Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced triple-negative breast cancer.

Aim: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to evaluate the efficacy of first-line treatments for locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. Materials & methods: Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating first-line treatments for locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic TNBC patients. NMA was performed to estimate relative treatment effects on overall and progression-free survival between pembrolizumab + chemotherapy and other interventions. Results: NMA including eight trials showed that the relative efficacy of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy was statistically superior to that of other immunotherapy- or chemotherapy-based treatment regimens. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab + chemotherapy confers benefits in survival outcomes versus alternative interventions for the first-line treatment of locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic TNBC patients.

What is this article about? Around 15% of breast cancer patients have the triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtype, which has the worst prognosis. Treatments targeting the immune system, such as pembrolizumab, were recently found to improve the outcomes of patients with cancer that is at an advanced stage or resistant to standard therapies. However, clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of cancer treatments typically compare only two alternative treatments. Therefore, we conducted this study to understand the relative efficacy of several commonly used initial treatments for advanced TNBC by indirectly comparing the results of all available clinical trials that were sufficiently similar. We identified trials by systematically searching the medical literature and analyzed the results of several clinical trials together to estimate the efficacy of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy compared with several other initial treatment regimens for patients with advanced TNBC. What were the results? We identified eight randomized controlled trials evaluating treatment regimens containing chemotherapeutic or immunotherapeutic agents in patients with previously untreated advanced TNBC. Considering all these trials together, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy was found to prolong patient survival to a greater extent than several other treatment regimens including carboplatin, docetaxel, paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel/paclitaxel, bevacizumab + paclitaxel, ixabepilone + paclitaxel and ixabepilone + bevacizumab depending on the specific set of trials analyzed. What do the results of the study mean? These results indicate that pembrolizumab + chemotherapy has beneficial effects on patient survival compared with other initial treatment regimens for patients with advanced TNBC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy Followed by Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in Patients with High-Risk, Early-Stage, Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Switzerland.

AIM: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus placebo followed by adjuvant placebo for patients with high-risk, early-stage, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) from a Swiss third-party payer perspective over a lifetime horizon (51 years). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A transition model with four health states (event-free, locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, and death) was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the treatment of high-risk, early-stage TNBC. Data were utilized from the KEYNOTE-522 randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03036488). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, which was reported as cost per life year or quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: Base-case results estimated an ICER of 14,114 Swiss francs (CHF)/QALY for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. Results were most sensitive to changes in the extrapolation of event-free survival (EFS). All sensitivity and scenario analyses generated ICERs below the willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF100,000/QALY, and the PSA showed a 98.8% probability that the ICER would be below this threshold. LIMITATIONS: Due to the limited follow-up period in the KEYNOTE-522 trial, EFS data were extrapolated over the lifetime horizon to inform transition probabilities. Extensive validation and scenario analyses ensured the results were robust. CONCLUSION: The model demonstrated that neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab was cost-effective versus chemotherapy alone in patients with high-risk, early-stage TNBC in Switzerland.

Health-Related Quality of Life With Pembrolizumab+Chemotherapy Versus Placebo+Chemotherapy for Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: KEYNOTE-355.

BACKGROUND: In KEYNOTE-355 (NCT02819518), addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy led to statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) with tumor PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥10. We report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from KEYNOTE-355. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus investigator's choice chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine/carboplatin). QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR23, and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) were prespecified. PROs were analyzed for patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment and completed ≥1 PRO assessment. Change in PRO scores from baseline were assessed at week 15 (latest time point at which completion/compliance rates were ≥60%/≥80%). Time to deterioration (TTD) in PROs was defined as time to first onset of ≥ 10-point worsening in score from baseline. RESULTS: PRO analyses included 317 patients with tumor PD-L1 CPS ≥10 (pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy; n = 217; placebo plus chemotherapy, n = 100). There were no between-group differences in change from baseline to week 15 in QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL; least-squares mean difference, -1.81 [95% CI, -6.92 to 3.30]), emotional functioning (-1.43 [-7.03 to 4.16]), physical functioning (-1.05 [-6.59 to 4.50]), or EQ-5D VAS (0.18 [-5.04 to 5.39]), and no between-group difference in TTD in QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL, emotional functioning, or physical functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Together with the efficacy and safety findings, PRO results from KEYNOTE-355 support pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a standard of care for patients with advanced TNBC with tumor PD-L1 (CPS ≥10).

Impact of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy on health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: results from the phase 3 randomised KEYNOTE-119 study.

BACKGROUND: In KEYNOTE-119 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02555657), overall survival (primary end-point) was similar between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in patients with previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), although the pembrolizumab treatment effect increased with tumour PD-L1 expression. We report results of prespecified health-related quality of life (HRQoL) analyses from KEYNOTE-119. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomised 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W intravenously for up to 35 cycles or treatment of physician's choice per local/country guidelines. Prespecified exploratory end-points were the change from baseline in HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR23) and to characterise utilities (EQ-5D-3L). Time to deterioration (TTD) was the time from start of treatment to first onset of a ≥10-point worsening from baseline. RESULTS: HRQoL analyses included 187 patients with tumour PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥10. Changes from baseline at 6 weeks (primary analysis time point) were directionally better with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (between-group difference in least-squares mean scores of 4.21 [95% CI, -1.38 to 9.80]), QLQ-C30 functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, social), QLQ-C30 symptom scales/items (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, dyspnoea, appetite loss), and QLQ-BR23 symptom scales/items (systemic therapy side-effects, upset by hair loss). Median TTD was directionally longer for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for QLQ-C30 QHS/QoL (4.3 versus 1.7 months), QLQ-C30 nausea/vomiting (7.7 versus 4.8 months), and QLQ-BR23 systemic therapy side-effects (6.1 versus 3.4 months). Minimal treatment differences were observed for other HRQoL end-points. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL results were consistent with clinical outcomes and appeared to be driven by results for patients with tumour PD-L1 CPS ≥10.

Association between event-free survival and overall survival in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.

Aim: This study evaluated event-free survival (EFS) as a surrogate outcome for overall survival (OS) in neoadjuvant therapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC). Methods: Meta-regression analyses based on a targeted literature review were used to evaluate the individual- and trial-level associations between EFS and OS. Results: In the individual-level analyses, 3-year EFS was a significant predictor of 5-year OS (p < 0.01; coefficient of determinations [R2]: 0.82 [95% CI: 0.68-0.91]). Additionally, there was a statistically significant association between the treatment effect on EFS and OS at the trial level (p < 0.001; R2: 0.64 [95% CI: 0.45-0.82]). Conclusion: This study demonstrates significant associations between EFS and OS and suggests that EFS is a valid surrogate for OS following neoadjuvant therapy for eTNBC.

What is this article about? Studies of cancer therapies typically use patient survival to understand whether a treatment is helpful, such as overall survival (time from treatment to death) and event-free survival (time from treatment until the cancer progresses). Only using overall survival can slow clinical trials and the ability to assess whether new treatments may be useful. This study examined whether event-free survival was a good surrogate outcome for overall survival in studies of neoadjuvant therapy for early stage, triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC). Neoadjuvant therapy is used to shrink a tumor before the definitive surgery, and TNBC is a type of breast cancer lacking three common hormone receptors that treatments target. To accomplish this, we first searched for published clinical trials and observational studies that reported overall and event-free survival and extracted their data. Then we tested the association between the two survival outcomes to determine if event-free survival could be used to accurately predict overall survival. Using data from randomized clinical trials, we also tested whether a treatment's effect on event-free survival could predict its effect on overall survival. What did this study find? We found that event-free survival at three years could predict overall survival at 5 years, and that there was a meaningful relationship between a treatment's effect on event-free and overall survival for eTNBC following neoadjuvant treatment. What do the results of the study mean? The results suggest that event-free survival is an accurate and useful surrogate for overall survival following neoadjuvant treatment of eTNBC.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of high-risk, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) are generally younger and more likely to experience disease recurrence and have the shortest survival among all breast cancer patients. Recently, neoadjuvant delivery of the programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab was approved for patients with high-risk, early-stage TNBC, but this treatment regimen has not been evaluated in head-to-head trials with other neoadjuvant treatment regimens. Therefore, the objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab + chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab versus other neoadjuvant treatments for early-stage TNBC through a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, conference abstracts, and clinical trial registries were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating neoadjuvant treatments for early-stage TNBC. NMA was performed to estimate relative treatment effects among evaluated interventions. RESULTS: Five trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in the NMA. The relative efficacy of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab + chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab was favorable to paclitaxel followed by anthracycline + cyclophosphamide in terms of pathologic complete response (pCR), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival; paclitaxel + carboplatin followed by anthracycline + cyclophosphamide in terms of pCR and EFS; paclitaxel + bevacizumab followed by anthracycline + cyclophosphamide + bevacizumab in terms of pCR; and paclitaxel + carboplatin + veliparib followed by anthracycline + cyclophosphamide in terms of EFS. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab + chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab confers benefits in response and survival outcomes versus alternative neoadjuvant treatments for early-stage TNBC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy Followed by Adjuvant Single-Agent Pembrolizumab for High-Risk Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The randomized phase III KEYNOTE-522 trial demonstrated that addition of pembrolizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy provided a significant improvement in event-free survival and a favorable trend in overall survival for high-risk early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC). This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment and continued as a single-agent adjuvant treatment after surgery vs. neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk eTNBC in the USA. METHODS: The analysis was conducted from a US third-party public healthcare payer perspective. A multistate transition model was developed using efficacy and safety data from the KEYNOTE-522 trial. The model included four mutually exclusive health states: event-free, locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, and death to simulate patients' lifetime disease course. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated on the basis of EuroQoL-5 Dimensions utility data collected in KEYNOTE-522. Costs for drug acquisition/administration, adverse events, disease management, and subsequent therapies were reported (2021 US dollars). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the main results. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by pembrolizumab resulted in expected gains of 3.37 life years (LYs) and 2.90 QALYs, and an incremental cost of $79,046 versus chemotherapy. The incremental cost per QALY gained was $27,285, which is lower than all commonly cited US willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses showed the results were robust over plausible values of key model inputs and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment and continued as a single-agent adjuvant treatment after surgery is considered a cost-effective option for high-risk eTNBC in the USA.

Q-TWiST analysis of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer that expresses PD-L1.

OBJECTIVE: In the KEYNOTE-355 (KN355) trial, pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy demonstrated superior efficacy and manageable safety compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable and metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) with PD-L1 positive (Combined Positive Score [CPS]≥ 10) tumours. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits and risks of pembrolizumab measured by quality-adjusted survival in the trial population. METHODS: The study used data from the final analysis of KN355. The Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease progression or Toxicity of treatment (Q-TWiST) analysis was used to compare treatments of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. Patients' survival time was partitioned into three health states - toxicity before disease progression (TOX), time without symptoms or toxicity before disease progression (TWiST), and relapse (REL). Utilities for these health states were estimated using EuroQol-5 Dimensions, 3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L) data collected in KN355. Q-TWiST was derived as the utility-weighted sum of the mean health state durations. RESULTS: Patients randomised to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy had 3.7 months greater Q-TWiST (relative gain of 18%; P = 0.003) compared to those randomised to chemotherapy at the median follow-up of 44 months, and 4.3 months greater Q-TWiST (relative gain of 20%; P = 0.004) at the maximum follow-up of 52 months. The Q-TWiST gain increased with longer follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was associated with statistically significant and clinically important improvement in Q-TWiST compared to chemotherapy in previously untreated PD-L1-positive mTNBC.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Objective: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab/chemotherapy combinations for previously untreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer patients in the USA with PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10. Methods: A partitioned-survival model was developed to project health outcomes and direct medical costs over a 20-year time horizon. Efficacy and safety data were from randomized clinical trials. Comparative effectiveness of indirect comparators was assessed using network meta-analyses. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. Results: Pembrolizumab/chemotherapy resulted in total quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains of 0.70 years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$182,732/QALY compared with chemotherapy alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for pembrolizumab/nab-paclitaxel versus atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel was US$44,157/QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed the results were robust over plausible values of model inputs. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab/chemotherapy is cost effective compared with chemotherapy as well as atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer from a US payer perspective.

Economic and Humanistic Burden of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for 10-20% of all breast cancers (BCs). It is more commonly diagnosed in younger women and often has a less favorable prognosis compared with other BC subtypes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide a literature-based extensive overview of the economic and humanistic burden of TNBC to assist medical decisions for healthcare payers, providers, and patients. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using multiple databases, including EMBASE, MEDLINE, Econlit, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from database inception to 16 May 2021. In addition, a targeted search was performed in the Northern Light Life Sciences Conference Abstracts database from 2016 through June 2021. The bibliographies of included articles were reviewed to identify other potentially relevant publications. Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted. RESULTS: The review identified 19 studies assessing the economic burden and 10 studies assessing the humanistic burden of TNBC. Studies varied widely in study design, settings, patient populations, and time horizons. The estimates of mean per-patient annual direct medical costs ranged from around $20,000 to over $100,000 in stage I-III TNBC and from $100,000 to $300,000 in stage IV TNBC. Healthcare costs and resource utilization increased significantly with disease recurrence, progression, and increased cancer stage or line of therapy. Compared with the costs of systemic anticancer therapy, cancer management costs comprised a larger portion of total direct costs. The estimates of indirect costs due to productivity loss ranged from $207 to $1573 per patient per month (all costs presented above were adjusted to 2021 US dollars). Cancer recurrence led to significantly reduced productivity and greater rates of leaving the workforce. A rapid deterioration of health utility associated with disease progression was observed in TNBC patients. Treatment with pembrolizumab or talazoparib showed significantly greater improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared with chemotherapy, as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR23, and FACT-B. CONCLUSION: TNBC is associated with a substantial economic burden on healthcare systems and societies and considerably reduced productivity and HRQoL for patients. This study synthesized the published literature on the economic and humanistic burden of TNBC and highlighted the need for continued research due to the rapidly changing landscape of TNBC care.

The Economic Burden of Recurrence in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Among Working Age Patients in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is associated with a high recurrence risk. However, the magnitude of direct and indirect costs associated with recurrence is lacking in the literature. METHODS: Adults 18-65 years old diagnosed with TNBC were identified from the OptumHealth Reporting and Insights claims database (1999-2017) and stratified by recurrence. For patients with recurrence, the index date was defined as 30 days before recurrence; for patients without recurrence, it was randomly assigned based on the distribution of time between first treatments and index dates of the recurrence cohort. All-cause and breast cancer-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU), direct and indirect costs, and work loss up to 1 year were compared between cohorts using generalized linear models. Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazards models compared the risk of leaving the workforce. RESULTS: Among the 2340 patients analyzed, mean age was 54 years and > 75% of patients had stage 0-2 cancer. Among the 1170 patients with recurrence, 236 were categorized as having metastatic recurrence and 934 as having locoregional recurrence. Relative to patients without recurrence, those with recurrence had significantly higher all-cause and breast cancer-related HRU. For instance, adjusted incidence rates (IRs) for all-cause inpatient admissions were 3.67 and 10.19 times higher for patients with locoregional and metastatic recurrence, respectively (p < 0.001). Adjusted all-cause healthcare costs were $8575/month higher for metastatic recurrence and $3609/month higher for locoregional recurrence vs. patients without recurrence (p < 0.001). Adjusted IRs for work loss days were approximately two times higher for locoregional and metastatic recurrence vs. without recurrence (p < 0.001). Patients with locoregional recurrence incurred $335/month more indirect costs vs. patients without recurrence; those with metastatic recurrence incurred $769/month more (p < 0.05). Patients with recurrence had a 63% higher rate of leaving the work force (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The incremental direct and indirect economic burden associated with recurrent TNBC is substantial relative to non-recurrence.

Healthcare resource utilization and cost among patients treated for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.

Background: This retrospective, observational study examined real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in 308 patients diagnosed with early-stage (II-IIIB) triple-negative breast cancer between 1 March 2008 and 31 March 2016. Methods: HCRU and costs were evaluated for two time periods: from neoadjuvant treatment start date to surgery (Time 1) and after surgery to recurrence or death (Time 2). Results: The sample included 236 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment without subsequent adjuvant treatment (Neo) and 72 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment followed by adjuvant treatment (Neo + adj). Mean monthly HCRU events and mean monthly costs per patient were higher in Time 1 compared with Time 2 for both groups. Conclusion: These results demonstrate the economic burden of early-stage triple-negative breast cancer especially during neoadjuvant treatment phase.

Lay abstract This study included 308 patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer treated in the USA at community oncology practices. Patients were female, 18 years or older and diagnosed with stage II, IIIA or IIIB breast cancer between March 2008 and March 2016, and the breast cancer was determined to be triple negative (i.e., negative for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors and excess HER2 protein). There were 236 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment without subsequent adjuvant treatment (the Neo group) and 72 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment followed by adjuvant treatment (the Neo + adj group). The study looked at healthcare resource use and costs of care during two time periods: from neoadjuvant treatment start date to surgery (Time 1) and after surgery to recurrence or death (Time 2). Average monthly healthcare resource use and average monthly costs of care per patient were higher in Time 1 compared with Time 2 for both groups. These results demonstrate the economic and resource burden of early-stage triple-negative breast cancer especially in the time from neoadjuvant treatment initiation until surgery.

Real-world treatment patterns and effectiveness outcomes in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.

Background: This retrospective, observational study examined real-world treatment patterns and effectiveness outcomes in 450 patients with stage II-IIIB early-stage triple-negative breast cancer treated in the community oncology setting. Methods: Kaplan-Meier methods were used to evaluate event-free survival (EFS), time to recurrence and overall survival (OS). Cox regression models were used to evaluate predictors of EFS and OS by pathological complete response (pCR) status. Results: Among patients receiving neoadjuvant systemic therapy only, pCR was a predictor of EFS and OS. Conclusion: These results highlight the unmet need for therapies that improve outcomes for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer including increasing rates of pCR among patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy.

Lay abstract This study included 450 patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer treated in the USA at community oncology practices. Patients were female, 18 years or older, diagnosed with stage II, IIIA or IIIB breast cancer between March 2008 and March 2016, and the breast cancer was determined to be triple negative (i.e., negative for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors and excess HER2 protein). The study looked at the treatments received, whether those treatments worked and the response to treatment at the time of surgery. The study findings align with findings from other studies that complete response in tissue samples is associated with improved clinical outcomes. Triple-negative breast cancer remains challenging to treat, and there is a clear need for innovation in treatment options. Intervening in the early stages of triple-negative breast cancer is critical to improving outcomes.

Systemic therapy, survival and end-of-life costs for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: retrospective SEER-Medicare study of women age ≥65 years.

Aim: To analyze therapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC), factors contributing to survival and costs. Patients & methods: Using 2010-2016 SEER-Medicare data, we identified women (≥65 years) with mTNBC. Results: Of 302 eligible patients, 152 (50%) received systemic therapy. In multivariable regression analyses, only age <75 years was associated with therapy receipt (odds ratio: 2.91; 95% CI: 1.79-4.74); and only systemic therapy significantly reduced risk of death (hazard ratio: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.26-0.44). Median overall survival was 13.4 (95% CI: 11.3-15.1) vs 3.3 months (95% CI: 2.7-3.9) in therapy vs no-therapy cohorts. Mean per-patient-per-month costs <30 days before end-of-life/follow-up were $14,100 and $15,600 (2019 USD), respectively. Conclusion: Poor outcomes and high costs indicate need for more effective mTNBC therapy.

Assessing direct costs of treating metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the USA.

Aim: Evaluation of monthly cost during metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) treatment. Patients & methods: Retrospective electronic medical record review of US females aged ≥18 years diagnosed with mTNBC between 1 January 2010 and 31 January 2016. Mean monthly costs per patient were evaluated from start of mTNBC treatment until transfer to hospice, end of record or 3 months prior to death. Results: The mean monthly cost of first line was $21,908 for 505 treated patients; 50.2% of cost was attributable to hospitalization and emergency department visits, and 32.7% to anticancer therapy. Similar patterns were observed for subsequent lines of therapy. Conclusion: The majority of costs were attributable to hospitalization and emergency department services, suggesting a need for effective interventions to reduce utilization of costly services.

Real-world effectiveness outcomes in patients diagnosed with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Aim: This study examined treatment patterns and effectiveness outcomes of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) from US community oncology centers. Materials & methods: Eligible patients were females, aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with mTNBC between 1 January 2010 and 31 January 2016. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used. Results: Sample comprised 608 patients with average age of 57.5 years and 505/608 patients (83.1%) received systemic treatment. Overall survival (OS) from first-line treatment found that African-American patients had shorter OS than White (9.3 vs 13.7 months; hazard ratio: 1.35; p = 0.006). Conclusion: More than 15% of women with mTNBC were not treated, indicating a high unmet need. Overall prognosis remains poor, which highlights the opportunity for newer therapies to improve progression-free survival and OS.

Early triple-negative breast cancer in women aged ≥65: retrospective study of outcomes, resource use and costs, 2010-2016.

Aim: To examine real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients & methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, we identified patients (≥65 years) with newly diagnosed stage II/III TNBC in 2010-2015 who had surgery plus neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant (systemic and/or radiation) therapy. Treatment, survival, healthcare resource use and costs were assessed through 2016. Results: Of 1569 patients (>99% women), 6%/74%/20% received neoadjuvant-only/adjuvant-only/both (neo + adj) therapies, respectively. Median overall survival was 23 months/not reached (NR)/78 months, with longer survival at stage II (NR/NR/78 months) than stage III (22/43/38 months). Mean per patient per month costs were $10,620 and $17,872 in neoadjuvant and adjuvant periods. Conclusion: These findings provide insights into clinical and economic outcomes for early-stage TNBC in 2010-2016.

Association of Pathologic Complete Response with Long-Term Survival Outcomes in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

Pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant therapy has been associated with improved event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in early-stage breast cancer. The magnitude of this association varies by breast cancer subtype, yet further research focusing on subtype-specific populations is limited. Here we provide an updated and comprehensive evaluation of the association between pCR and survival outcomes in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). A literature review identified neoadjuvant studies, including clinical trials, real-world cohort studies, and studies that pooled multiple trials or cohorts, which reported EFS/OS results by pCR in patients with early-stage TNBC. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the association between pCR and EFS/OS and to predict long-term survival outcomes based on pCR status. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of cross-study variations. Twenty-five studies with over 4,000 patients with TNBC were identified. A synthesis of evidence from these studies suggested substantial improvement in EFS and OS for pCR versus non-pCR [EFS HR (95% confidence interval): 0.24 (0.20-0.29); OS: 0.19 (0.15-0.24)]; consistent results were reported in sensitivity analyses. Collectively, our findings suggest that adjuvant therapy is associated with improved EFS/OS in patients with TNBC who received neoadjuvant therapy, regardless of pCR status.

Evaluation of Pathologic Complete Response as a Surrogate for Long-Term Survival Outcomes in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response (pCR) is a common efficacy endpoint in neoadjuvant therapy trials for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Previous studies have shown that pCR is strongly associated with improved long-term survival outcomes, including event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). However, the trial-level associations between treatment effect on pCR and long-term survival outcomes are not well established. This study sought to evaluate these associations by incorporating more recent clinical trials in TNBC. METHODS: A literature review identified published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of neoadjuvant therapy for TNBC that reported results for both pCR and EFS/OS. Meta-regression models were performed to evaluate the association of treatment effect on pCR and EFS/OS. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of divergent study designs. RESULTS: Ten comparisons from 8 RCTs (N=2,478 patients) were identified from the literature review. The log (odds ratio) of pCR was a significant predictor of the log (hazard ratio) of EFS (P=.003), with a coefficient of determination of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95). There was a weaker association between pCR and OS (P=.18), with a coefficient of determination of 0.24 (95% CI, 0.01-0.77). Consistent results were found in the exploratory analysis and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study that has shown a trial-level association between pCR and survival outcomes in TNBC. By incorporating the most up-to-date RCTs, this study showed a significant trial-level association between pCR and EFS. A positive association between pCR and OS was also recorded.

Treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma in US oncology clinical practices.

AIM: To describe recent evolution in treatment patterns and outcomes for advanced melanoma (AMel). METHODS: This retrospective observational study analyzed de-identified electronic health record data from the Flatiron Health database for 1140 adult patients who initiated first-line therapy for AMel from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2016 with follow-up through 28 February 2017. RESULTS: The most common first-line regimens were ipilimumab-based therapies (34%), anti-PD-1 monotherapy (26%) and BRAF/MEK inhibitor(s) (20%). First-line ipilimumab-based and BRAF inhibitor regimens decreased after the third quarter of 2014 (3Q2014), and by 2Q2016, 55 and 91% of BRAF-mutant and BRAF wild-type cohorts, respectively, received a first-line anti-PD-1 regimen. Median overall survival from first-line initiation for all patients was 18.8 months (95% CI: 16.3-23.3). CONCLUSION: Results illustrate changing paradigms of therapy and real-world patient outcomes for AMel.