Trastuzumab, non-pegylated liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin and paclitaxel in the neoadjuvant setting of HER-2 positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUD: Neoadjuvant treatment based on the combination of trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is the standard of care in patients with HER2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer. The concurrent use of trastuzumab, anthracyclines and taxanes is frequently used in this setting despite the potential cardiotoxicity of both anthracyclines and trastuzumab. However, not much information is available about this chemotherapy scheme. OBJECTIVE: We wanted to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of the combination of trastuzumab, liposome-encapsulated doxorubicin and paclitaxel as neoadjuvant scheme. We also tried to establish predictive factors of pathologic complete response. SETTING: The study was carried out in a tertiary University Hospital of Spain. METHOD: This is a descriptive study of the clinical practice performed in our hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Efficacy was measured in terms of pathologic complete response, which was defined as the absence of invasive cancer cells in the breast and the axilla after neoadjuvant treatment. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included, the median age was 48. Seventeen (56.7 %) were hormonal receptor (HR) positive, 14 (46.6 %) had IIIa-b clinical stage and one of them had inflammatory breast cancer. 12 patients (40 %) achieved pCR. Patients with HR-negative BC achieved a higher pCR rate than those ones with HR-positive BC (61.5 % and 23.5 %, respectively; p value = 0.035). 21 patients (70 %) underwent breast conservative surgery. The treatment was in general well tolerated, most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (20 %), asthenia and liver enzyme alteration (10 %) and febrile neutropenia (6.7 %). No patient developed heart failure, but one (3.3 %) presented a 10 % asymptomatic absolute reduction in left ventricular fraction ejection. CONCLUSIONS: The studied treatment for the neoadjuvant setting of HER2 positive breast cancer seems to be an effective therapeutic option. Despite the expected high rate of cardiotoxicity of this regimen, the study results shows that this treatment regimen appears to be safe. The combination of trastuzumab, non-pegylated liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin and paclitaxel should be considered for the treatment of HER2-overexpressing breast cancer.

[Off-label use of oncology drugs: national survey results]. / Uso de medicamentos fuera de ficha la técnica en oncohematología: resultado de una encuesta nacional.

PURPOSE: identify by means of a survey the off-label treatments more often used in the oncohaematology area, as well as to know the established procedures and criteria used to authorise those treatments. METHODS: a four-section survey was designed: 1) demographic data and hospital activity, 2) Off-label treatments protocol, 3) Approval criteria and 4) Off-label oncology treatments conducted during the last year. RESULTS: in 42.1% of the hospitals it's needed an authorisation before dispensing in more tan 80% of the treatments. The most influential factor in the approval-dispensation system is the available evidence. The consent of the hospital management with previous Pharmacy department's report was the most common authorisation procedure. 55.3% of the hospitals settled specific patient criteria to help the decision-making altogether with the available safety and efficacy data of the drug for the requested indication. In most centers a lower level of evidence is accepted if there are no therapeutic alternatives as well as in tumors of low prevalence. Most of the centers have not clearly established a criterion of effectiveness to consider a benefit as clinically relevant, nor the cost-effectiveness threshold for approving a FFT. CONCLUSIONS: there is a great variability in the off-label treatments use and also in the criteria used for its approval.

Objetivo: identificar mediante una encuesta los tratamientos fuera de la ficha tecnica (FFT) que mas frecuentemente se utilizan en el area de oncohematologia. Conocer los procedimientos y criterios que se han establecido para autorizar estos tratamientos. Método: se diseno una encuesta con cuatro secciones: 1) datos demograficos y de actividad del hospital, 2) procedimiento de utilizacion de medicamentos FFT, 3) criterios de aprobacion y 4) tratamientos oncologicos FFT tramitados durante el ano anterior. Resultados: en el 42,1% de los centros la proporcion en la que es necesaria autorizacion previa a la dispensacion es mayor del 80%. El factor mas importante que influye en el circuito de autorizacion-dispensacion de estos farmacos es la evidencia disponible. El procedimiento de autorizacion mas habitual es la autorizacion de la direccion del hospital previo informe del servicio de farmacia. En un 55,3% de los hospitales se han establecido criterios especificos del paciente que ayudan a la toma de decisiones, junto con los aspectos de eficacia y seguridad de los farmacos en la indicacion solicitada. En la mayoria de los centros se acepta un menor nivel de evidencia en el caso de que no existan alternativas terapeuticas, asi como en los tumores de baja prevalencia. La mayor parte de los centros no tienen claramente establecido un criterio de eficacia para considerar un beneficio como clinicamente relevante, y tampoco el umbral coste-eficacia para aprobar un FFT. Conclusiones: existe una gran variabilidad en el procedimiento de utilizacion de los FFT y en los criterios que se utilizan para su aprobacion.

Uso de medicamentos fuera de ficha la técnica en oncohematología: resultado de una encuesta nacional / Off-label use of oncology drugs: national survey results

Objetivo: identificar mediante una encuesta los tratamientos fuera de la ficha técnica (FFT) que más frecuentemente se utilizan en el área de oncohematología. Conocer los procedimientos y criterios que se han establecido para autorizar estos tratamientos. Método: se diseñó una encuesta con cuatro secciones: 1) datos demográficos y de actividad del hospital, 2) procedimiento de utilización de medicamentos FFT, 3) criterios de aprobación y 4) tratamientos oncológicos FFT tramitados durante el año anterior. Resultados: en el 42,1% de los centros la proporción en la que es necesaria autorización previa a la dispensación es mayor del 80%. El factor más importante que influye en el circuito de autorización-dispensación de estos fármacos es la evidencia disponible. El procedimiento de autorización más habitual es la autorización de la dirección del hospital previo informe del servicio de farmacia. En un 55,3% de los hospitales se han establecido criterios específicos del paciente que ayudan a la toma de decisiones, junto con los aspectos de eficacia y seguridad de los fármacos en la indicación solicitada. En la mayoría de los centros se acepta un menor nivel de evidencia en el caso de que no existan alternativas terapéuticas, así como en los tumores de baja prevalencia. La mayor parte de los centros no tienen claramente establecido un criterio de eficacia para considerar un beneficio como clínicamente relevante, y tampoco el umbral coste-eficacia para aprobar un FFT. Conclusiones: existe una gran variabilidad en el procedimiento de utilización de los FFT y en los criterios que se utilizan para su aprobación (AU)

Purpose: identify by means of a survey the off-label treatments more often used in the oncohaematology area, as well as to know the established procedures and criteria used to authorise those treatments. Methods: a four-section survey was designed: 1) demographic data and hospital activity, 2) Off-label treatments protocol, 3) Approval criteria and 4) Off-label oncology treatments conducted during the last year. Results: in 42.1% of the hospitals it’s needed an authorisation before dispensing in more tan 80% of the treatments. The most influential factor in the approval-dispensation system is the available evidence. The consent of the hospital management with previous Pharmacy department’s report was the most common authorisation procedure. 55.3% of the hospitals settled specific patient criteria to help the decision-making altogether with the available safety and efficacy data of the drug for the requested indication. In most centers a lower level of evidence is accepted if there are no therapeutic alternatives as well as in tumors of low prevalence. Most of the centers have not clearly established a criterion of effectiveness to consider a benefit as clinically relevant, nor the cost-effectiveness threshold for approving a FFT. Conclusions: there is a great variability in the off-label treatments use and also in the criteria used for its approval (AU)