end points when evaluating the benefit of new treatments for patients with metastatic cancer.

Ribociclib plus fulvestrant for advanced breast cancer: Health-related quality-of-life analyses from the MONALEESA-3 study.

PURPOSE: In the MONALEESA-3 Phase III trial of patients with hormone receptor-positive human epidermal growth factor receptor-negative advanced breast cancer, ribociclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Here, we present patient-reported outcomes from the trial, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive ribociclib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. Time to definitive 10% deterioration (TTD) from baseline in HRQOL (global health status [GHS] from the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire) and pain (BPI-SF questionnaire) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates; a stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Deterioration ≥10% in the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS was observed in 33% of patients in the ribociclib group vs 34% of patients in the placebo (reference) group (HR for TTD ≥ 10% = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.62-1.1]). Similar findings were noted for TTD ≥5% (HR = 0.79 [95% CI, 0.61-1.0]) and TTD ≥15% (HR = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.60-1.08]). TTD ≥10% in emotional functioning (HR = 0.76 [95% CI, 0.57-1.01]) trended in favor of the ribociclib group, whereas results for fatigue and pain were similar between arms. TTD ≥10% in BPI-SF pain severity index score (HR = 0.77 [95% CI, 0.57-1.05]) and worst pain item score (HR = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.58-1.12]) trended in favor of ribociclib vs placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to significantly prolonging PFS and OS compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, adding ribociclib to fulvestrant maintains HRQOL.

Final Effectiveness and Safety Results of NABUCCO: Real-World Data From a Noninterventional, Prospective, Multicenter Study in 697 Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Treated With nab-Paclitaxel.

BACKGROUND: One of the most effective chemotherapies for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is nab-paclitaxel (nab-P), which is approved for treatment of MBC after failure of first-line therapy and when anthracyclines are not indicated. Randomized clinical trials have shown high efficacy and acceptable toxicity. Real-world data of nab-P in MBC, however, are still limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The prospective multicenter noninterventional study NABUCCO collected data on the routine treatment of patients with MBC receiving nab-P in 128 sites across Germany. The primary objective was time to progression. Secondary objectives were overall response rate, overall survival, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Between April 2012 and April 2015, a total of 705 patients with MBC at 128 active sites had been enrolled. A total of 697 patients had evaluable data with a median follow-up of 17.7 months. Median time to progression was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval, 5.6-6.4), overall response rate was 37.2%, and median overall survival was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval, 14.2-17.2). The results were similar in patients aged < 65 versus ≥ 65 years as well as in patients who received nab-P on a weekly or a triweekly schedule. The most frequently reported grade 3/4 adverse events were leukopenia (55, 7.9%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (30, 4.3%), and infections (29, 4.2%). Patients reported no apparent treatment-related impact on global quality of life. CONCLUSION: The results of the NABUCCO study confirm the clinical trial outcomes and the favorable safety profile of nab-P in patients with metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting.

Changes in Treatment Reality and Survival of Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma - Analyses From the German Clinical RCC-Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Because the treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has evolved dramatically over the past decade, data on patients' treatment and outcomes in routine practice, so called "real-world data," are important to complement clinical trial data. We present choice of systemic first-/second-line treatments, number and sequences of treatment lines, and survival of patients with clear cell mRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1085 patients with clear cell mRCC who were recruited at the start of first-line treatment into the prospective German clinical cohort study (RCC-Registry) by 122 sites between December 2007 and May 2017 were analyzed. RESULTS: The choice of first-/second-line treatment and changes over time reflect the chronologic approval of different targeted agents: from mainly tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), to TKIs/mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors, to now TKIs/mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors/checkpoint inhibitor. The median first-line overall survival ranged from 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-10.9 months) in high MSKCC (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) risk to 36.7 months (95% CI, 27.9-43.0 months) in low-risk patients. For trial-ineligible routine patients meeting common exclusion criteria of clinical trials, the median overall survival was 14.6 months (95% CI, 11.5-18.0 months) compared with 26.2 months (95% CI, 22.1-31.5 months) for potentially trial-eligible patients. CONCLUSION: This is the first prospective long-term cohort study showing changes in treatment reality and survival of routine patients with clear cell mRCC. Newly approved treatments are quickly applied in routine care. Patients with unfavorable prognosis, including trial-ineligible patients, have inferior outcomes. Survival times of potentially trial-eligible patients are similar to those reported from clinical trials.

Phase III Randomized Study of Ribociclib and Fulvestrant in Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: MONALEESA-3.

Purpose This phase III study evaluated ribociclib plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer who were treatment naïve or had received up to one line of prior endocrine therapy in the advanced setting. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to ribociclib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. The primary end point was locally assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety. Results A total of 484 postmenopausal women were randomly assigned to ribociclib plus fulvestrant, and 242 were assigned to placebo plus fulvestrant. Median progression-free survival was significantly improved with ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant: 20.5 months (95% CI, 18.5 to 23.5 months) versus 12.8 months (95% CI, 10.9 to 16.3 months), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.593; 95% CI, 0.480 to 0.732; P < .001). Consistent treatment effects were observed in patients who were treatment naïve in the advanced setting (hazard ratio, 0.577; 95% CI, 0.415 to 0.802), as well as in patients who had received up to one line of prior endocrine therapy for advanced disease (hazard ratio, 0.565; 95% CI, 0.428 to 0.744). Among patients with measurable disease, the overall response rate was 40.9% for the ribociclib plus fulvestrant arm and 28.7% for placebo plus fulvestrant. Grade 3 adverse events reported in ≥ 10% of patients in either arm (ribociclib plus fulvestrant v placebo plus fulvestrant) were neutropenia (46.6% v 0%) and leukopenia (13.5% v 0%); the only grade 4 event reported in ≥ 5% of patients was neutropenia (6.8% v 0%). Conclusion Ribociclib plus fulvestrant might represent a new first- or second-line treatment option in hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Survival of Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Routine Practice Differs From That in Clinical Trials-Analyses From the German Clinical RCC Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Because "real-life" patients often do not meet the strict eligibility criteria of clinical trials, we assessed the trial eligibility of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in routine practice and compared the survival of "trial-ineligible" and potentially "trial-eligible" patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The present prospective, multicenter German cohort study is recruiting patients from 110 oncology/urology outpatient centers and hospitals at initiation of systemic first-line treatment. The demographic, clinical, treatment, and survival data were collected. We defined patients as "trial-ineligible" when ≥ 1 exclusion criterion (Karnofsky performance status < 80%, hemoglobin less than the lower limit of normal, non-clear cell carcinoma histology) was documented. Otherwise, the patients were considered "trial-eligible". RESULTS: Of 732 patients included, 57% were classified as "trial-ineligible". Overall, the median first-line progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.9-8.9 months). The median first-line PFS of "trial-eligible" and "trial-ineligible" patients was 11.0 months (95% CI, 9.6-13.1 months) and 5.3 months (95% CI, 4.6-6.5 months), respectively. The median OS of the "trial-eligible" and "trial-ineligible" patients was 26.0 months (95% CI, 22.1-29.7 months) and 12.6 months (95% CI, 10.6-15.8 months), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that patients in routine practice differ from patients treated in clinical trials and that almost 60% of mRCC patients in German routine practice would be ineligible for participation in clinical trials. While their first-line PFS and OS were shorter than those of "trial-eligible" patients, the PFS and OS of "trial-eligible" patients were comparable with the results from clinical trials. Physicians should be aware of these differences when discussing treatment options and outcome expectations with patients.

CEREBEL (EGF111438): A Phase III, Randomized, Open-Label Study of Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine Versus Trastuzumab Plus Capecitabine in Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: CEREBEL compared the incidence of CNS metastases as first site of relapse in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer receiving lapatinib-capecitabine or trastuzumab-capecitabine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients without baseline CNS metastases were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive lapatinib-capecitabine (lapatinib 1,250 mg per day; capecitabine 2,000 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 to 14 every 21 days) or trastuzumab-capecitabine (trastuzumab loading dose of 8 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks; capecitabine 2,500 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 to 14 every 21 days). The primary end point was incidence of CNS metastases as first site of relapse. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The study was terminated early with 540 enrolled patients (271 received lapatinib-capecitabine, and 269 received trastuzumab-capecitabine). Incidence of CNS metastases as first site of relapse was 3% (eight of 251 patients) for lapatinib-capecitabine and 5% (12 of 250 patients) for trastuzumab-capecitabine (treatment differences, -1.6%; 95% CI, -2% to 5%; P = .360). PFS and OS were longer with trastuzumab-capecitabine versus lapatinib-capecitabine (hazard ratio [HR] for PFS, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.64; HR for OS, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.64). Serious adverse events were reported in 13% (34 of 269 patients) and 17% (45 of 267 patients) of patients in the lapatinib-capecitabine and trastuzumab-capecitabine arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: CEREBEL is inconclusive for the primary end point, and no difference was detected between lapatinb-capecitabine and trastuzumab-capecitabine for the incidence of CNS metastases. A better outcome was observed with trastuzumab-capecitabine in the overall population. However, lapatinib-capecitabine efficacy may have been affected by previous exposure to a trastuzumab regimen and/or when treatment was given as first- or second-line therapy in the metastatic setting.