The effects of adding palbociclib to endocrine therapy to treat advanced breast cancer: a plain language summary of a study using the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 trial results.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of an article that reported results of a study using data from two phase 3 clinical trials called "PALOMA-2" and "PALOMA-3." Both PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 trials included women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. HR+/HER2- breast cancer means the breast cancer cells of these women have receptors for female sex hormones and little or no HER2 receptors. Both PALOMA trials tested the effect of adding a medication called palbociclib (brand name, Ibrance®) to a hormone therapy. Hormone therapy, also known as endocrine therapy, is a treatment that blocks or removes hormones that cause cancer cells to grow and divide. In both trials, women took endocrine therapy with either palbociclib or a placebo. WHAT WAS THE AIM OF THIS STUDY?: The researchers aimed to see if the results from the PALOMA trials were similar for subgroups of women in the 2 trials. The subgroups in the study included women who shared certain features about their cancer or treatment history, for example, women whose cancer had spread to the liver. For each subgroup, the study compared the results from the 2 treatment groups: (1) women who took palbociclib plus endocrine therapy, and (2) women who took placebo plus endocrine therapy. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS & WHAT DO THEY MEAN?: The same effect was found in all subgroups. Compared with those who took placebo, women who took palbociclib lived longer without their cancer getting worse (growing or spreading). Also, among women who had chemotherapy after stopping the trial treatment, those who took palbociclib started chemotherapy later than those who took placebo. Because palbociclib slows cancer growth and leads to tumor shrinkage, this may have played a part in starting chemotherapy later. These results show that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy is better at slowing the progression of advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer than endocrine therapy alone. This can be said for women with different advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer features and treatment history. Overall, the results support women taking palbociclib with an endocrine therapy if they have advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

Prognostic Factors for Overall Survival in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer: Analyses From PALOMA-3.

BACKGROUND: This analysis investigated whether baseline characteristics affect the survival benefit derived from palbociclib-fulvestrant and the optimal timing of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor therapy for advanced breast cancer (ABC) in patients from PALOMA-3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 521 patients were randomized 2:1 to receive palbociclib (125 mg/day, 3/1 schedule)-fulvestrant (500 mg, intramuscular injection, on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1, and then day 1 of each subsequent cycle) or matching placebo-fulvestrant. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis identified endocrine sensitivity, nonvisceral disease, no prior chemotherapy for ABC, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 as significant prognostic factors for OS. Patients without chemotherapy for ABC had fewer prior lines of treatment in any setting and in the ABC setting versus patients with prior chemotherapy for ABC (two or fewer prior systemic therapies: 69% vs. 42%; no more than one prior line for ABC: 82% vs. 33%, respectively). Median OS was prolonged with palbociclib-fulvestrant in patients without prior chemotherapy for ABC (39.7 vs. 29.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.01) and was similar in patients with prior chemotherapy for ABC (25.6 vs. 26.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI: 0.63-1.32]) versus placebo-fulvestrant. CONCLUSION: Prognostic factors for OS included endocrine sensitivity, nonvisceral disease, ECOG PS of 0, and no prior chemotherapy for ABC. Exploratory analyses suggest improved OS with palbociclib-fulvestrant versus placebo-fulvestrant in patients with no prior chemotherapy for ABC, prior endocrine sensitivity, and fewer prior regimens of systemic therapy. (Clinical trial identification number: NCT01942135). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Prognostic factors for overall survival in HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) include the absence of prior chemotherapy in the advanced setting, endocrine sensitivity, nonvisceral disease, and an ECOG performance status of 0. Improved overall survival benefit was observed with palbociclib-fulvestrant versus placebo-fulvestrant in patients (regardless of menopausal status or visceral involvement) with no prior chemotherapy for ABC, with prior endocrine sensitivity, and fewer prior regimens of systemic therapy. Progression-free survival was prolonged with palbociclib across subgroups (regardless of chemotherapy exposure in ABC). These exploratory findings suggest that patients may receive greater clinical benefit from palbociclib-fulvestrant if they receive the combination before chemotherapy in the advanced setting.

Long-Term Pooled Safety Analysis of Palbociclib in Combination with Endocrine Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Updated Analysis with up to 5 Years of Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrated the tolerability of palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET). This analysis evaluated safety based on more recent cutoff dates and a longer palbociclib treatment exposure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from three randomized studies of patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC), including postmenopausal women who had not received prior systemic treatment for advanced disease (PALOMA-1/-2) and pre- and postmenopausal women who had progressed on prior ET (PALOMA-3). RESULTS: Updated cutoff dates were December 21, 2017 (PALOMA-1), May 31, 2017 (PALOMA-2), and April 13, 2018 (PALOMA-3). Total person-years of treatment exposure were 1,421.6 with palbociclib plus ET (n = 872) and 528.4 with ET (n = 471). Any-grade neutropenia and infections were more frequent with palbociclib plus ET (82.1% and 59.2%, respectively) than with ET (5.1% and 39.5%). The hazard ratios were 1.6 (p = .0995) for grade 3/4 infections, 1.8 (p = .4358) for grade 3/4 viral infections, 1.4 (p = .0001) for infections, and 30.8 (p < .0001) for neutropenia. Febrile neutropenia was reported in 1.4% of patients receiving palbociclib plus ET. Cumulative incidence of all-grade hematologic adverse events in both arms peaked during the first year of treatment and plateaued over the 5 subsequent years. Interstitial lung disease was reported in 13 patients receiving palbociclib plus ET and 3 receiving ET. CONCLUSION: This 5-year, long-term analysis demonstrated that palbociclib plus ET has a consistent and stable safety profile and is a safe treatment for patients with HR+/HER2- ABC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Several treatments for patients with breast cancer are associated with long-term or latent adverse events. This long-term, 5-year analysis demonstrated that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy has a consistent and stable safety profile without cumulative or delayed toxicities. These results further support palbociclib plus endocrine therapy as a safe and manageable treatment in clinical practice for patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Hematologic adverse events following palbociclib dose reduction in patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer: pooled analysis from randomized phase 2 and 3 studies.

BACKGROUND: Palbociclib improves outcomes for women with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (HR+/HER2- ABC). Dose reductions are recommended for the management of hematologic toxicities. A previous pooled analysis from the PALOMA clinical trials showed that 36.9% of patients required dose reduction, predominantly during the first 6 months of treatment and with decreasing frequency during subsequent 28-day treatment cycles (C). Previous data have shown that palbociclib dose reductions do not affect efficacy. This pooled, post hoc analysis evaluated the frequency of hematologic adverse events (AEs) before and after palbociclib dose reduction in PALOMA-1, PALOMA-2, and PALOMA-3. METHODS: This analysis evaluated the frequency of hematologic AEs 30 days before dose reduction and during each subsequent treatment from C1 to C6 among patients who required palbociclib dose reduction. Data were pooled from 3 randomized studies. PALOMA-1 was a phase 2, open-label study of postmenopausal patients untreated for ABC receiving palbociclib plus letrozole or letrozole alone. PALOMA-2 was a phase 3, double-blind study of postmenopausal patients untreated for ABC receiving palbociclib plus letrozole or placebo plus letrozole. PALOMA-3 was a phase 3, double-blind study of pre/perimenopausal or postmenopausal patients, whose disease progressed on prior endocrine therapy, receiving palbociclib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. RESULTS: A total of 311 (35.5%) patients with HR+/HER2- ABC required a palbociclib dose reduction (93.6% due to AEs) from 125 to 100 mg. Mean patient age was 59.9 years, and 46.9% of patients had visceral disease. Median time to dose reduction was 70 days. The majority of dose reductions occurred within 3 months of starting palbociclib treatment. Incidences of all-grade and grades 3/4 hematologic AEs were lower following dose reduction. CONCLUSIONS: A decrease in frequency and severity of hematologic AEs, including febrile neutropenia, following palbociclib dose reduction was observed, supporting the recommended use of dose reduction in AE management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: These studies were sponsored by Pfizer. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00721409; registration date July 24, 2008. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01740427; registration date December 4, 2012. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01942135; registration date September 13, 2013.

Overall survival results from the randomized phase 2 study of palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone for first-line treatment of ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1, TRIO-18).

PURPOSE: Palbociclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, approved in combination with endocrine therapy for the treatment of women and men with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (HR+/HER2- ABC). In the phase 2, open-label, PALOMA-1 trial, palbociclib plus letrozole significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus letrozole alone (hazard ratio, 0.488; 95% CI 0.319‒0.748; P = 0.0004; median PFS, 20.2 vs 10.2 months, respectively) in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/HER2- ABC. Here, we present the final overall survival (OS) and updated safety results. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2- ABC were randomized 1:1 to receive either palbociclib (125 mg/day, 3/1 schedule) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day, continuous) or letrozole alone (2.5 mg/day, continuous). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS; secondary endpoints included OS and safety. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were randomized. At the data cutoff date of December 30, 2016 (median duration of follow-up, 64.7 months), the stratified hazard ratio for OS was 0.897 (95% CI 0.623-1.294; P = 0.281); median OS in the palbociclib plus letrozole and letrozole alone arms was 37.5 and 34.5 months, respectively. The median time from randomization to first subsequent chemotherapy use was longer with palbociclib plus letrozole than letrozole alone (26.7 and 17.7 months, respectively). The most frequently reported adverse event in the palbociclib plus letrozole arm was neutropenia (any grade, 75%; grade 3 or 4, 59%). CONCLUSIONS: Palbociclib plus letrozole treatment led to a numerical but not statistically significant improvement in median OS. Pfizer Inc (NCT00721409).

Efficacy and safety of palbociclib plus endocrine therapy in North American women with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Palbociclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor indicated for treatment of hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer in combination with endocrine therapy. We investigated the efficacy and safety of palbociclib in patients enrolled in North America during two-phase 3 trials: PALOMA-2 (n = 267, data cutoff: May 31, 2017) and PALOMA-3 (n = 240, data cutoffs: April 13, 2018, for overall survival, October 23, 2015, for all other outcomes). In PALOMA-2, treatment-naïve postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer were randomized 2:1 to palbociclib (125 mg/d; 3 weeks on/1 week off [3/1]) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/d, continuous) or placebo plus letrozole. In PALOMA-3, patients who progressed on prior endocrine therapy were randomized 2:1 to palbociclib (125 mg/d; 3/1) plus fulvestrant (500 mg, per standard of care) or placebo plus fulvestrant; pre/perimenopausal patients received ovarian suppression with goserelin. Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy prolonged median progression-free survival vs placebo plus endocrine therapy in North American patients (PALOMA-2: 25.4 vs 13.7 months, hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.40-0.74], P < .0001; PALOMA-3: 9.9 vs 3.5 months, hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.38-0.72], P < .0001). Objective response and clinical benefit response rates were greater with palbociclib vs placebo in North American patients in both trials. While overall survival data are not yet mature for PALOMA-2, median overall survival was increased in PALOMA-3 (32.0 vs 24.7 months, hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.53-1.04]), though this did not reach statistical significance (P = .0869). Safety profiles in North American patients were similar to those of the overall populations; neutropenia was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event. No new safety signals were observed. In summary, palbociclib plus endocrine therapy is an effective treatment option for North American women with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Comparison of patient and physician perspectives in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: results from global physician- and patient-based surveys.

BACKGROUND: In order to better understand the perspectives of patients and physicians regarding the treatment and management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), we present and compare results from a patient-based and a physician-based survey developed by the RA NarRAtive advisory panel. METHODS: The RA NarRAtive initiative is directed by a global advisory panel of 39 healthcare providers and patient organization leaders from 17 countries. A survey of patients self-reporting a diagnosis of RA and a physician-based survey, designed by the advisory panel, were fielded online by Harris Poll from September 2014 to April 2016, and from August 2015 to October 2015, respectively. RESULTS: We present findings from 1805 patients whose RA was primarily managed by a rheumatologist, and 1736 physicians managing patients with RA. Results confirmed that RA carries a substantial disease burden; half of the patients surveyed reported stopping participation in certain activities as a result of their disease. While 90% of physicians were satisfied with their communications with their patients regarding RA treatment, 61% of patients felt uncomfortable raising concerns or fears with their physician. Of the patients providing responses, 52% felt that improved dialogue/discussion would optimize their RA management, and 68% of physicians wished that they and their patients talked more about their RA goals and treatment. Overall, 88% of physicians agreed that patients involved in making treatment decisions tend to be more satisfied with their treatment experience. CONCLUSION: The results of these surveys highlight the impact of RA on patients, and a discrepancy between patient and physician views on communication. Further research, focused on improving patient-physician dialogue, shared goal-setting, and treatment planning, is needed.

Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib following inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

OBJECTIVES: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have shown diminished clinical response following an inadequate response (IR) to ≥1 previous bDMARD. Here, tofacitinib was compared with placebo in patients with an IR to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs; bDMARD-naive) and in patients with an IR to bDMARDs (bDMARD-IR). METHODS: Data were taken from phase II and phase III studies of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo, as monotherapy or with background methotrexate or other csDMARDs. Efficacy endpoints and incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) of special interest were assessed. RESULTS: 2812 bDMARD-naive and 705 bDMARD-IR patients were analysed. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups within subpopulations. Across subpopulations, improvements in efficacy parameters at month 3 were generally significantly greater for both tofacitinib doses versus placebo. Clinical response was numerically greater with bDMARD-naive versus bDMARD-IR patients (overlapping 95% CIs). Rates of safety events of special interest were generally similar between tofacitinib doses and subpopulations; however, patients receiving glucocorticoids had more serious AEs, discontinuations due to AEs, serious infection events and herpes zoster. Numerically greater clinical responses and incidence rates of AEs of special interest were generally reported for tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily versus tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (overlapping 95% CIs). CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib demonstrated efficacy in both bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-IR patients with RA. Clinical response to tofacitinib was generally numerically greater in bDMARD-naive than bDMARD-IR patients. The safety profile appeared similar between subpopulations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: (NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385).

Assessment of clinical efficacy and safety in a randomized double-blind study of etanercept and sulfasalazine in patients with ankylosing spondylitis from Eastern/Central Europe, Latin America, and Asia.

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of etanercept for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), sulfasalazine is often prescribed, especially in countries with limited access to biologic agents. The objective of this subset analysis of the ASCEND trial was to compare the efficacy of etanercept and sulfasalazine in treating patients with AS from Asia, Eastern/Central Europe, and Latin America. A total of 287 patients, 190 receiving etanercept 50 mg once weekly and 97 receiving sulfasalazine 3 g daily, from eight countries were included in this subset analysis. Differences in disease activity and patient-reported outcomes assessing health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) parameters in response to treatment were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for categorical efficacy endpoints and analysis of covariance model for continuous variables. At week 16, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving etanercept achieved ASAS20 (79.0 %) compared with patients receiving sulfasalazine (61.9 %; p = 0.002). At week 16, treatment with etanercept also resulted in significantly better responses than sulfasalazine for ASAS40 (64.7 vs. 35.1 %; p < 0.001), ASAS5/6 (48.1 vs. 26.3 %; p < 0.001), proportion of patients achieving 50 % response in Bath AS Disease Activity Index (65.8 vs. 42.3 %; p < 0.001), partial remission (35.3 vs. 17.5 %; p = 0.002), and all HRQoL parameters. Both treatments were well tolerated. Etanercept was significantly more effective than sulfasalazine in the treatment of patients with AS from Asia, Central/Eastern Europe, and Latin America.

How much does Disease Activity Score in 28 joints ESR and CRP calculations underestimate disease activity compared with the Simplified Disease Activity Index?

OBJECTIVES: Disease Activity Score in 28 joints calculated with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) is used instead of erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) to assess rheumatoid arthritis disease activity; however, values for remission and low disease activity (LDA) for DAS28-CRP have not been validated. American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) guidelines suggest remission should be calculated by Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) rather than DAS28-ESR. We examined values of remission and LDA of DAS28-CRP that correspond to the respective cut-off points for DAS28-ESR and SDAI from five clinical trials. METHODS: DAS28-CRP cut-offs that best correspond to DAS28-ESR remission <2.6 and LDA ≤3.2 were obtained by cumulative distribution plots, receiver operating curves and maximum concordance and averaged for each approach, treatment group and study. Level of agreement between DAS28-CRP and DAS28-ESR remission and LDA cut-offs was compared against each other and versus SDAI remission ≤3.3 and LDA ≤11. RESULTS: Percentage of patients who achieved remission and LDA by DAS28-ESR cut-offs was greater for DAS28-CRP versus DAS28-ESR regardless of patient population or treatment group. Discordance between CRP and ESR cut-offs ranged from 4%-26% and 8%-23% for remission and LDA, respectively, and 19%-40% and 6%-11% for DAS28-CRP versus SDAI, respectively. Estimated (range) remission and LDA thresholds were 2.4 (2.2-2.6) and 2.9 (2.6-3.3), 1.9 (1.6-2.2) and 3.1 (3.1-3.3) and 2.2 (1.1-2.9) and 3.6 (3.4-4.0) for DAS28-CRP versus DAS28-ESR, DAS28-CRP versus SDAI and DAS28-ESR versus SDAI, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DAS28-CRP underestimates disease activity when using cut-off points validated for DAS28-ESR; therefore, DAS28-ESR cut-off values should not be applied to DAS28-CRP. Although DAS28-CRP and DAS28-ESR cut-offs for LDA ≤3.2 correspond to SDAI LDA, neither corresponds well to SDAI remission.

Short-term efficacy of etanercept plus methotrexate vs combinations of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs with methotrexate in established rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to investigate the short-term benefit of etanercept (ETN) + MTX vs conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs; HCQ, LEF or SSZ) + MTX in subjects with established RA. The effect of disease duration (≤2 years vs >2 years) and severity (moderate vs severe) on treatment outcomes was also assessed. Methods. Data from Asian and Latin American subjects with inadequate response to MTX were pooled from the APPEAL (ETN 25 mg biweekly + MTX or csDMARD + MTX; NCT00422227) and Latin RA (ETN 50 mg/week + MTX or csDMARD + MTX; NCT00848354) studies. Endpoints included the 28-joint DAS with ESR (DAS28-ESR) low disease activity (LDA; ≤3.2), DAS28 remission (<2.6) and HAQ score ≤0.5. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-eight subjects received ETN + MTX, 245 subjects received csDMARD + MTX [HCQ + MTX (n = 81), LEF + MTX (n = 69), SSZ + MTX (n = 95)]. At week 16, significantly more subjects receiving ETN + MTX vs subjects on csDMARDs + MTX achieved DAS28-ESR LDA (39% vs 18%, P < 0.001), remission (18% vs 7%, P < 0.001) and HAQ ≤0.5 (48% vs 34%, P < 0.001). For both treatment arms, these endpoints were achieved by a greater proportion of subjects with ≤2 years vs >2 years disease duration and with moderate vs severe disease activity. CONCLUSION: Overall, ETN + MTX was more effective in treating subjects with established RA than csDMARDs + MTX at 16 weeks. More subjects with shorter disease duration and moderate disease activity achieved optimal response regardless of treatment regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00422227 and NCT00848354.

Comparative performance of psoriatic arthritis screening tools in patients with psoriasis in European/North American dermatology clinics.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners/dermatologists may be aware of musculoskeletal symptoms in patients with psoriasis but may have difficulty accurately detecting psoriatic arthritis (PsA). OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate 3 PsA screening questionnaires-the Psoriasis and Arthritis Screening Questionnaire (PASQ), Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST), and Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screen (ToPAS)-based on rheumatologist assessment in patients with psoriasis. METHODS: Consecutive unselected patients with psoriasis, initially evaluated by dermatologists for plaque psoriasis, were randomized to receive 1 of 3 questionnaires. Patients were subsequently evaluated by rheumatologists to establish/exclude clinical PsA diagnosis. Using clinical PsA diagnosis as the standard for comparison, questionnaire accuracy was assessed by calculating sensitivity/specificity and positive/negative predictive values. RESULTS: Of 949 patients with psoriasis evaluated by rheumatologists, 285 (30%) received a clinical diagnosis of PsA (95% confidence interval 27%-33%). Probable PsA was detected in 45.1%, 43.0%, and 42.9% of patients using PASQ, PEST, and ToPAS, respectively. Sensitivity ranged from 0.67 to 0.84; specificity, 0.64 to 0.75; positive predictive value, 0.43 to 0.60; and negative predictive value, 0.83 to 0.91. LIMITATIONS: Not all patients completed all questionnaires; lack of standardized diagnostic criteria introduced possible bias. CONCLUSION: PASQ, PEST, and ToPAS are useful screening tools that can help dermatologists identify patients without PsA and patients with possible PsA who may benefit from rheumatologist assessment.

Overall Survival With Palbociclib Plus Letrozole in Advanced Breast Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.PALOMA-2 demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in progression-free survival with palbociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here, we report results for the secondary end point overall survival (OS). Postmenopausal women (N = 666) with ER+/HER2- ABC without previous systemic therapy for ABC were randomly assigned 2:1 to palbociclib plus letrozole or placebo plus letrozole. After a median follow-up of 90.1 months, 405 deaths were observed and 155 patients were known to be alive. The median OS was 53.9 months (95% CI, 49.8 to 60.8) with palbociclib plus letrozole versus 51.2 months (95% CI, 43.7 to 58.9) with placebo plus letrozole (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.18]; stratified one-sided P = .34). An imbalance in the number of patients with unknown survival outcome between the treatment arms (13.3% v 21.2%, respectively) limited interpretation of OS results. With recovered survival data, the median OS was 53.8 (95% CI, 49.8 to 59.2) versus 49.8 months (95% CI, 42.3 to 56.4), respectively (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.12]; one-sided P = .21). OS was not significantly improved with palbociclib plus letrozole compared with placebo plus letrozole.

Prevalence of rheumatologist-diagnosed psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis in European/North American dermatology clinics.

BACKGROUND: Prompt identification and treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis is critical to reducing the risk of joint damage, disability, and comorbidities. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate PsA prevalence in patients with plaque psoriasis in 34 dermatology centers in 7 European and North American countries. METHODS: Consecutive patients were evaluated by dermatologists for plaque psoriasis and subsequently by rheumatologists for PsA. PsA prevalence was estimated primarily based on rheumatologists' assessment of medical history, physical examination, and laboratory tests. RESULTS: Of 949 patients evaluated, 285 (30%) had PsA (95% confidence interval 27-33) based on rheumatologists' assessment. PsA diagnosis changed in 1.2% of patients when diagnostic laboratory tests were added to medical history and physical examination. Of 285 patients given the diagnosis of PsA, 117 (41%) had not been previously given the diagnosis. LIMITATIONS: Bias may have been introduced by lack of standardized diagnostic criteria and unbalanced recruitment based on country populations. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, almost a third of patients with psoriasis seen in dermatology centers had PsA as determined by rheumatologists. More than a third of patients with PsA had not been previously given the diagnosis. Clinical evaluation alone is often sufficient basis for PsA diagnosis, but laboratory test results may be helpful in some patients.

Combination etanercept and methotrexate provides better disease control in very early (<=4 months) versus early rheumatoid arthritis (>4 months and <2 years): post hoc analyses from the COMET study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this post hoc analysis was to test the benefits of treating very early rheumatoid arthritis (VERA; ≤4 months) using COMET trial data. Treatment response in VERA and early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA; >4 months to 2 years) with combination etanercept+methotrexate (ETN+MTX) or MTX monotherapy was compared. METHODS: Data assessed at week 52 for baseline disease duration effect included remission (disease activity score (DAS)28 <2.6, SDAI ≤3.3, Boolean), low disease activity (LDA; DAS28 <3.2), Boolean components of remission and radiographic non-progression. Subjects who discontinued because of lack of efficacy were included as non-responders. RESULTS: Higher proportions of VERA subjects achieved LDA (79%) and DAS28 remission (70%) than ERA (62%, 48%, respectively, p<0.05) with ETN+MTX. Such high responses with MTX monotherapy were not observed (VERA, LDA=47%, DAS28 remission=35%; ERA, 47% and 32% respectively, p>0.70 for each). Regardless of disease duration, no radiographic progression was seen in 80% of subjects with ETN+MTX. In contrast, a higher proportion of VERA subjects showed no radiographic progression compared with ERA subjects treated with MTX (73.9% vs 50%, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of VERA with ETN+MTX provides qualitatively improved clinical outcomes not seen with MTX monotherapy, supporting the pivotal role of TNF inhibition in early disease.

Effect of palbociclib plus endocrine therapy on time to chemotherapy across subgroups of patients with hormone receptor‒positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‒negative advanced breast cancer: Post hoc analyses from PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3.

BACKGROUND: Previous analyses from the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 studies showed that palbociclib (PAL) plus endocrine therapy (ET) prolongs time to first subsequent chemotherapy (TTC) versus placebo (PBO) plus ET in the overall population of patients with hormone receptor‒positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‒negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here, we evaluated TTC in relevant patient subgroups. METHODS: These post hoc analyses evaluated TTC by subgroup using data from 2 randomized, phase 3 studies of women with HR+/HER2- ABC. In PALOMA-2, postmenopausal patients previously untreated for ABC were randomized 2:1 to receive PAL (125 mg/day, 3/1-week schedule) plus letrozole (LET; 2.5 mg/day; n = 444) or PBO plus LET (n = 222). In PALOMA-3, premenopausal or postmenopausal patients whose disease had progressed after prior ET were randomized 2:1 to receive PAL (125 mg/day, 3/1-week schedule) plus fulvestrant (FUL; 500 mg; n = 347) or PBO plus FUL (n = 174). RESULTS: First subsequent chemotherapy was received by 35.5% and 56.2% in PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 after progression on palbociclib plus ET or placebo plus ET. Across all subgroups analyzed, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in the PAL plus ET arm than the PBO plus ET arm. TTC was longer with PAL plus ET versus PBO plus ET across the same patient subgroups in both studies. CONCLUSIONS: Across all subgroups, PAL plus ET versus PBO plus ET had longer median PFS and resulted in prolonged TTC in both the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 studies. Pfizer Inc (NCT01740427, NCT01942135).

Overall Survival with Palbociclib and Fulvestrant in Women with HR+/HER2- ABC: Updated Exploratory Analyses of PALOMA-3, a Double-blind, Phase III Randomized Study.

PURPOSE: To conduct an updated exploratory analysis of overall survival (OS) with a longer median follow-up of 73.3 months and evaluate the prognostic value of molecular analysis by circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) were randomized 2:1 to receive palbociclib (125 mg orally/day; 3/1 week schedule) and fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscularly) or placebo and fulvestrant. This OS analysis was performed when 75% of enrolled patients died (393 events in 521 randomized patients). ctDNA analysis was performed among patients who provided consent. RESULTS: At the data cutoff (August 17, 2020), 258 and 135 deaths occurred in the palbociclib and placebo groups, respectively. The median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 34.8 months (28.8-39.9) in the palbociclib group and 28.0 months (23.5-33.8) in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-0.99). The 6-year OS rate (95% CI) was 19.1% (14.9-23.7) and 12.9% (8.0-19.1) in the palbociclib and placebo groups, respectively. Favorable OS with palbociclib plus fulvestrant compared with placebo plus fulvestrant was observed in most subgroups, particularly in patients with endocrine-sensitive disease, no prior chemotherapy for ABC and low circulating tumor fraction and regardless of ESR1, PIK3CA, or TP53 mutation status. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The clinically meaningful improvement in OS associated with palbociclib plus fulvestrant was maintained with >6 years of follow-up in patients with HR+/HER2- ABC, supporting palbociclib plus fulvestrant as a standard of care in these patients.

Palbociclib Plus Fulvestrant in Korean Patients from PALOMA-3 With Hormone Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer.

In the PALOMA-3 trial, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer among patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with palbociclib plus fulvestrant than those treated with placebo plus fulvestrant. This subgroup analysis examined the efficacy and safety of palbociclib among Korean patients enrolled in PALOMA-3 (n = 43 [palbociclib group, n = 24; placebo group, n = 19]). In both groups, > 40% of patients were pre/perimenopausal at enrollment. The median PFS was significantly prolonged with palbociclib vs. placebo (12.3 [95% confidence interval (CI), 9.1-not estimable] vs. 5.4 months [95% CI, 1.9-9.2]; hazard ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.19-0.83]; one-sided p =0.005), and the confirmed objective response was 21.1% and 11.8%, respectively (odds ratio, 2.0 [95% CI, 0.24-24.8]). Neutropenia was the most common adverse event associated with palbociclib. Overall, palbociclib plus fulvestrant was effective and generally safe among Korean patients with HR+/HER2- ABC, regardless of menopausal status.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of palbociclib versus ribociclib and abemaciclib in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Aim: Palbociclib (PAL), ribociclib (RIB) and abemaciclib (ABM), in combination with fulvestrant (FUL), are approved for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. This study aims to determine relative efficacy of PAL+FUL versus RIB+FUL and ABM+FUL using matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons. Patients & methods: Anchored matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons were conducted using individual patient data from PALOMA-3 and published summary-level data from MONARCH 2 and MONALEESA-3. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Results: OS was similar for PAL+FUL versus ABM+FUL (hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.54-1.40) and RIB+FUL (hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.48-1.63). Conclusion: Adjusting for cross-trial differences suggests similar OS between treatments, underscoring the importance of accounting for these differences when indirectly comparing treatments.

Lay abstract Palbociclib (PAL), ribociclib (RIB) and abemaciclib (ABM) are used with fulvestrant to treat hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. This study aims to use data from clinical trials to compare how long patients live after starting treatment with PAL versus RIB and ABM. Since patients who enroll in different trials may have different characteristics, it is important to adjust for these differences for a more accurate comparison. Adjusting for these differences showed that patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer treated with PAL lived for a similar length of time compared with those treated with RIB or ABM.

Efficacy and safety of palbociclib in patients with estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer with preexisting conditions: A post hoc analysis of PALOMA-2.

OBJECTIVE: In the PALOMA-2 trial, palbociclib in combination with letrozole prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and exhibited an acceptable safety profile in patients with estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). This post hoc analysis of PALOMA-2 evaluated the efficacy and safety of palbociclib plus letrozole in patients with preexisting conditions grouped by Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) System Organ Class (SOC). METHODS: Postmenopausal patients without prior treatment for ABC were randomized 2:1 to receive palbociclib (125 mg/d on a 3 weeks on/1 week off schedule) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/d, continuous) or placebo plus letrozole. Patients were grouped by the following MedDRA SOC preexisting conditions: gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, metabolic, and vascular/cardiac. Median PFS was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and treatment emergent adverse events (AEs) were compared between treatment arms within each preexisting condition subgroup. RESULTS: At baseline, 276 (41.4 %) patients had preexisting gastrointestinal disorders, 390 (58.6 %) had musculoskeletal disorders, 259 (38.9 %) had metabolic disorders, and 382 (57.4 %) had vascular/cardiac disorders. Baseline characteristics were similar between subgroups and between each arm within subgroups. Regardless of baseline preexisting condition, palbociclib plus letrozole prolonged PFS compared with placebo plus letrozole. Treatment-emergent AEs associated with palbociclib plus letrozole and dose modifications due to AEs were similar across preexisting condition subgroups. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis of PALOMA-2 demonstrated a favorable effect of palbociclib on PFS and a safety profile consistent with previous observations, regardless of underlying preexisting condition. Pfizer Inc (NCT01740427).