PROPSEA, safety evaluation of palbociclib and ribociclib in older patients with breast cancer: A prospective real-world TOG study.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, the toxicities and management of palbociclib and ribociclib in older patients (≥65 years) with metastatic breast cancer patients were investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among older patients receiving palbociclib and ribociclib, Geriatric 8 (G8) and Groningen Frailty Index were used to evaluate frailty status. Dose modifications, drug withdrawal and other serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded and analyzed according to baseline patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients from 28 centers in Turkey were included (palbociclib = 76, ribociclib = 84). Forty-three patients were ≥ 75 years of age. The most common cause of first dose modification was neutropenia for both drugs (97% palbociclib, 69% ribociclib). Liver function tests elevation (10%) and renal function impairment (6%) were also causes for ribociclib dose modification. Drug withdrawal rate was 3.9% for palbociclib and 6% for ribociclib. SAEs were seen in 11.8% of those taking palbociclib and 15.5% of those on riboclib. An ECOG performance status of ≥2 and being older than 75 years were associated with dose reductions. Severe neutropenia was more common in patients with non-bone-only metastatic disease, those receiving treatment third-line therapy or higher, coexistance of non-neutropenic hematological side effects (for ribociclib). Neutropenia was less common among patients with obesity. DISCUSSION: Our results show that it can be reasonable to start palbociclib and ribociclib at reduced dose in patients aged ≥75 years and/or with an ECOG performance status ≥2.

Sunitinib or Pazopanib: Is There Any Difference Between Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in the Pre-Nivolumab Setting in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma?

Introduction Treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma disease have been improved in recent years. However, there is still no optimal treatment sequence or combination for metastatic disease. We aimed to investigate whether patients differed in terms of disease outcomes regarding pre-nivolumab tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Material and methods The analysis of patients was performed after all cohorts were sub-grouped into two groups according to pre-nivolumab TKIs as following the sunitinib arm and the pazopanib arm. Result A total of 75 patients were included in this study. The median follow-up time was eight months for all cohorts. The objective response rate was statistically significantly higher in the pazopanib arm as compared to the sunitinib arm (56% vs 30%, p=0.02). Progression-free survival was significantly higher in pazopanib than sunitinib (10.3 months vs 5.3 months, p=0.02). Multivariate analysis revealed that pazopanib treatment was associated with better progression-free survival (HR: 0.44, 95 CI; 0.22-0.91, p=0.02). While the median overall survival for patients who had received sunitinib was 11.0 months, it has not been reached the median in the pazopanib arm (11.0 months vs NR, p=0.051). Discussion We demonstrated significantly better progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate with nivolumab treatment in patients who had received pazopanib as compared with patients who received sunitinib in the pre-nivolumab period.