An open label, randomized phase 2 trial assessing the impact of food on the tolerability of abemaciclib in patients with advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Abemaciclib, a CDK4 & 6 inhibitor, is indicated for advanced breast cancer treatment. Diarrhea is a frequently associated adverse event of abemaciclib. The study objective was to investigate if food intake impacts local gastrointestinal toxicity. METHODS: This Phase 2 study (I3Y-MC-JPCP, NCT03703466) randomized 72 patients 1:1:1 to receive abemaciclib 200 mg monotherapy twice daily (1) with a meal, (2) in a modified fasting state or (3) without regard to food. Primary endpoints included: incidence of investigator assessed severe (≥ Grade 3), prolonged (> 7 days) Grade 2 diarrhea, treatment discontinuation, dose modifications, and loperamide utilization during the first 3 cycles of treatment. Patient outcomes were captured via a daily electronic diary. Pharmacokinetics (PK) are reported. RESULTS: Incidence of investigator assessed severe diarrhea (Grade ≥ 3) was 1.4% (1 patient in Arm 1). Median duration of Grade 3 diarrhea was 1 day by both investigator assessment (1 patient in Arm 1) and patient-reported assessment (1 patient each in Arms 1 and 3). Median duration of investigator-assessed Grade 2 diarrhea was 2 days overall. No patient discontinued treatment due to diarrhea. Nine patients (12.7%) had a dose reduction, and 7 patients (9.9%) had a dose omission due to diarrhea. Ninety-four percent of patients used loperamide at least once. Abemaciclib PK was comparable across the 3 arms. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that diarrhea incidence associated with abemaciclib was unrelated to timing of food intake, was predominantly low grade, of short duration and well managed with loperamide and dose modifications.

Health-Related Quality of Life in MONARCH 3: Abemaciclib plus an Aromatase Inhibitor as Initial Therapy in HR+, HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: MONARCH 3, a phase III trial (NCT02246621) of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC), previously demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival in patients receiving abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). This study evaluated patient-reported outcomes, including global health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, and symptoms. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily; n = 328) or placebo (n = 165), plus 1 mg anastrozole or 2.5 mg letrozole daily. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Breast Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire HRQoL instruments were administered at baseline, every two cycles during cycles 2 through 19 (each cycle being 28 days), every three cycles thereafter, and once at a short-term posttherapy follow-up visit (approximately 30 days after discontinuation). Longitudinal mixed regression and Cox proportional hazards models evaluated postbaseline change and time to sustained deterioration (TTSD), respectively. RESULTS: Baseline scores were similar between treatment arms. Although select scores statistically favored the placebo arm, global HRQoL, most symptoms, and functioning scales did not meet the threshold for clinically meaningful differences between treatment arms. Only diarrhea favored the placebo arm with statistically and clinically meaningful differences. There were no TTSD differences between treatment arms for global HRQoL, most symptoms (except diarrhea), or functioning. CONCLUSION: Over a 2-year period, there were no clinically meaningful differences in global HRQoL, functioning, and most symptoms for patients receiving abemaciclib plus NSAI compared with NSAI alone. Only diarrhea favored the placebo arm, consistent with prior safety data, which has been shown to be manageable and reversible. Combined with clinical efficacy, results support treatment with abemaciclib plus NSAI for postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The addition of abemaciclib to a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) was not associated with a clinically meaningful detriment in patient-reported global health-related quality of life, functioning, and most symptoms in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Prior studies have also demonstrated clinical efficacy of abemaciclib plus NSAI compared with NSAI alone, including improved progression-free survival and objective response rate. These results also complement previously reported toxicity data, as measured by investigator-assessed adverse events. Taken together, these results support treatment with abemaciclib plus NSAI for postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC.

Abemaciclib plus trastuzumab with or without fulvestrant versus trastuzumab plus standard-of-care chemotherapy in women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (monarcHER): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who have received two or more previous therapies for advanced disease have few effective treatment options. The monarcHER trial aimed to compare the efficacy of abemaciclib plus trastuzumab with or without fulvestrant with standard-of-care chemotherapy of physician's choice plus trastuzumab in women with advanced breast cancer. METHODS: This phase 2, three-group, open-label trial was done across 75 hospitals, clinics, and medical centres in 14 countries. Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older, who had hormone receptor-positive, HER2-positive advanced breast cancer with unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had previously received at least two HER2-targeted therapies for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to the abemaciclib, trastuzumab, and fulvestrant (group A), abemaciclib and trastuzumab (group B), or standard-of-care chemotherapy and trastuzumab (group C). Oral abemaciclib 150 mg 12 hourly was administered on days 1-21 of a 21-day cycle, intravenous trastuzumab 8 mg/kg on cycle 1 day 1, followed by 6 mg/kg on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle, and intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1, 15, and 29 and once every 4 weeks thereafter. Standard-of-care chemotherapy was administered as specified by the product label. Randomisation was by a computer-generated random sequence by means of an interactive web-response system and stratified by number of previous systemic therapies for advanced breast cancer and measurable versus non-measurable disease. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, first testing group A versus group C and, if this result was significant, then group B versus group C. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02675231) and is ongoing for long-term survival follow-up. FINDINGS: Between May 31, 2016, and Feb 28, 2018, 325 patients were screened, of whom 237 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups A (n=79), B (n=79), and C (n=79). Median follow-up was 19·0 months (IQR 14·7-25·1). The study met its primary endpoint, showing a significant difference at the prespecified two-sided α of 0·2 in median progression-free survival between group A (8·3 months, 95% CI 5·9-12·6) and group C (5·7 months, 5·4-7·0; HR 0·67 [95% CI 0·45-1·00]; p=0·051). No difference was observed between median progression-free survival in group B (5·7 months, 95% CI 4·2-7·2) and group C (HR 0·94 [0·64-1·38]; p=0·77). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse event in groups A, B, and C was neutropenia (21 [27%] of 78 patients, 17 [22%] of 77, and 19 [26%] of 72). The most common serious adverse events were: in group A, pyrexia (three [4%]), diarrhoea (two [3%]), urinary tract infection (two [3%]), and acute kidney injury (two [3%]); in group B, diarrhoea (two [3%]) and pneumonitis (two [3%]); and in group C, neutropenia (four [6%]) and pleural effusion (two [3%]). Two deaths were attributed to treatment: one due to pulmonary fibrosis in group B and one due to febrile neutropenia in group C. INTERPRETATION: The combination of abemaciclib, fulvestrant, and trastuzumab significantly improved progression-free survival versus standard-of-care chemotherapy plus trastuzumab while showing a tolerable safety profile. Our results suggest that a chemotherapy-free regimen might potentially be an alternative treatment option for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Capecitabine versus classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared oral capecitabine, administered intermittently or continuously, versus classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) as first-line chemotherapy for women with advanced breast cancer unsuited to more intensive regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred twenty-three eligible women were randomly assigned to capecitabine administered intermittently (1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 of every 21 days; n = 107) or continuously (650 mg/m(2) twice daily for 21 of every 21 days; n = 107), or to classical CMF (oral cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m(2) days 1 to 14 with intravenous methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) and fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 28 days; n = 109). The primary end point was quality-adjusted progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included PFS, overall survival (OS), objective tumor response, and adverse events. Intermittent and continuous capecitabine were to be compared first and, if similar (P > .05), combined for definitive comparisons versus CMF. RESULTS: Quality-adjusted PFS (P = .2), objective tumor response rate (20%; P = .8), and PFS (median, 6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.10; P = .2) were similar in women assigned capecitabine versus CMF. OS was longer in women assigned capecitabine rather than CMF (median, 22 v 18 months; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.94; P = .02). Febrile neutropenia, infection, stomatitis, and serious adverse events were more common with CMF; hand-foot syndrome was more common with capecitabine. CONCLUSION: Capecitabine improved OS by being similarly active, less toxic, and more tolerable than CMF. Capecitabine is a good first-line chemotherapy option for women with advanced breast cancer who are unsuited to more intensive regimens.

Fixed-dose-rate gemcitabine combined with cisplatin in patients with inoperable biliary tract carcinomas.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancers (BTC) have a poor prognosis, and there is no consensus on the best chemotherapy regimen. This study determined the response rate for fixed-dose-rate (FDR) gemcitabine combined with cisplatin. METHODS: This multicentre phase II trial enrolled 50 patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic BTC. Treatment consisted of FDR gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² (10 mg/m²/min) and cisplatin 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was response rate. Secondary endpoints included safety, response duration (RD), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and cancer antigen 19-9 response. RESULTS: Thirteen patients (26%, 95% CI 14.6-40.4) had a partial response, and 12 (24%) had stable disease. The median RD was 8.3 months (95% CI 6.91-9.99); median PFS 4 months (95% CI 2.5-6.77); and median OS 6.8 months (95% CI 5.0-8.7). Treatment was well tolerated. Grade 3 and grade 4 nausea, vomiting, and fatigue were uncommon. Thirty-eight per cent of patients discontinued treatment because of toxicity, patient or clinician preference. CONCLUSIONS: This treatment combination had moderate activity with acceptable toxicity, supporting previous results that this combination has a role to play. The study does not suggest that FDR gemcitabine is superior to bolus infusion.

Malignant transformation within ovarian dermoid cysts: an audit of treatment received and patient outcomes. an Australia New Zealand gynaecological oncology group (ANZGOG) and gynaecologic cancer intergroup (GCIG) study.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant transformation in an ovarian dermoid cyst occurs in 1% to 2% of cases. Our knowledge about this tumor type is limited and largely based on case reports. We aimed to collate and analyze the cumulative experience of how these patients have been managed in an effort to identify the most appropriate treatment strategies. METHODS: A survey was sent to the members of the Gynaecologic Cancer Intergroup. Data collected included age, symptoms, stage, extent of surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy details, response to treatment, progression, survival, and salvage therapy. RESULTS: Data on 33 patients whose conditions were diagnosed between 1979 and 2007 were received from 10 centers in Australia, Canada, Germany, and Austria. The mean age was 49 years. All 15 patients with stage I disease and most of the patients with stages II and III were optimally debulked. Four patients with stage I disease had fertility-sparing surgery with good outcomes. Chemotherapy was not routinely given after surgery and did not seem to be effective. Platinum-based regimens were most commonly used. At relapse, 2 patients had a sustained remission after secondary surgery for relapsed disease. Second-line chemotherapy and radiotherapy were infrequently prescribed. Patients with stage I disease had a good outcome, with all but 2 alive and well at a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients undergo optimal debulking surgery. Fertility-sparing surgery may be a reasonable option in selected patients. Stage I patients have a good prognosis. There is no standard adjuvant treatment, but platinum-based regimens are most commonly used. However, regardless of treatment received, patients with advanced disease do poorly.

External influences and priority-setting for anti-cancer agents: a case study of media coverage in adjuvant trastuzumab for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Setting priorities for the funding of new anti-cancer agents is becoming increasingly complex. The funding of adjuvant trastuzumab for breast cancer has brought this dilemma to the fore. In this paper we review external factors that may influence decision-making bodies and present a case study of media response in Ontario, Canada to adjuvant trastuzumab for breast cancer. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the databases of Canadian national and local newspapers and television was performed. Articles pertaining to trastuzumab in adjuvant breast cancer as well as 17 other anti-cancer drugs and indications were retrieved. The search period was from the date when individual trial results were announced to the date funding was made available in Ontario. RESULTS: During the 2.6 months between the release of the trastuzumab results to funding approval in Ontario, we identified 51 episodes of media coverage. For the 17 other drugs/indications (7 breast and 10 non-breast), the median time to funding approval was 31 months (range 14-46). Other recent major advances in oncology such as adjuvant vinorelbine/cisplatin for resected NSCLC and docetaxel for advanced prostate cancer received considerably less media attention (17 media reports for each) than trastuzumab. The median number of media reports for breast cancer drugs was 4.5 compared to 2.5 for non-breast cancer drugs (p = 0.56). CONCLUSION: Priority-setting for novel anti-cancer agents is a complex process that tries to ensure fair use of constrained resources to fund therapies with the best evidence of clinical benefit. However, this process is subject to external factors including the influence of media, patient advocates, politicians, and industry. The data in this case study serve to illustrate the significant involvement one (or all) of these external factors may play in the debate over priority-setting.