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.

Sorafenib plus topotecan versus placebo plus topotecan for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (TRIAS): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Antiangiogenic therapy has known activity in ovarian cancer. The investigator-initiated randomised phase 2 TRIAS trial assessed the multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib combined with topotecan and continued as maintenance therapy for platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. METHODS: We did a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 2 trial at 20 sites in Germany. Patients (≥18 years) with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer previously treated with two or fewer chemotherapy lines for recurrent disease were stratified (first vs later relapse) in block sizes of four and randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-generated response system to topotecan (1·25 mg/m2 on days 1-5) plus either oral sorafenib 400 mg or placebo twice daily on days 6-15, repeated every 21 days for six cycles, followed by daily maintenance sorafenib or placebo for up to 1 year in patients without progression. Investigators and patients were masked to allocation of sorafenib or placebo; topotecan treatment was open label. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01047891. FINDINGS: Between Jan 18, 2010, and Sept 19, 2013, 185 patients were enrolled, 174 of whom were randomly assigned: 85 to sorafenib and 89 to placebo. Two patients in the sorafenib group had serious adverse events before treatment and were excluded from analyses. 83 patients in the sorafenib group and 89 in the placebo group started treatment. Progression-free survival was significantly improved with sorafenib versus placebo (hazard ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·43-0·83; p=0·0018). Median progression-free survival was 6·7 months (95% CI 5·8-7·6) with sorafenib versus 4·4 months (3·7-5·0) with placebo. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were leucopenia (57 [69%] of 83 patients in the sorafenib group vs 47 [53%] of 89 in the placebo group), neutropenia (46 [55%] vs 48 [54%]), and thrombocytopenia (23 [28%] vs 20 [22%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 49 (59%) of 83 sorafenib-treated patients and 45 (51%) of 89 placebo-treated patients. Of these, events were fatal in four patients (5%) in the sorafenib group (dyspnoea and poor general condition, septic shock, ascites and dyspnoea, and sigma perforation) and seven (8%) in the placebo group (pulmonary embolism in two patients, disease progression in two patients, and one case each of sepsis with fever, pleural effusion, and tumour cachexia). Sorafenib was associated with increased incidences of grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction (three [13%] vs 0 patients) and grade 2 alopecia (24 [29%] vs 12 [13%]). INTERPRETATION: Sorafenib, when given orally in combination with topotecan and continued as maintenance therapy, showed a statistically and clinically significant improvement in progression-free survival in women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. These encouraging results support the crucial role of antiangiogenesis as the treatment backbone in combination with chemotherapy, making this approach attractive for further assessment with other targeted strategies. FUNDING: Bayer, Amgen, and GlaxoSmithKline.

A prospective multicenter study of treosulfan in elderly patients with recurrent ovarian cancer: results of a planned safety analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treosulfan, an alkylating agent, has demonstrated activity in recurrent ovarian carcinoma. It is equieffective as oral (p.o.) and intravenous (i.v.) formulation. To explore the preference and compliance of elderly patients regarding p.o. or i.v. treosulfan for the treatment of relapsed ovarian carcinoma, women aged 65 years or older were included in this prospective multicenter study. Since elderly patients usually have several concomitant diseases and experience more treatment toxicity, an interim safety analysis was planned and performed after 25 patients finished therapy to assess the tolerability of the treatment regimens. METHODS: Patients had a free choice of treosulfan i.v. (7,000 mg/m(2) day 1 of a 28-day cycle) or p.o. (600 mg/m(2) day 1-28 of a 56-day cycle) for a maximum of 12 cycles (i.v.) or 12 months (p.o.). Indecisive patients were randomized. Toxicity was evaluated according to the NCI-CTC version 2.0. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 51 recruited patients completed therapy at the time of the planned interim analysis (median age, 75 years; range, 70-82). Median ECOG was 1, and median number of prior chemotherapy regimens was 2. A median number of 4 cycles (range, 1-12) were administered per patient. Anemia was the most common hematological toxicity (88 % of patients). Most frequent non-hematological toxicities were nausea (76 %), constipation (68 %), and fatigue (64 %). CONCLUSION: Treatment was generally well tolerated despite the fact that most patients suffered from multiple comorbidities and were heavily pretreated. There were no unexpected hematological or non-hematological toxicities. Based on this safety analysis, the next step of study recruitment was continued.

Topotecan Weekly Versus Conventional 5-Day Schedule in Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: a randomized multicenter phase II trial of the North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology Ovarian Cancer Study Group.

PURPOSE: Weekly administration of topotecan (Tw) is less toxic and widely considered a better treatment option than conventional 5-day therapy (Tc) in women with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer. We conducted a randomized phase II trial (TOWER [Topotecan Weekly Versus Conventional 5-Day Schedule in Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer]) to better define the ratio between benefits and risks with either treatment approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to two independent two-stage protocols of Tw (4 mg/m(2)/wk administered on days 1, 8, and 15) or Tc (1.25 mg/m(2)/d on days 1 to 5). We evaluated risk ratios (RRs) for the primary end point of clinical benefit (complete response, partial response, and stable disease), the duration of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), associated hazard ratios (HRs), and RRs of toxicity with 95% CIs. RESULTS: In total, 194 patients were randomly assigned at 54 centers to Tw (n = 97) or Tc (n = 97). Clinical benefit was observed in 36 of 76 (47%; 95% CI, 36% to 59%) Tw and 46 of 80 (58%; 95% CI, 46% to 68%) Tc patients (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.64; P = .205). Patients in the Tw group had a slightly shorter PFS (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.76) but similar OS (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.45) compared with Tc. Tw was associated with significantly lower risks of anemia (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.79), neutropenia (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.65), and thrombocytopenia (RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.57). CONCLUSION: With regard to effectiveness in terms of response and PFS, Tc remains the standard of care in patients with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer. However, comparable OS rates and a favorable toxicity profile make Tw another viable treatment option in this setting.

How important is the axillary nodal status for adjuvant treatment decisions at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board? A survival analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tumor board recommendations for breast cancer are mainly based on patient characteristics and prognostic tumor parameters. In the era of potential avoidance of axillary surgery we evaluate the impact of pathologic nodal status for adjuvant treatment decisions. METHODS: Postoperative tumor board records of 207 patients over a 1-year period were rediscussed without knowledge of pathologic nodal status. Differences were classified as major (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy: present/absent) or minor (different chemotherapeutic protocols) discrepancies. The survival rates among subgroups were calculated using Adjuvant! Online tool. RESULTS: The tumor board without information of pathologic nodal status resulted in treatment changes in 72 of the 207 patients studied (34.8%). Major discrepancies were observed in 37 patients (17.9%). The survival rates were not significantly different due to a balanced overtreatment and undertreatment in this subgroup. Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) was an independent parameter used to predict the subgroup with major discrepancies (P = .001; RR = 4.9 [95% CI, 1.9-12.7]). CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge of pathologic nodal status is important for postoperative chemotherapy and postmastectomy radiotherapy indications. There is a risk for one-third of all patients when avoiding axillary surgery to get an adjuvant therapy that differs from the current guidelines especially in carcinomas with present LVI.

Prognostic value of Ca 125 levels during primary therapy.

AIM: The prognosis of patients with ovarian cancer depends on stage, histological type, age, presence of ascites, performance status and debulking surgery. Complete cytoreductive surgery is the most important prognostic factor. We investigated the suitability of Ca 125 as a prognostic factor in patients with ovarian cancer at various. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, the Ca 125 level in 197 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer was determined and evaluated the results statistically. Our patients were diagnosed, treated and followed up for an average of three years at Rostock University Hospital, Germany from 1990 till 2000. Data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier curves, Log-rank test, Cox regression and Pearson correlation coefficient. An ELISA was used for the determination of Ca 125. RESULTS: The baseline level of 60 patients, the postoperative level of 86 patients and the level of 76 patients after treatment were available. Thirty-three out of 197 patients received a Ca 125 determination during all the above mentioned events. In 20% of the cases, the level of Ca 125 was normal prior to surgery (< 35 U/l). The level was not strongly correlated with FIGO-stage (Pearson correlation coefficient r(prior to surgery) = 0.444, p < 0.001; r(after surgery) = 0.476, p < 0.01; r(after treatment) = 0.244, p < 0.05). Patients with a Ca 125 level above 100 U/l had a significantly lower three-year survival rate (p < 0.05). The number of patients with a normal Ca 125 level increased after surgery (26.7%) and after primary treatment (69.7%). Patients with a Ca 125 > 100 U/l after treatment died significantly sooner. Thirty-three patients showed a decrease in their Ca 125 level after each part of their treatment (baseline/after surgery p < 0.001; baseline/after treatment p < 0.05). The level of Ca 125 after the entire treatment has yet to show significance as a prognostic factor for survival (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The level of Ca 125 in ovarian cancer correlated with overall survival. A significant difference between patients with Ca 125 > 100 U/l after treatment and a normal Ca 125 was observed. The tumor marker Ca 125 is a prognostic factor. Levels around 100 U/l are indicative of a bad prognosis.