Search

Background: Taxanes are one of the most effective chemotherapies (CT) in breast cancer (BC), but the efficacy of taxanes rechallenge in early metastatic relapse has been poorly studied in patients previously treated by taxanes in the (neo)adjuvant setting. Our study aimed to analyse the efficacy of taxane rechallenge in case of early metastatic relapse in a multicentre retrospective observational study compared with other chemotherapies. Methods: We analysed the French national ESME metastatic BC (MBC) database and selected HER2- MBC patients who received CT in first-line treatment for a metastatic relapse occurring 3–24 months after previous (neo)adjuvant taxanes treatment. Results: Of 23,501 female patients with MBC in ESME, 1057 met the selection criteria. 58.4% received a taxane-based regimen (75.4% concomitant bevacizumab) and 41.6% received other CT.In hormone-receptor positive (HR+)/HER2- MBC, multivariate analysis showed no difference in OS between taxanes without bevacizumab compared to other CT (HZR = 1.3 [0.97; 1.74], but taxanes was significantly associated with worse PFS (HZR = 1.48 [1.14; 1.93]).In TNBC, taxanes without bevacizumab and carboplatin/gemcitabine were not superior to other CT for OS (HZR = 1.07 [0.79; 1.44] and HZR = 0.81 [0.58; 1.13], respectively), while for PFS, taxanes was inferior (HZR = 1.33 [1.06–1.67]) and carboplatin plus gemcitabine was superior to other CT (HZR = 0.63 [0.46; 0.87]).For both subtypes, the worse outcome observed with paclitaxel was no longer observed with the addition of bevacizumab. Conclusions: With the limitation of retrospective design, taxanes rechallenge in early metastatic relapse of BC may result in a worse PFS in TNBC and HR+/HER2- MBC, which was not observed with the addition of bevacizumab.

We assessed long-term associations of Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factors (G-CSF) use with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and hematologic toxicity among chemotherapy-treated, early-stage breast cancer patients in CANTO (NCT01993498).Among 2920 patients longitudinally followed-up until year-4 after diagnosis, 49% used G-CSF. In multivariable-adjusted mixed-models, EORTC QLQ-C30 pain and summary score were not substantially different between groups (overall adjusted mean difference, use vs no-use [95%CI]: +1.27 [-0.33 to +2.87] and −1.01 [-1.98 to −0.04], respectively). PROs were slightly worse at year-4 among patients receiving G-CSF, although differences were of trivial clinical significance. No major differences were observed in leukocyte or platelet count over time.

Purpose: Among metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients, those with a triple-negative breast cancer phenotype (mTNBC) have the worst prognosis, but the benefit of chemotherapy beyond second line on outcome remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to identify predictive factors of outcome after third- or fourth-line chemotherapy. Methods: The ESME-MBC database is a French prospective real-life cohort with homogeneous data collection, including patients who initiated first-line treatment for MBC (2008–2016) in 18 cancer centers. After selection of mTNBC cases, we searched for independent predictive factors (Cox proportional-hazards regression models) for overall survival (OS) on third- and fourth-line chemotherapy (OS3, OS4). We built prognostic nomograms based on the main prognostic factors identified. Results: Of the 22,266 MBC cases in the ESME cohort, 2903 were mTNBC, 1074 (37%) and 598 (20%) of which had received at least 3 or 4 lines of chemotherapy. PFS after first- and second-line chemotherapy (PFS1, PFS2) and number of metastatic sites ≥3 at baseline were identified by multivariate analysis as prognostic factors for both OS3 (HR = 0.76 95%CI[0.66–0.88], HR = 0.55 95%CI[0.46–0.65], HR = 1.36 95%CI[1.14–1.62], respectively), and OS4 (HR = 0.76 95%CI[0.63–0.91], HR = 0.56 95%CI[0.45–0.7], HR = 1.37 95%CI[1.07–1.74]), respectively. In addition, metastasis-free interval was identified as a prognostic factor for OS3 (p = 0.01), while PFS3 influenced OS4 (HR = 0.75 95%CI[0.57–0.98]). Nomograms predicting OS3 and OS4 achieved a C-index of 0.62 and 0.61, respectively. Conclusion: The duration of each previous PFS is a major prognostic factor for OS in mTNBC patients receiving third- or fourth-line chemotherapy. The clinical utility of nomograms including this information was not demonstrated.

Background: Young age is a poor prognostic factor in early stage breast cancer (BC) but its value is less established in metastatic BC (MBC). We evaluated the impact of age at MBC diagnosis on overall survival (OS) across three age groups ( 60 years(y)). Methods: ESME MBC database is a national cohort, collecting retrospective data from 18 participating French cancer centers between January 01, 2008 and December 31, 2014. Results: Among 14 403 women included, 1077 (7.5%), 6436 (44.7%) and 6890 (47.8%) pts were 60 y respectively. Pts 60y) and triple negative subtypes (27.4 vs 14.6% in >60y), and more frequent visceral involvement (36.3 vs 29.8% in >60y). At a median follow-up of 48 months, median OS differed across age groups: 38.8, 38.4 and 35.6 months for pts 60y, respectively (p 60y, respectively (p

Purpose: Genomic tests can identify ER-positive HER2-negative localized breast cancer patients who may not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Such tests seem especially interesting in “intermediate” clinico-pathological risk categories. The psychological impact of the decision uncertainty in these women remains largely unexplored. We assessed the clinical and psychological impact of EndoPredict® (EpClin), a clinico-genomic test, in these patients. Methods: This multicenter, single arm prospective study (NCT02773004) enrolled patients for which adjuvant chemotherapy was uncertain, based on predefined criteria. The primary endpoint was the proportion of change between initial adjuvant decision and final administration of chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included post-test (Day 17) and 1-year patient reported outcomes. Results: One third of 200 evaluable patients had a high EpClin score (≥3.32867; 10 years cumulative risk of distance failure ≥10%). The overall change rate of chemotherapy decision was 72/200 (35.8%, 95% CI 29.2–42.4). Chemotherapy was withdrawn in 57 cases (28.4% [22.2–34.8]) and added in 15 (7.5% [3.8–11.2]. 6 changes (8%) were based on patients’ decisions. Anxiety and distress levels increased at Day 17 when adding chemotherapy after the test result (p