A retrospective, non-interventional study of breast cancer patients diagnosed with ER+/HER2 negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer treated with palbociclib in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: The recommended first-line treatment for advanced, ER+/HER2 negative breast cancer is a CDK 4/6 inhibitor in combination with an endocrine backbone. This study investigated the use of palbociclib, as first- or second-line therapy for advanced breast cancer patients in a real-world setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective, population-based study included all Danish, advanced breast cancer patients with ER+/HER2 negative disease who initiated first- or second-line treatment with palbociclib from January 1st, 2017, until December 31st, 2020. The primary outcomes were PFS and OS. RESULTS: The study included 1054 advanced breast cancer patients with a mean age of 66.8 years. Median OS was 51.7 months (95% CI, 44.9-54.6) for all patients in the first-line setting (n = 728) and median PFS was 24.3 months (95% CI, 21.7-27.8). Patients treated in second line (n = 326) had a median OS of 32.5 months (95% CI, 29.9-35.9) and a median PFS of 13.6 months (95% CI, 11.5-15.7). In first-line setting, the PFS and OS were significantly different for endocrine sensitive patients treated with AI (aromatase inhibitor) (n = 423) vs. fulvestrant (n = 158) as endocrine backbone to palbociclib (median PFS AI 31.3 months vs fulvestrant 19.9 months, p = 0.002 and median OS AI 56.9 months vs. fulvestrant 43.6 months, p = 0.001). In endocrine resistant patients (n = 145), no statistically significant difference in PFS was shown (median PFS AI 21.5 months vs. fulvestrant 12.0 months, p = 0.09), whereas OS was significantly different (median OS AI 43.5 months vs. fulvestrant 28.8 months, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In this real-world study, treatment with palbociclib combination therapy met the standards of efficacy set by the phase III trials, PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3, and the standards set by real-world studies in other countries. The study showed significantly different outcomes in terms of PFS and OS in endocrine sensitive patients comparing AI vs. fulvestrant as endocrine backbone to palbociclib as first-line therapy.

The NAME trial: a direct comparison of classical oral Navelbine versus Metronomic Navelbine in metastatic breast cancer.

Chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is in general given in cycles of maximum tolerated doses to potentially maximize the therapeutic outcome. However, when compared with targeted therapies for MBC, conventional and dose intensified chemotherapy has caused only modest survival benefits during the recent decades, often compromising the quality of life considerably. Navelbine is an antineoplastic agent that has shown efficacy in the treatment of a variety of cancer types, including breast cancer. Early clinical trials involving both breast cancer and lung cancer patients suggest that metronomic dosing of Navelbine might be at least as effective as classical administration (once weekly, etc.). The NAME trial compares these two strategies of Navelbine administration in MBC patients.

Predicting efficacy of epirubicin by a multigene assay in advanced breast cancer within a Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) cohort: a retrospective-prospective blinded study.

PURPOSE: Anthracyclines remain a cornerstone in the treatment of primary and advanced breast cancer (BC). This study has evaluated the predictive value of a multigene mRNA-based drug response predictor (DRP) in the treatment of advanced BC with epirubicin. The DRP is a mathematical method combining in vitro sensitivity and gene expression with clinical genetic information from > 3000 clinical tumor samples. METHODS: From a DBCG cohort, 140 consecutive patients were treated with epirubicin between May 1997 and November 2016. After patient informed consent, mRNA was isolated from archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary breast tumor tissue and analyzed using Affymetrix arrays. Using time to progression (TTP) as primary endpoint, the efficacy of epirubicin was analyzed according to DRP combined with clinicopathological data collected retrospectively from patients' medical records. Statistical analysis was done using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by treatment line. RESULTS: Median TTP was 9.3 months. The DRP was significantly associated to TTP (P = 0.03). The hazard ratio for DRP scores differing by 50 percentage points was 0.55 (95% CI -0.93, one-sided). A 75% DRP was associated with a median TTP of 13 months compared to 7 months following a 25% DRP. Multivariate analysis showed that DRP was independent of age and number of metastases. CONCLUSION: The current study prospectively validates the predictive capability of DRP regarding epirubicin previously shown retrospectively allowing the patients predicted to be poor responders to choose more effective alternatives. Randomized prospective studies are needed to demonstrate if such an approach will lead to increased overall survival.

Nurse-Led Individualized Follow-Up Versus Regular Physician-Led Visits After Early Breast Cancer (MyHealth): A Phase III Randomized, Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Follow-up after breast cancer with regular visits has failed to detect recurrences, be cost-effective, and address patient needs. METHODS: MyHealth is a phase III randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02949167). Patients, who recently completed primary treatment for stage I-II breast cancer, were randomly assigned in variable block sizes and stratified by age and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status to intervention or control follow-up. The nurse-led intervention comprised three to five individual self-management sessions, regular reporting of symptoms, and navigation to health care services. The control follow-up comprised regular outpatient visits with the physician. The primary outcome was breast cancer-specific quality of life (QoL) measured by the Trial Outcome Index-Physical/Functional/Breast summary score of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast 2 years after random assignment. Secondary outcomes were fear of recurrence, anxiety, depression, and health care utilization. Analyses were intention-to-treat and P values were two-sided with 95% confidence level set at 0.005 because of multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Among 1,101 eligible patients, 875 were invited and 503 were randomly assigned to control (n = 252) or intervention (n = 251) follow-up. At 2 years, patients in the intervention group reported a significantly and clinically relevant higher QoL (mean, 75.69 [standard deviation [SD], 12.27]) than patients in the control group (71.26 [SD, 14.08]), with a mean difference of 5.05 (95% CI, 3.30 to 6.79; P < .001). The intervention group reported significantly less fear of recurrence, anxiety, and depression; they had fewer physician consultations but more nurse contacts and an unchanged diagnostic imaging pattern. The effect on all outcomes was stable through a 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The MyHealth study suggested a new strategy for follow-up after early breast cancer as it provided significant improvements in QoL.

Real-World Survival and Treatment Regimens Across First- to Third-Line Treatment for Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Background: Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer with poor survival. Currently, the literature lacks comprehensive real-world evidence on locally recurrent and mTNBC patients. To validate the optimal treatment for patients with mTNBC, real-world evidence in combination with data from clinical trials must be evaluated as complementary. Objectives: The objective of the study is to examine outcomes and treatment patterns of patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) utilizing real-world data of patients from all oncology sites across Denmark. Design: This is a retrospective, non-interventional, multi-site, population-based observational study conducted across all oncology departments in Denmark. Methods: We included all women diagnosed with metastatic or locally recurrent TNBC from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019, using the national Danish Breast Cancer Group database. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the first to third treatment line. Results: The study included 243 women diagnosed with metastatic or recurrent TNBC. The median OS (mOS) was 11.6 months after the first line of treatment, 6.5 months after the second line, and 6.5 months after the third line. De novo mTNBC was associated with shorter OS (mOS: 8.3 vs 14.2 months), and those with a relapse within 18 months of primary diagnosis had shorter OS than those with a relapse after 18 months (mOS: 10.0 vs 18.2). In the first line, taxane was the preferred choice of treatment for patients with de novo mTNBC, whereas capecitabine was preferred for patients with recurrent TNBC. Conclusions: This real-world, nationwide study demonstrated poor OS among patients with metastatic or recurrent TNBC, with a mOS of 11.6 months (95% CI, 9.9-17.3). Patients who presented with de novo mTNBC or who had a relapse of their breast cancer within 18 months of primary diagnosis had shorter OS. Registration: The study was registered and approved by the Danish Capital Regions research overview (P-2021-605).

The Prosigna 50-gene profile and responsiveness to adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy in high-risk breast cancer patients.

The DBCG89D trial randomized high-risk early breast cancer patients to adjuvant CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil) or CEF (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and fluorouracil). Prosigna assays were performed by researchers with no access to clinical data. Time to distant recurrence (DR) was the primary endpoint, time to recurrence (TR) and overall survival (OS) secondary. Among the 980 Danish patients enrolled, Prosigna results were obtained in 686. Continuous ROR score was associated with DR for CMF (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.20, 95% CI 1.09-1.33), and for CEF (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92-1.18), P interaction = 0.06. DR was significantly longer in CEF compared to CMF treated patients with Her2-enriched tumors (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.86), but not in patients with luminal tumors. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was significant for TR and OS. In this prospective-retrospective analysis, patients with Her2-enriched breast cancer derived substantial benefit from anthracycline chemotherapy whereas anthracyclines are not an essential component of chemotherapy for patients with luminal subtypes. The benefit of CEF vs. CMF correlated with increasing ROR Score.

Prediction of fulvestrant efficacy in patients with advanced breast cancer: retrospective-prospective evaluation of the predictive potential of a multigene expression assay.

BACKGROUND: Fulvestrant is a selective oestrogen receptor (ER) degrader used as monotherapy and combination therapy for ER positive HER2 negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) in postmenopausal women. The drug response predictor (DRP), is a mathematical algorithm based on the expression of multiple genes in the tumour. The fulvestrant DRP algorithm has previously shown effect in BC. In this study, we investigated the DRP's potential in predicting fulvestrant benefit. METHOD: Among 695 patients with ABC prospectively included in a Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) cohort we retrospectively included 226 patients who received fulvestrant as monotherapy. The DRP result was based on mRNA extracted from tumour biopsies and analysed using Affymetrix array. Primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP). RESULTS: For patients who received fulvestrant in line one to four and were previously unexposed to adjuvant endocrine therapy, we identified a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.44 (90% confidence interval (90% CI) upper limit of 1.08, one sided p = 0.066) for a predicted positive vs negative outcome. A weaker association was seen when including patients exposed to adjuvant endocrine treatment or received fulvestrant in fifth or later lines. Exploratory analyses showed that the DRP was efficient when using recent biopsies for DRP estimate and among recently treated patients. CONCLUSION: The DRP showed a potential in predicting fulvestrant treatment but was not significant in the overall analysis. Use of older biopsies, long-term endocrine treatment and multiple therapies between biopsy used for analysis and fulvestrant treatment, probably affect the predictive accuracy.