Long-term outcomes of high-risk HR-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer patients from GEICAM adjuvant studies and El Álamo IV registry.

PURPOSE: The monarchE trial showed that the addition of abemaciclib improves efficacy in patients with high-risk early breast cancer (EBC). We analyzed the long-term outcomes of a population similar to the monarchE trial to put into context the potential benefit of abemaciclib. METHODS: HR-positive/HER2-negative EBC patients eligible for the monarchE study were selected from 3 adjuvant clinical trials and a breast cancer registry. Patients with ≥ 4 positive axillary lymph nodes (N +) or 1-3 N + with tumor size ≥ 5 cm and/or histologic grade 3 and/or Ki67 ≥ 20%, who had undergone surgery with curative intent and had received anthracyclines ± taxanes and endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant and /or adjuvant setting were included. We performed analysis of Invasive Disease-Free Survival (iDFS), Distant Disease-Free Survival (dDFS) and Overall Survival (OS) at 5 and 10 years, as well as yearly (up to 10) of Invasive Relapse Rate (IRR), Distant Relapse Rate (DRR) and Death Rate (DR). RESULTS: A total of 1,617 patients were analyzed from the GEICAM-9906 (312), GEICAM-2003-10 (210), and GEICAM-2006-10 (160) trials plus 935 from El Álamo IV. With a median follow-up of 10.1 years, the 5 and 10 years iDFS rates were 75.2% and 57.0%, respectively. The dDFS and OS rates at 5 years were 77.4% and 88.8% and the respective figures at 10 years were 59.7% and 70.9%. CONCLUSIONS: This data points out the need for new therapies for those patients. A longer follow-up of the monarchE study to see the real final benefit with abemaciclib is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinTrials.gov: GEICAM/9906: NCT00129922; GEICAM/ 2003-10: NCT00129935 and GEICAM/ 2006-10: NCT00543127.

Effects of capecitabine as part of neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy - A meta-analysis of individual breast cancer patient data from 13 randomised trials including 15,993 patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite the large number of patients with early breast cancer (EBC) who have been treated with capecitabine in randomised trials, no individual patient data meta-analysis has been conducted. The primary objective was to examine the effect of capecitabine on disease-free survival (DFS), and the secondary objectives were to analyse distant DFS (DDFS), overall survival (OS), pathological complete response (for neoadjuvant studies) and the interaction between capecitabine-related toxicity and treatment effect. METHODS: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov and www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov were searched using the following criteria: use of capecitabine for EBC as adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy; multicentre randomised trial with >100 patients; recruitment completed, and outcomes available. Required data were available for 13 trials. RESULTS: Individual data from 15,993 patients were collected. Cox regression analyses of all included patients revealed that the addition of capecitabine did not alter DFS significantly compared with treatment without capecitabine (hazard ratio [HR] 0.952; 95% CI 0.895-1.012; P value = 0.115). There was also no effect on DFS in the subset of studies where capecitabine was given instead of another drug (HR 1.035; 95% CI 0.945-1.134; P = 0.455). However, capecitabine administered in addition to the standard systemic treatment improved DFS (HR 0.888; 95% CI 0.817-0.965; P = 0.005). An OS improvement was observed in the entire cohort (HR 0.892; 95% CI 0.824-0.965, P = 0.005) and in the subset of capecitabine addition (HR 0.837; 95% CI 0.751, 0.933, P = 0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed that triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients benefitted from treatment with capecitabine overall and in addition to other systemic treatments in terms of DFS and OS. CONCLUSION: Capecitabine was able to improve DFS and OS in patients with TNBC and in all patients with EBC when administered in addition to systemic treatment.