6th and 7th International consensus guidelines for the management of advanced breast cancer (ABC guidelines 6 and 7).

This manuscript describes the Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) international consensus guidelines updated at the last two ABC international consensus conferences (ABC 6 in 2021, virtual, and ABC 7 in 2023, in Lisbon, Portugal), organized by the ABC Global Alliance. It provides the main recommendations on how to best manage patients with advanced breast cancer (inoperable locally advanced or metastatic), of all breast cancer subtypes, as well as palliative and supportive care. These guidelines are based on available evidence or on expert opinion when a higher level of evidence is lacking. Each guideline is accompanied by the level of evidence (LoE), grade of recommendation (GoR) and percentage of consensus reached at the consensus conferences. Updated diagnostic and treatment algorithms are also provided. The guidelines represent the best management options for patients living with ABC globally, assuming accessibility to all available therapies. Their adaptation (i.e. resource-stratified guidelines) is often needed in settings where access to care is limited.

Capturing the holistic value of biosimilars in Europe - part 1: a historical perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Approved biosimilars exhibit comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to reference products. This report provides perspectives on the societal value of biosimilars within Europe and potential factors that have influenced market dynamics. METHODS: An independent, self-administered survey or one-on-one in-depth interview was used to collect viewpoints about the impact of biosimilar medicines within European markets. Key insights were also sought from an expert panel of European stakeholders. RESULTS: Survey respondents were clinicians, pharmacists, and payers from Europe (N = 103). Perceived benefits of biosimilars included increased access to innovative medicines (73% of respondents) or biologic treatments (66%). Biosimilar competition was thought to expand access to biologics (~50% of respondents) or drug combinations (~36%) and reduce biologic access time (34%). Key drivers of biologic access after biosimilar competition included increased biologic awareness (51%) and changes to prescribing guidelines (37%) and/or treatment paradigms (28%). The expert panel developed a market maturity framework of biosimilar adoption/opportunities comprising three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand,' and 'Harvest.' Findings were supported by published literature. CONCLUSIONS: In Europe, the perceptions of well-informed survey/interview respondents are that biosimilars have improved patient outcomes via increased access to biologics and innovative biologic products, contributing to earlier and longer treatment of a broader population.

Leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars in Europe - part 2: how payers can safeguard the future of a healthy biosimilar market environment.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars have improved access to biologic medicines; however, historical thinking may jeopardize the viability of future markets. AREAS COVERED: An expert panel of eight diverse European stakeholders provided insights about rethinking biosimilars and cost-savings, reducing patient access inequalities, increasing inter-market equity, and improving education. The insights reported here (Part 2) follow a study that provides perspectives on leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars for market sustainability based on independent survey results and telephone interviews of stakeholders from diverse biosimilar markets (Part 1). Directional recommendations are provided for payers. EXPERT OPINION: The panel's market maturity framework for biosimilars has three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand' and 'Harvest.' Across market stages, re-thinking the benefits of biosimilars beyond cost-savings, considering earlier or expanded access/new indications, product innovations, and re-investment of biosimilar-generated cost-savings should be communicated to stakeholders to promote further engagement. During 'Expand' and 'Harvest' stages, development of efficient, forward-looking procurement systems and mechanisms that drive uptake and stabilize competition between manufacturers are key. Future biosimilars will target various therapy areas beyond those targeted by existing biosimilars. To ensure a healthy, accessible future market, stakeholders must align their objectives, communicate, collaborate, and coordinate via education, incentivization, and procurement, to maximize the totality of benefits.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany. METHODS: A Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany.

A multidisciplinary approach to optimizing care of patients treated with alpelisib.

PURPOSE: The oral, α-specific phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3Kα) inhibitor alpelisib is the first PI3K inhibitor approved for the treatment of advanced breast cancer. As alpelisib is a relatively new therapeutic option, specific guidance and a multidisciplinary approach are needed to provide optimal patient care. The primary objective of this manuscript is to provide comprehensive guidance on minimizing and managing adverse events (AEs) for patients with advanced breast cancer who are receiving alpelisib. METHODS: Clinical studies, prescribing information, published literature, and relevant guidelines were reviewed to provide recommendations on the prevention and management of alpelisib-associated AEs. RESULTS: The most common AEs associated with alpelisib in the phase 3 SOLAR-1 trial were hyperglycemia and rash (which are considered on-target effects of PI3Kα inhibition) and gastrointestinal AEs, including diarrhea, nausea, and decreased appetite. These AEs require regular monitoring, early recognition, and prompt initiation of appropriate treatment. In addition, there are effective strategies to reduce the onset and severity of frequently observed AEs-in particular, onset of hyperglycemia and rash may be reduced by lifestyle changes (such as reduced intake of carbohydrates and regular exercise) and antihistamine prophylaxis, respectively. To reduce risk of severe hyperglycemia, it is essential to achieve adequate glycemic control prior to initiation of alpelisib treatment. CONCLUSION: Overall, alpelisib-associated AEs are generally manageable with prompt recognition, regular monitoring, and appropriate intervention, preferably with a multidisciplinary approach.

Updated recommendations regarding the management of older patients with breast cancer: a joint paper from the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG).

Breast cancer is increasingly prevalent in older adults and is a substantial part of routine oncology practice. However, management of breast cancer in this population is challenging because the disease is highly heterogeneous and there is insufficient evidence specific to older adults. Decision making should not be driven by age alone but should involve geriatric assessments plus careful consideration of life expectancy, competing risks of mortality, and patient preferences. A multidisciplinary taskforce, including members of the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists and International Society of Geriatric Oncology, gathered to expand and update the previous 2012 evidence-based recommendations for the management of breast cancer in older individuals with the endorsement of the European Cancer Organisation. These guidelines were expanded to include chemotherapy toxicity prediction calculators, cultural and social considerations, surveillance imaging, genetic screening, gene expression profiles, neoadjuvant systemic treatment options, bone-modifying drugs, targeted therapies, and supportive care. Recommendations on geriatric assessment, ductal carcinoma in situ, screening, primary endocrine therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, adjuvant systemic therapy, and secondary breast cancer were updated.

Clinical practice guidelines for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene pathogenic variants account for most hereditary breast cancer and are increasingly used to determine eligibility for PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy of BRCA-related cancer. Because issues of BRCA testing in clinical practice now overlap with both preventive and therapeutic management, updated and comprehensive practice guidelines for BRCA genotyping are needed. The integrative recommendations for BRCA testing presented here aim to (1) identify individuals who may benefit from genetic counselling and risk-reducing strategies; (2) update germline and tumour-testing indications for PARPi-approved therapies; (3) provide testing recommendations for personalised management of early and metastatic breast cancer; and (4) address the issues of rapid process and tumour analysis. An international group of experts, including geneticists, medical and surgical oncologists, pathologists, ethicists and patient representatives, was commissioned by the French Society of Predictive and Personalised Medicine (SFMPP). The group followed a methodology based on specific formal guidelines development, including (1) evaluating the likelihood of BRCAm from a combined systematic review of the literature, risk assessment models and expert quotations, and (2) therapeutic values of BRCAm status for PARPi therapy in BRCA-related cancer and for management of early and advanced breast cancer. These international guidelines may help clinicians comprehensively update and standardise BRCA testing practices.

Patient Burden and Real-World Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Myelosuppression: Results from an Online Survey of Patients with Solid Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM) is one of the most common dose-limiting complications of cancer treatment, and is associated with a range of debilitating symptoms that can significantly impact patients' quality of life. The purpose of this study was to understand patients' perspectives on how the side effects of CIM are managed in routine clinical practice. METHODS: An online survey was conducted of participants with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer who had received chemotherapy treatment within the past 12 months, and had experienced at least one episode of myelosuppression in the past year. The survey was administered with predominantly close-ended questions, and lay definitions of key terms were provided to aid response selection. RESULTS: Of 301 participants who completed the online survey, 153 (51%) had breast cancer, 100 (33%) had lung cancer, and 48 (16%) had colorectal cancer. Anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia were reported by 61%, 59%, 37%, and 34% of participants, respectively. Most participants (79%) reported having received treatment for CIM, and 64% of participants recalled chemotherapy dose modifications as a result of CIM. Although most participants believed their oncologist was aware of the side effects of CIM, and treated them quickly, 30% of participants felt their oncologists did not understand how uncomfortable they were due to the side effects of CIM. Overall, 88% of participants considered CIM to have a moderate or major impact on their lives. CONCLUSION: The data highlight that despite the various methods used to address CIM, and the patient-focused approach of oncologists, the real-world impact of CIM on patients is substantial. Improving communication between patients and health care providers may help improve patients' understanding of CIM, and foster shared decision-making in terms of treatment. Additional insights from patients should be obtained to further elucidate the totality of life burden associated with CIM.

This study looked at people with cancer who received chemotherapy and developed a condition where their bone marrow activity was reduced, called myelosuppression. This meant they had fewer red blood cells that carry oxygen around the body, white blood cells that help fight infections, and platelets that help the blood to clot. The researchers wanted to understand how chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression affects peoples' lives and their cancer treatment, and people's experiences of treatment for myelosuppression. Overall, 301 people in the USA with breast, lung, or large bowel (colorectal) cancer completed an online survey. They had all received chemotherapy in the last year, and had myelosuppression at least once during their treatment. The survey showed that around 8 in 10 people (79%) had to be treated for myelosuppression, and around 7 in 10 people (73%) felt they received treatment for myelosuppression quickly. Chemotherapy was delayed, reduced, or stopped because of myelosuppression in around 6 in 10 people (64%). Around 3 in 10 people (30%) felt their oncologist did not understand the discomfort that myelosuppression caused them, and around 9 in 10 people (88%) felt that myelosuppression made their quality of life worse. The researchers concluded that because myelosuppression impacts peoples' lives and their ability to keep receiving chemotherapy to treat their cancer, effective prevention and treatment for this condition are important. Better communication between people and their health care teams could help them to understand how people experience myelosuppression and make plans for treatment together.

Management of Aromatase Inhibitor-Associated Bone Loss (AIBL) in postmenopausal women with hormone sensitive breast cancer: Joint position statement of the IOF, CABS, ECTS, IEG, ESCEO IMS, and SIOG.

BACKGROUND: Several guidelines have been reported for bone-directed treatment in women with early breast cancer (EBC) for averting fractures, particularly during aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Recently, a number of studies on additional fracture related risk factors, new treatment options as well as real world studies demonstrating a much higher fracture rate than suggested by randomized clinical controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, this updated algorithm was developed to better assess fracture risk and direct treatment as a position statement of several interdisciplinary cancer and bone societies involved in the management of AI-associated bone loss (AIBL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review identified recent advances in the management of AIBL. Results with individual agents were assessed based on trial design, size, follow-up, and safety. RESULTS: Several fracture related risk factors in patients with EBC were identified. Although, the FRAX algorithm includes fracture risk factors (RF) in addition to BMD, it does not seem to adequately address the effects of AIBL. Several antiresorptive agents can prevent and treat AIBL. However, concerns regarding compliance and long-term safety remain. Overall, the evidence for fracture prevention is strongest for denosumab 60 mg s.c. every 6 months. Additionally, recent studies as well as an individual patient data meta-analysis of all available randomized trial data support additional anticancer benefits from adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal women with a 34% relative risk reduction in bone metastasis and 17% relative risk decrease in breast cancer mortality that needs to be taken into account when advising on management of AIBL. CONCLUSIONS: In all patients initiating AI treatment, fracture risk should be assessed and recommendation with regard to exercise and calcium/vitamin D supplementation given. Bone-directed therapy should be given to all patients with a T-score<-2.0 or with a T-score of <-1.5 SD with one additional RF, or with ≥2 risk factors (without BMD) for the duration of AI treatment. Patients with T-score>-1.5 SD and no risk factors should be managed based on BMD loss during the first year and the local guidelines for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Compliance should be regularly assessed as well as BMD on treatment after 12 - 24 months. Furthermore, because of the decreased incidence of bone recurrence and breast cancer specific mortality, adjuvant bisphosphonates are recommended for all postmenopausal women at significant risk of disease recurrence.

2016 Updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus Recommendations: Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting Following High Emetic Risk Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This review summarizes the recommendations for the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) which includes cisplatin, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, cyclophosphamide >1500 mg/m2, carmustine, dacarbazine, and the combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) administered to women with breast cancer, as agreed at the MASCC/ESMO Antiemetic Guidelines Update meeting in Copenhagen in June 2015. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using PubMed and the Cochrane Database from 2009 to June 2015 was performed. RESULTS: The NK1-receptor antagonists netupitant (300 mg given in combination with palonosetron 0.5 mg as NEPA) and rolapitant have both completed phase II and III programs and were approved by FDA (both) and EMA (NEPA) in 2014-2015. Addition of one of these agents (or of (fos)aprepitant) to a combination of a serotonin (5-HT)3-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone improved the number of patients with a complete response (no emesis and no rescue medication) days 1-5 after AC HEC with 8-9 % and after non-AC HEC by 8-20 %. Olanzapine has improved control of delayed nausea as compared to aprepitant in a randomized open designed study. In the prophylaxis of delayed nausea and vomiting, metoclopramide is an option instead of aprepitant in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy and dexamethasone is an option instead of aprepitant in patients receiving AC chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Two new NK1-receptor antagonists (netupitant and rolapitant) have been included in the updated recommendations as additional options to aprepitant or fosaprepitant. Addition of one of these NK1-receptor antagonists to a combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is recommended in both non-AC HEC and AC HEC. Olanzapine is included as an option in HEC in particular if nausea is the main symptom.

New and emerging therapeutic options for the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains one of the most challenging adverse events of chemotherapy, and one that has substantial negative effects on patients, clinicians, and the wider health care system. Use of CINV prophylaxis consistent with clinical practice guidelines is essential for attaining optimal CINV control. In recent years, there has been a dramatic improvement in the control of CINV with the introduction of effective antiemetic agents, including the serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine [5-HT3]) receptor antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, and palonosetron) and the neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists (aprepitant and fosaprepitant). An important benefit of the newer antiemetic agents is their improved ability to control the delayed CINV that can develop in the days after chemotherapy administration. In October 2014, a fixed-dose oral combination containing the novel NK1 receptor antagonist netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration. The combination of 2 effective antiemetic agents in a single, oral capsule may help simplify CINV management. Ongoing studies are evaluating new CINV approaches (eg, the novel NK1 receptor antagonist rolapitant), as well as the optimal use of existing therapies. Patient education regarding the timing, prevention, and treatment of CINV is another key component of CINV management.

Advances in the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: New Data From Recent and Ongoing Trials.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is among the most feared and debilitating adverse events experienced by cancer patients. Left unaddressed, CINV symptoms not only decrease quality of life, but may also affect patients' willingness to continue chemotherapy treatment. Detailed guidelines are available that outline best practices for prophylaxis of acute and delayed CINV. However, adherence to guideline recommendations continues to be suboptimal, and many patients still suffer unnecessarily from CINV. In addition, breakthrough/refractory CINV continues to present particular challenges. The development of effective CINV treatments with diverse mechanisms of action has expanded the options available for preventing symptoms. The US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved several new therapies for the management of CINV. NEPA is a fixed-dose combination of netupitant(300 mg) plus palonosetron (0.5 mg). In combination with dexamethasone, NEPA has demonstrated superior efficacyto palonosetron alone in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Rolapitant is a next generation neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist. Both palonosetron and rolapitant have proven particularly effective in controlling delayed CINV. Regimens that combine a serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine­3 receptor antagonist, an NK1receptor antagonist, and a corticosteroid now represent the standard of care for managing both acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Supportive care during treatment for breast cancer: resource allocations in low- and middle-income countries. A Breast Health Global Initiative 2013 consensus statement.

Breast cancer patients may have unmet supportive care needs during treatment, including symptom management of treatment-related toxicities, and educational, psychosocial, and spiritual needs. Delivery of supportive care is often a low priority in low- and middle-income settings, and is also dependent on resources available. This consensus statement describes twelve key recommendations for supportive care during treatment in low- and middle-income countries, identified by an expert international panel as part of the 5th Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) Global Summit for Supportive Care, which was held in October 2012, in Vienna, Austria. Panel recommendations are presented in a 4-tier resource-stratified table to illustrate how health systems can provide supportive care services during treatment to breast cancer patients, starting at a basic level of resource allocation and incrementally adding program resources as they become available. These recommendations include: health professional and patient and family education; management of treatment related toxicities, management of treatment-related symptoms of fatigue, insomnia and non-specific pain, and management of psychosocial and spiritual issues related to breast cancer treatment. Establishing supportive care during breast cancer treatment will help ensure that breast cancer patients receive comprehensive care that can help 1) improve adherence to treatment recommendations, 2) manage treatment-related toxicities and other treatment related symptoms, and 3) address the psychosocial and spiritual aspects of breast cancer and breast cancer treatments.

Efficacy of aprepitant among patients aged 65 and over receiving moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a meta-analysis of unpublished data from previously published studies.

BACKGROUND: Various antiemetic agents are commonly administered during and after chemotherapy to prevent nausea and vomiting depending on the emetogenic risk. Data specific for patients older than 65 are rarely discussed and it is often assumed that such patients have less risk of nausea and vomiting and might not need the same prevention. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether response to antiemetic regimens incorporating aprepitant varies with patient age, we combined previously unpublished subgroup analyses from four previously published studies. METHODS: Risk ratios were combined using standard meta-analytic techniques to determine whether antiemetic regimens including aprepitant lead to more complete responses to antiemetic therapy than regimens without aprepitant, among patients aged 65 and over. RESULTS: Patients aged 65 and over have a significantly greater chance of experiencing a complete response (no vomiting or use of rescue therapy) to antiemetic treatment when aprepitant is included in the antiemetic regimen (Risk Ratio 1.25, 95% Confidence Interval 1.11 to 1.40, p=0.0002) than when it is not. This risk ratio is not significantly different (Q=0.281, p=0.596) from the risk ratio calculated for patients under age 65 (1.30, 95% Confidence Interval 1.19 to 1.42), from the same set of studies. LIMITATIONS: This meta-analysis combines studies utilizing different antiemetic regimens and different patient populations. Only a single efficacy outcome is included, and safety is not assessed. CONCLUSION: We conclude that for both the under 65years and the age 65 and over populations, antiemetic regimens including aprepitant, along with a 5-HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid, are more effective in reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting than regimens that do not include aprepitant.

Palonosetron plus single-dose dexamethasone for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in women receiving anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy: meta-analysis of individual patient data examining the effect of age on outcome in two phase III trials.

PURPOSE: Data from two randomized trials, evaluating a single-day regimen of palonosetron plus dexamethasone against emesis due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, were assessed for the impact of age on outcome in a pooled sample of women receiving anthracycline and/or cyclophosphamide (AC)-containing chemotherapy. METHODS: Chemo-naïve breast cancer patients randomized to receive palonosetron (0.25 mg) plus dexamethasone (8 mg IV) on day 1 of chemotherapy (n = 200), or the same regimen followed by oral dexamethasone (8 mg) on days 2 and 3 (n = 205), were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR: no vomiting and no rescue anti-emetics) in the 5-day study period. The effect of the 1-day regimen and age (<50 and ≥ 50 years) was investigated by a meta-analysis of individual patient data. RESULTS: Younger patients comprised 43 % and 49 % of the 1-day and 3-day regimen groups, respectively; 94 % of the pooled sample received the AC combination. There were no between-treatment differences in CR rate according to age during all observation periods. In the 1-day regimen group, 55.2 % of younger patients achieved overall CR compared with 54 % of older patients. In the 3-day regimen group, 51.5 % of younger patients achieved overall CR compared with 58.7 % of older patients. In the adjusted analysis, younger age was not associated with overall CR to treatment (risk difference, -3.1 %; 95 % CI, -13.0 to 6.7 %; P = 0.533). CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence that, irrespective of age, the dexamethasone-sparing regimen is not associated with a significant loss in overall anti-emetic protection in women undergoing AC-containing chemotherapy.

Review of the efficacy of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in a range of tumor types.

Chemotherapy regimens differ according to the tumor type being treated and are associated with varying degrees of emetogenic potential. Since the distribution of risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting differs across tumor types, it is important to understand the efficacy of antiemetic regimens in multiple patient populations. To characterize treatment response in patients with various malignancies (e.g., breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and lung) treated with either highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens, a pooled analysis of patient-level data from 4 large randomized trials was performed (N=2813). Patients receiving an antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone were compared with patients receiving an active-control antiemetic regimen containing ondansetron plus dexamethasone. In all tumor types analyzed, complete responses were observed in a higher proportion of HEC-treated patients receiving aprepitant compared with active-control patients (genitourinary [61.5% vs 40.6%, P<0.001], gastrointestinal [68.2% vs 44.7%, P=0.013], and lung cancers [73.5% vs 52.8%, P<0.001]). For MEC-treated patients, complete response rates were also higher for aprepitant patients than active-control patients for all tumor types, with a significant difference noted among patients with breast cancer (54.9% vs 43.9%, P<0.0001). The proportion of patients with no vomiting was higher in both HEC- and MEC-treated patients. While results of previous studies provide support for the use of antiemetic regimens that include aprepitant, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone, this analysis demonstrates the consistent efficacy of aprepitant as part of an antiemetic regimen across different tumor types and chemotherapy regimens.

Disease burden and treatment outcomes in second-line therapy of patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer: a review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the variable burden of disease of patients with advanced estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer and assess the current treatment landscape after failure of first-line endocrine therapy. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was performed (2000-2011) by searching Medline via PubMed, and Embase and Cochrane databases, to assess disease burden (i.e. societal, humanistic, and/or economic burden) and treatment landscape for second-line therapy of ER+ advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women. RESULTS: Only 1 study was identified that evaluated burden of disease based on ER status (ER+, ER-negative, or ER-unknown); this study was a subgroup analysis assessing the impact of breast cancer recurrence over 10 years. The investigators reported that only minor differences in survival and medical costs were noted based on ER status in relapsing patients. Regardless of ER status, patients with breast cancer recurrence consumed more healthcare resources and were associated with more costly care than those without recurrence. A total of 7 studies were identified related to treatment outcomes of second-line therapy in ER+ patients. A combined international population totaled >3800 patients who had progressed on prior hormonal therapy, including tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors. Three trials performed a comparative efficacy/safety assessment of an ER antagonist vs. aromatase inhibitor, 1 trial compared an aromatase inhibitor to megestrol acetate, and 1 trial compared 2 aromatase inhibitors. Among each of the studies evaluated, no significant differences were observed in the primary efficacy endpoint, and the safety profiles were similar. Two additional studies demonstrated a similar or better efficacy and safety profile based on different dosing evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is insufficient evidence on the economic and humanistic burden associated with ER status, and this gap warrants further research. With increasing drug resistance and greater economic burden associated with breast cancer recurrence, there is an unmet medical need for improved treatment in this patient population.