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.

The Endocrine Treatment Landscape for Patients with HR+ HER2- Early-stage Breast Cancer in Germany Before the Introduction of CDK4/6 Inhibitor Therapy - A Real-World Analysis.

Introduction: While premenopausal patients with HR+ HER2- early breast cancer are treated with tamoxifen +/- ovarian suppression with a GnRH analog or an aromatase inhibitor (AI) + GnRH, the majority of postmenopausal women receive an AI due to its higher efficacy compared to tamoxifen. As the introduction of CDK4/6 inhibitors into the treatment of early-stage breast cancer with a higher risk of recurrence will probably result in a shift in the endocrine treatment landscape, the question is what treatment did potential candidates for CDK4/6 inhibitors in Germany receive before CDK4/6 inhibitors were available. Patients and Methods: As part of a retrospective multicenter analysis, anonymized data were collected of patients with HR+ HER2- early-stage breast cancer who received endocrine therapy in the period between 10/2021 and 03/2022. Potential candidates for CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment were classified into different risk cohorts using the inclusion criteria of the NATALEE and monarchE trials. Results: The data of 238 patients from 29 different centers were analyzed. While 20.6% of patients met the monarchE criteria, the subgroup which met the NATALEE inclusion criteria consisted of 46.2% of patients. 53.8% of patients did not meet the inclusion criteria for either the NATALEE or the monarchE trial. More than half of the patients did not receive chemotherapy. 28.6% of patients in the whole cohort were premenopausal. 67.6% of premenopausal women received neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy. 61.8% of premenopausal patients received tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy, 19.1% received an AI + GnRH and 10.3% were treated with tamoxifen + GnRH. Conclusion: Despite the high percentage of premenopausal patients who received aggressive treatment in the form of chemotherapy, only one third of premenopausal patients received GnRH in addition to their standard endocrine therapy. Studies carried out at a later point in time and registry studies will be necessary to see how the endocrine therapy landscape in Germany has changed following the introduction of CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Observational outcomes in proliferative diabetic retinopathy patients following treatment with ranibizumab, panretinal laser photocoagulation or combination therapy - The non-interventional second year follow-up to the PRIDE study.

PURPOSE: Ranibizumab monotherapy showed stronger effects on area of retinal neovascularization (NV) reduction while offering better visual acuity (VA) results than panretinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) monotherapy during the first 12 months of the PRIDE study. The second year of PRIDE was an observational, non-interventional follow-up, performed to evaluate long-term anatomical and functional outcomes in proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) patients under real-life conditions, prior to the approval of ranibizumab for PDR. METHODS: Seventy-three PDR patients (28 from the ranibizumab group; 20 from the PRP group; 25 from the combination group) were included in the observational follow-up phase and treated at the investigators discretion. Visual acuity (VA) measurements and retinal imaging were performed at Months 12, 18 and 24. RESULTS: Mean (± SD) NV area in the ranibizumab monotherapy and combination follow-up groups increased from 3.16 ± 4.30 mm2 and 1.13 ± 2.78 mm2 at Month 12 to 6.09 ± 10.79 mm2 and 2.14 ± 4.41 mm2 at Month 18 and 10.00 ± 17.63 mm2 and 3.26 ± 7.05 mm2 at Month 24, respectively. In the PRP follow-up group, NV area declined from 5.44 ± 14.55 mm2 at Month 12 to 1.22 ± 1.67 mm2 at Month 18, but increased again to 4.05 ± 11.66 mm2 at Month 24. During the observational phase, only 2 (6;8) patients in the ranibizumab (PRP;combination) follow-up group were treated with anti-VEGF medications, while 17 (6;10) patients received PRP laser therapy. CONCLUSION: Discontinuation of ranibizumab treatment in PDR patients may result in an increase of NV area and VA loss. Tight monitoring of disease activity and continued treatment beyond the first year is needed to maintain disease control.

Prevalence of Back Pain among German Ophthalmologists.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of back pain among German ophthalmologists, to investigate the relationship towards age, gender, various profession-related factors, to correlate localization of pain to subspecialties, and to explore individual therapeutic and coping strategies. METHODS: In this prospective, cross-sectional survey, a 9-item questionnaire was sent via mail to all members of the German professional association of ophthalmologists "Berufsverband der Augenärzte Deutschlands e.V. (BVA)." Responses were analyzed according to a pre-specified analysis plan. RESULTS: From a total of 5,954 members contacted, 1,861 copies (31%) were received back, of which 1,807 (30%) were suitable for analysis. 913 (51%) participants were female and 876 (48%) were male, with a median age of 50 years (interquartile range: 44; 57). 1,464 ophthalmologists (81%) reported current back problems, considerably more than had been reported in the general population or in other medical specialties. Older age, female gender, and higher number of professional years appeared to be risk factors for developing back pain. Overall, neck pain was the leading symptom in 951 attendees (65%) but differed between ophthalmologists who primarily performed conservative treatment (cervical spine) and those who performed surgery (mainly lumbar spine). 1,037 participants (71%) link their complaints to their occupational activity. Exercising and back training were reported as common strategies for prevention and coping with the problem. Recommendations for improvement were mainly ergonomic optimization of the working place. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of back pain complaints in German ophthalmologists is high. Neck pain (65%) was the leading localization, followed by low back pain (53%) and shoulder (38%) problems, which might emphasize a special back pain complaint profile in ophthalmologists. Low back pain seems to be more common in ophthalmologists with surgical specialization than in those with mainly medical tasks. The high prevalence of back pain in ophthalmologists should be communicated with employers, the industry, and professional societies to develop and implement a strategy to prevent occupational-related musculoskeletal disorders and preserve the ability to work and the quality of life.

Ranibizumab Pro Re nata versus Dexamethasone in the Management of Ischemic Retinal Vein Occlusion: Post-hoc Analysis from the COMRADE Trials.

Purpose: To compare ischemia-related clinical outcomes in patients treated with either ranibizumab pro re nata (PRN) or single dexamethasone implant in the Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion (COMRADE-B) or Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (COMRADE-C) trials.Methods: A post-hoc analysis of the Phase IIIb, 6-month, multicenter, double-masked, randomized, COMRADE-B and COMRADE-C trials. Change over 6 months in retinal ischemia status (central avascular [CA] zone and peripheral nonperfusion [PNP]), mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), the development of shunt vessels and neovascularization, and frequency of laser therapy were assessed in retinal vein occlusion (RVO) patients treated with either ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN or single dexamethasone 0.7 mg implant, as per European labels, in the COMRADE-B (N = 244; ranibizumab, 126, dexamethasone, 118) or COMRADE-C (N = 243; ranibizumab, 124, dexamethasone, 119) trials. BCVA progression in ischemic vs. non-ischemic patients based on the ischemia assessment at month 6 was carried out.Results: Visual acuity (VA) gains from baseline to month 6 were higher with ranibizumab than with dexamethasone in both patients with central ischemia and those with peripheral retinal nonperfusion, independent of the type of RVO (branch or central). The presence of CA and PNP had a significant impact on VA gain over 6 months in CRVO patients (p < .0001), while there was no significant impact in BRVO. Ranibizumab was associated with less new ischemia than dexamethasone. Central RVO patients treated with dexamethasone received more laser treatments over the 6 months than those treated with ranibizumab, while there was no difference in the frequency of laser therapy between the branch RVO treatment groups.Conclusions: VA gain over six months in ranibizumab-treated RVO patients is not affected by ischemia, and is associated with less development of new ischemia during the first 6 months of treatment and equal or fewer laser treatments than dexamethasone implant.

Efficacy and safety of ranibizumab with or without panretinal laser photocoagulation versus laser photocoagulation alone in proliferative diabetic retinopathy - the PRIDE study.

PURPOSE: Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the current standard of care in proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). However, treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents might offer better patient outcomes with fewer side-effects. The PRIDE study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab with or without PRP compared with PRP alone in patients with PDR. METHODS: A total of 106 PDR patients without diabetic macular oedema were randomized to receive ranibizumab 0.5 mg monotherapy (n = 35), PRP (n = 35) or combined ranibizumab 0.5 mg/PRP (n = 36). The primary objective of this 12-month, multicentre, phase II study was to investigate the change in area of retinal neovascularization (NV). Complete regression of leakage and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were key secondary end-points. RESULTS: At Month 12, there was a statistically significant difference of -2.83 mm² in the least square mean change in NV area between the ranibizumab monotherapy and PRP group, favouring ranibizumab (95% CI [-5.45; -0.21], p = 0.0344). At Month 3, 67%/0%/67% of the patients in the ranibizumab/PRP/combination groups, respectively, showed complete regression of leakage from NVs, while at Month 12, 28%/8%/18% showed complete regression of leakage from NVs. BCVA change was greater in the ranibizumab group compared with the PRP monotherapy group at Month 12 (+1.6 letters; 95% CI [-2.3; 5.5] versus -3.9 letters; 95% CI [-7.8; -0.1], p = 0.0495). CONCLUSIONS: Ranibizumab monotherapy is an alternative treatment option to laser treatment in patients with PDR. Ranibizumab showed stronger effects on NV leakage and area reduction while offering better visual acuity results than PRP alone.

A Phase 4 Study of Everolimus to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety in Patients with Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma after Failure of First-Line Sunitinib or Pazopanib (SUNPAZ).

INTRODUCTION: Sunitinib and pazopanib are both standard first-line therapies for clear-cell metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC). Everolimus is a well-established second-line treatment. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the efficacy and safety of second-line everolimus following pazopanib or sunitinib. METHODS: SUNPAZ was an open-label, phase 4 clinical trial of everolimus in patients with clear-cell mRCC progressing after first-line sunitinib or pazopanib. The primary end point was the number of patients without progression 6 months after starting everolimus. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and overall response rate. Enrollment was terminated early due to slow recruitment; all analyses are descriptive. RESULTS: Patients who received prior sunitinib (n = 16) or pazopanib (n = 13) were enrolled. One of 12 patients in the sunitinib group and 6/13 patients in the pazopanib group were progression-free by month 6 in the full analysis set. Median PFS in the sunitinib and pazopanib groups was 2.8 and 8.0 months, and median OS was 14.8 months and 20.4 months, respectively. Fifteen patients in the sunitinib group and 13 in the pazopanib group experienced adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and efficacy results confirm the second-line everolimus profile. However, baseline differences in patient populations should be taken into consideration.

Safety of Imatinib Mesylate in a Multicenter Expanded Access Program in Adult Patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in the Adjuvant Setting.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are mesenchymal tumors most often caused by activating mutations of the KIT gene. KIT tyrosine kinase inhibitors provide targeted therapy for the underlying genetic mutation, and adjuvant therapy is indicated for patients who are at significant risk of relapse following GIST resection. This is a report of the safety of imatinib in patients with GIST in the adjuvant setting in an expanded access program. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, single-arm trial, safety was assessed based on the frequency of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Three hundred patients were treated and analyzed; 40 patients discontinued treatment. Median overall exposure during the program was 181 days (range 9-420); most patients (260/300 treated) completed the study. Six patients had disease recurrence, 4 of whom discontinued. In line with previously published reports, the most frequent AEs were nausea, diarrhea, and periorbital edema. The AEs were mild to moderate in most cases (76%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings are in agreement with the known safety profile of imatinib and confirm the safety of imatinib at 400 mg/day in the adjuvant setting. The incidence of severe AEs was low.

Efficacy and safety of everolimus plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: Results of the single-arm, phase IIIB 4EVER trial.

In BOLERO-2, adding everolimus to exemestane resulted in a twofold increase in median progression-free survival (PFS) vs exemestane in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (aBC) after progression on a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). Here, we report on the open-label, single-arm, phase IIIB 4EVER trial (NCT01626222). This trial evaluated the clinical effectiveness of everolimus plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- aBC who had progressed on or after an NSAI, but with no restrictions on the time of progression after NSAI, prior chemotherapy for advanced disease or previous exemestane. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; i.e. the percentage of patients with a best overall response of complete or partial response per RECIST 1.1) within the first 24 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included PFS, overall survival, safety and health-related quality of life. Between June 2012 and November 2013, 299 patients were enrolled at 82 German centers: 281 patients were evaluable for efficacy and 299 for safety. The ORR was 8.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.8-12.9%). Median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI: 5.4-6.0 months). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events were stomatitis (8.4%), general physical health deterioration (6.7%), dyspnea (4.7%) and anemia (4.3%). The ORR in 4EVER was lower than in BOLERO-2, likely due to inclusion of patients with more advanced disease and extensive pretreatment. These data confirm the clinical benefits and known safety profile of everolimus plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- aBC.

The impact of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition on bone health in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer receiving everolimus plus exemestane in the phase IIIb 4EVER trial.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer and its treatments are associated with a detrimental effect on bone health. Here we report the results of an exploratory analysis assessing changes in levels of biomarkers of bone metabolism in patients enrolled in the phase IIIb 4EVER study. METHODS: The 4EVER trial investigated everolimus in combination with exemestane in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. In this prespecified exploratory analysis, changes in biomarkers of bone turnover were assessed in patients from baseline to weeks 4, 12, and 24. The serum bone markers assessed were procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP), C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX), osteocalcin, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH-vitamin D). On-treatment changes in bone markers over time were described per subgroup of interest and efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: Bone marker data were available for 241 of 299 enrolled patients. At the final assessment, P1NP, osteocalcin, PTH, 25-OH-vitamin D (all P < 0.001), and CTX (P = 0.036) were significantly decreased from baseline values per the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. At the last assessment (24 weeks or earlier), levels of serum CTX and PTH were significantly lower (P = 0.009 and P = 0.034, respectively) among patients with vs. without prior antiresorptive treatment (ART). Serum CTX levels were significantly lower (P < 0.001), and 25-OH-vitamin D concentrations significantly higher (P = 0.029), at the last postbaseline assessment in patients receiving concomitant ART vs. those without ART. Changes from baseline in PTH and 25-OH-vitamin D concentrations to the final assessment were significantly smaller in patients with prior ART. Lower baseline serum concentrations of osteocalcin and PTH were associated with clinical response (partial vs. non-response) at 24 weeks. High serum levels of CTX and P1NP at baseline were risk factors for progression at 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory analyses support use of everolimus plus exemestane for the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer, and add to the body of evidence suggesting a potentially favorable impact of everolimus on bone turnover. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01626222. Registered 22 June 2012, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01626222.

Comparison of ranibizumab versus dexamethasone for macular oedema following retinal vein occlusion: 1-year results of the COMRADE extension study.

PURPOSE: The COMRADE studies are the first randomized controlled head-to-head trials comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab versus dexamethasone (DEX) in patients with macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). The COMRADE extension trial was designed to provide additional 6-month data of patients who completed the core studies. METHODS: In this open-label, phase IV study patients who completed the COMRADE core studies were prospectively enrolled. Overall, 92 branch RVO (BRVO) patients (ranibizumab 52, DEX 40) and 83 central RVO (CRVO) patients (ranibizumab 61, DEX 22) were treated, and 94.6% of BRVO patients and 97.6% of CRVO patients completed the extension study. Patients were assigned to the same treatment group as in the core studies. Patients were monitored monthly and received either 0.5 mg ranibizumab or a 0.7 mg DEX implant as needed. RESULTS: Over the course of the extension, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of the study eye occurred in 55.8% of BRVO patients on ranibizumab and in 62.5% of those on DEX. Among CRVO patients, 65.5% in the ranibizumab group and 59.1% in the DEX group developed TEAEs. Overall, elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) was more frequent with DEX than ranibizumab treatment. Mean average change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in BRVO patients was significantly better for ranibizumab than DEX (p = 0.0249). The CRVO results were consistent with BRVO's, although not significant (p = 0.1119). CONCLUSION: When used according to the European labels, ranibizumab revealed a better ocular safety profile and produced greater average BCVA gains than DEX. By the end of the additional 6-month study period, this difference in BCVA was more pronounced in BRVO as in CRVO patients. The main limitation of the COMRADE studies was that DEX patients received only a single intravitreal treatment during the first 6 months, which is presumably not adequate. However, frequent DEX implants could lead to more steroid-related side effects, especially to an increased intraocular pressure.