A real-life study on the implementation and effectiveness of exemestane plus everolimus per hospital type in patients with advanced breast cancer. A study of the Southeast Netherlands Advanced Breast Cancer registry.

PURPOSE: We aimed to assess the implementation and effectiveness of exemestane plus everolimus treatment per hospital type in real-life, shortly after approval of everolimus. METHODS: Advanced breast cancer patients treated with exemestane plus everolimus in 2012-2014 were included from the SONABRE registry. Progression-free survival (PFS) and a 12-week conditional PFS (post-hoc) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was performed by type of hospital and adjusted for patient, tumour and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: We included 122 patients, comprising 48 patients treated in academic (N = 1), 56 in teaching (N = 4), and 18 in non-teaching (N = 2) hospitals. The median PFS was 6.3 months (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 4.0-8.6) overall, and 8.5 months (95% CI 7.7-9.3), 4.2 months (95% CI 2.0-6.3), and 5.5 months (95% CI 4.2-6.7) for the patients treated in academic, teaching and non-teaching hospitals, respectively. The adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) for PFS-events was 1.5 (95% CI 1.0-2.2) and 1.0 (95% CI 0.5-1.9) respectively for patients treated at teaching and non-teaching hospitals versus the academic hospital. The adjusted HR for 12-week conditional PFS-events was not different between hospital types. In the first 12-week treatment period, treatment was discontinued due to early progression in one out of 48 patients in the academic versus nine out of 74 patients in the non-academic hospitals, confirmed by imaging in one and two patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the median PFS was borderline significantly different between hospital types, possibly the result of a different assessment approach in the first 12-week treatment period.

Real-world and trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients: a study of the Southeast Netherlands Breast Cancer Consortium.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of our analysis was to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in addition to taxane treatment versus taxane monotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer compared with the cost-effectiveness based on the efficacy results from a trial. METHODS: A state transition model was built to estimate costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatments. Two scenarios were examined: a real-world scenario and a trial-based scenario in which transition probabilities were primarily based on a real-world cohort study and the E2100 trial, respectively. In both scenarios, costs and utility parameter estimates were extracted from the real-world cohort study. Moreover, the Dutch health care perspective was adopted. RESULTS: In both the real-world and trial scenarios, bevacizumab-taxane is more expensive (incremental costs of €56,213 and €52,750, respectively) and more effective (incremental QALYs of 0.362 and 0.189, respectively) than taxane monotherapy. In the real-world scenario, bevacizumab-taxane compared to taxane monotherapy led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €155,261 per QALY gained. In the trial scenario, the ICER amounted to €278,711 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: According to the Dutch informal threshold, bevacizumab in addition to taxane treatment was not considered cost-effective for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer both in a real-world and in a trial scenario.

In real life, one-quarter of patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer receive chemotherapy as initial palliative therapy: a study of the Southeast Netherlands Breast Cancer Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to present initial systemic treatment choices and the outcome of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All the 815 consecutive patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer in 2007-2009 in eight participating hospitals were identified. From the 611 patients with HR+ disease, a total of 520 patients with HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer were included. Initial palliative systemic treatment was registered. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) per initial palliative systemic therapy were obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: From the total of 520 patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, 482 patients (93%) received any palliative systemic therapy. Patients that received initial chemotherapy (n = 116) were significantly younger, had less comorbidity, had received more prior adjuvant systemic therapy and were less likely to have bone metastasis only compared with patients that received initial endocrine therapy (n = 366). Median PFS of initial palliative chemotherapy was 5.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.2-6.2] and of initial endocrine therapy 13.3 months (95% CI 11.3-15.5), with a median OS of 16.1 and 36.9 months, respectively. Initial chemotherapy was also associated with worse outcome in terms of PFS and OS after adjustment for prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage of patients with HR+ disease received initial palliative chemotherapy, which was associated with worse outcome, even after adjustment of relevant prognostic factors.

Prognosis of metastatic breast cancer: are there differences between patients with de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer?

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the prognostic impact of time between primary breast cancer and diagnosis of distant metastasis (metastatic-free interval, MFI) on the survival of metastatic breast cancer patients. METHODS: Consecutive patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer in 2007-2009 in eight hospitals in the Southeast of the Netherlands were included and categorised based on MFI. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the prognostic impact of de novo metastatic breast cancer vs recurrent metastatic breast cancer (MFI ⩽24 months and >24 months), adjusted for age, hormone receptor and HER2 status, initial site of metastasis and use of prior (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy. RESULTS: Eight hundred and fifteen patients were included and divided in three subgroups based on MFI; 154 patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer, 176 patients with MFI <24 months and 485 patients with MFI >24 months. Patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer had a prolonged survival compared with patients with recurrent metastatic breast cancer with MFI <24 months (median 29.4 vs 9.1 months, P<0.0001), but no difference in survival compared with patients with recurrent metastatic breast cancer with MFI >24 months (median, 29.4 vs 27.9 months, P=0.73). Adjusting for other prognostic factors, patients with MFI <24 months had increased mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.97, 95% CI 1.49-2.60, P<0.0001) compared with patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer. When comparing recurrent metastatic breast cancer with MFI >24 months with de novo metastatic breast cancer no significant difference in mortality risk was found. The association between MFI and survival was seen irrespective of use of (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy. CONCLUSION: Patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer had a significantly better outcome when compared with patients with MFI <24 months, irrespective of the use of prior adjuvant systemic therapy in the latter group. However, compared with patients with MFI >24 months, patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer had similar outcome.