Efficacy of fulvestrant in the treatment of postmenopausal women with endocrine-resistant advanced breast cancer in routine clinical practice

Introduction: This study aimed to describe the efficacy of fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive advanced/metastatic breast cancer who had disease progression after receiving anti-estrogen therapy in clinical practice, getting real-world data. Materials and methods: Multicenter, retrospective, observational study conducted in Spain. Postmenopausal women with locally advanced/metastatic ER-positive breast cancer who received treatment with fulvestrant 500 mg after progression with a previous anti-estrogen therapy were eligible. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of clinical benefit (DoCB), and safety profile. Results: A total of 263 women were evaluated (median age, 65.8 years). At a median follow-up of 21.5 months, median PFS and OS were 10.6 and 43.2 months, respectively. PFS according to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and ≥ 4th lines were 11.5, 10.6, 9.9, and 8.5 months, respectively (p = 0.0245). PFS in patients with visceral involvement was 10 months vs 10.6 months in patients without visceral involvement (p = 0.6604), 9.6 months in patients with high Ki67 vs 10 months in patients with low Ki67 (p = 0.7224), and 10.2 months in HER2+ patients vs 10.3 months in HER2− patients (p = 0.6809). The CBR was 56.5% and the DoCB was 18.4 months. The most frequently adverse events were injection site pain (10.3%) and musculoskeletal disorders (7.6%). Conclusions: Fulvestrant 500 mg administered in clinical practice was shown to be effective (PFS, 10.6 months; CBR, 56.5%) and well tolerated, in accordance with previous trials

No disponible

Defining the optimal sequence for the systemic treatment of metastatic breast cancer

Metastatic breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease that presents in varying forms, and a growing number of therapeutic options makes it difficult to determine the best choice in each particular situation. When selecting a systemic treatment, it is important to consider the medication administered in the previous stages, such as acquired resistance, type of progression, time to relapse, tumor aggressiveness, age, comorbidities, pre- and post-menopausal status, and patient preferences. Moreover, tumor genomic signatures can identify different subtypes, which can be used to create patient profiles and design specific therapies. However, there is no consensus regarding the best treatment sequence for each subgroup of patients. During the SABCC Congress of 2014, specialized breast cancer oncologists from referral hospitals in Europe met to define patient profiles and to determine specific treatment sequences for each one. Conclusions were then debated in a final meeting in which a relative degree of consensus for each treatment sequence was established. Four patient profiles were defined according to established breast cancer phenotypes: pre-menopausal patients with luminal subtype, post-menopausal patients with luminal subtype, patients with triple-negative subtype, and patients with HER2-positive subtype. A treatment sequence was then defined, consisting of hormonal therapy with tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, fulvestrant, and mTOR inhibitors for pre- and post-menopausal patien ts; a chemotherapy sequence for the first, second, and further lines for luminal and triple-negative patients; and an optimal sequence for treatment with new antiHER2 therapies. Finally, a document detailing all treatment sequences, that had the agreement of all the oncologists, was drawn up as a guideline and advocacy tool for professionals treating patients with this disease (AU)

No disponible