Search

Background: Demonstration of trial emulation ability to benchmark randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from real-world data (RWD) is required to increase confidence in the use of routinely collected data for decision making in oncology., Methods: To assess the frequency with which emulation findings align with RCTs regarding effect size on overall survival (OS) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), 8 of 13 pre-selected pivotal RCTs in MBC were emulated using data from 32,598 patients enrolled in the French ESME-MBC cohort between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2021. Adjustment methods and confounders were selected a priori for each emulation; stabilized weight was the reference method to mitigate confounding. Concordance in OS hazard ratios with associated 95 % confidence intervals between RCTs and emulations were assessed used predefined metrics based on statistical significance, estimates, and standardized differences., Results: The effect sizes were consistent with RCT results in 7 out of the 8 emulations; 4 emulations achieved full statistical significance agreement; 5 emulations had a point estimate included in the RCT CI (estimate agreement); 6 emulations reported no significant differences between RCT and emulation (standardized difference agreement). Discrepancies related to residual confounders and significant shifts in prescription practices post-drug approval may arise in some cases., Conclusion: Target trial emulation from RWD combined with appropriate adjustment can provide conclusions similar to RCTs in MBC. In oncology, this methodology offers opportunities for confirming the impact on long-term survival, for expanding indications in patients excluded from RCTs and for comparative effectiveness in single-arm trials using external control arms., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Alison Antoine received a grant from the National French Agency for Research and Technology (ANRT) and Roche (France) via CIFRE (“Industrial Agreements for Training through Research”) doctoral fellowship no. 2020/1054. Rémy Choquet and Béchir Ben Hadj Yahia are employed by Roche. Suzette Delaloge is an Associate Editor for [European Journal of Cancer] and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. All remaining authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: The estimated rate of de novo metastatic breast cancer (dnMBC) at the time of diagnosis is between 5 to 12%. International guidelines recommend metastatic work-up (MWU) only in women with advanced breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics and prognosis of patients with dnMBC diagnosed without an initial indication for MWU., Methods: We conducted a retrospective, comparative study in dnMBC patients selected from the ESME-MBC cohort. Patients were treated in France between 2008 and 2016. We compared two populations: patients in whom dnMBC was diagnosed by staging although not indicated by guidelines (non-guideline staging [NGS]) and those in whom dnMBC was diagnosed by guideline staging (GS)., Results: During the study period, 22,463 patients with MBC were included in the ESME cohort. Among them, 6698 were dnMBC patients. In 247 of these patients (6% of dnMBC and 1% of the overall population), dnMBC was diagnosed by non-guideline staging. Women in this group were significantly younger (57 vs. 59 years, p = 0.02) and had fewer metastatic sites at diagnosis than dnMBC-GS patients. The two groups were not significantly different in terms of the other characteristics. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were better in the dnMBC-NGS group than in the dnMBC-GS group. The impact on survival was confirmed by univariate and multivariate analysis (HR 1.83 [1.31-2.57], p < 0.01)., Conclusion: This study provides the first description of a very specific population. These patients with dnMBC-NGS were younger and more likely to have oligometastatic disease with a better prognosis., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Real-world data inform the outcome comparisons and help the development of new therapeutic strategies. To this end, we aimed to describe the full characteristics and outcomes in the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) cohort, a large national contemporary observational database of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Methods: Women aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed MBC and who initiated MBC treatment between January 2008 and December 2016 in one of the 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centers (N = 22,109) were included. We assessed the full patients' characteristics, first-line treatments, overall survival (OS) and first-line progression-free survival, as well as updated prognostic factors in the whole cohort and among the 3 major subtypes: hormone receptor positive and HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-, n = 13,656), HER2-positive (HER2+, n = 4017) and triple-negative (n = 2963) tumours., Results: The median OS of the whole cohort was 39.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 38.7-40.3). Five-year OS was 33.8%. OS differed significantly between the 3 subtypes (p < 0.0001) with a median OS of 43.3 (95% CI, 42.5-44.5) in HR+/HER2-; 50.1 (95% CI, 47.6-53.1) in HER2+; and 14.8 months (95% CI, 14.1-15.5) in triple-negative subgroups, respectively. Beyond performance status, the following variables had a constant significant negative prognostic impact on OS in the whole cohort and among subtypes: older age at diagnosis of metastases (except for the triple-negative subtype), metastasis-free interval between 6 and 24 months, presence of visceral metastases and number of metastatic sites ≥ 3., Conclusions: The ESME program represents a unique large-scale real-life cohort on MBC. This study highlights important situations of high medical need within MBC patients. DATABASE REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT032753., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement S.D. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche/Genentech; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer; personal fees and non-financial support from Puma; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis; personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen. T.B. reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, Pfizer and AstraZeneca; personal fees from Seattle Genetics and personal fees and non-financial support from Roche. E.B. reports personal fees from Pfizer, Roche, Mylan, BMS, Clinigen, TLC Pharma Chem, G1 Therapeutics and Samsung and non-financial support from Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Pfizer. W.J. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Eisai, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer and Lilly; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca; personal fees from MSD; non-financial support from Chugai. M.-A.M.-R. reports other from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Pierre Fabre and MSD, outside the submitted work. F.D. reports boards from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. C.L-P. reports non-financial support from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Fabre. C.C. reports grants from Pfizer, Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Eisai and Daiichi. A.G. reports non-financial support from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Pfizer. M.R. reports other from Roche, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo and Lilly. D.P. reports personal fees from Roche; personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca; and grants from MSD, outside the submitted work. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The aims of the present study were to describe treatment patterns and survival outcomes in patients with central nervous system metastases (CNSM) selected among metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients included in a retrospective study from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) MBC cohort., Methods: Neurological progression-free survival (NPFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Significant contributors to NPFS were determined using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model., Results: After a median follow-up of 42.8 months, of 16 701 patients included in the ESME MBC database, CNSM were diagnosed in 24.6% of patients. The most frequent treatments after diagnosis of CNSM were whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) (45.2%) and systemic treatment (59.3%). Median OS and NPFS were 7.9 months (95% CI: 7.2-8.4) and 5.5 months (95% CI: 5.2-5.8), respectively. In multivariate analysis, age >70 years (vs <50 years; HR = 1.40; 95% CI: 1.24-1.57), triple-negative tumours (vs HER2-/HR+; HR = 1.87; 95% CI: 1.71-2.06), HER2+/HR-tumours (vs HER2-/HR+; HR = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.02-1.27), ≥3 metastatic sites (vs < 3; HR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.21-1.43) and ≥3 previous treatment lines (vs < 3; HR = 1.75; 95% CI: 1.56-1.96) were detrimental for NPFS. A time interval between selection and CNSM diagnosis superior to 18 months (vs <9 months; HR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.78-0.98) was associated with longer NPFS., Conclusions: This study describes current treatment patterns of MBC patients in a "real life" setting. Despite advances in stereotactic radiation therapy, most of the patients still received WBRT. More research is warranted to identify patient subsets for tailored treatment strategies., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: For luminal metastatic breast cancer (MBC), endocrine therapy (ET) is the recommended initial treatment before chemotherapy. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of multiple ET lines in a real-life study., Methods: The Breast Cancer Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) project analysed data from all patients with systemic treatment for MBC initiated between 2008 and 2014 in one of the 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centres. The primary end-point was the successive progression-free survival (PFS) evaluation., Results: The ESME research programme included 9921 patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative (HER2-) MBC. Before any chemotherapy, 4195 (43.4%), 1252 (29.8%) and 279 (6.6%) patients received one, two or three ET ± targeted therapy, respectively. The median PFS for first-, second- and third-line ET ± targeted therapy was 11.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.8-12.1), 5.8 (95% CI, 5.3-6.1) and 5.5 (95% CI, 4.6-6.3) months, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, time from diagnosis to metastatic recurrence (P < 0.0001), presence of symptoms at metastatic relapse (P = 0.01), number of metastatic sites (P = 0.0003) and their localisation (P < 0.0001) were prognostic factors for PFS1. Duration of previous PFS was the only prognostic factor for subsequent PFS (10% threshold). Ten percent of the patients showed long-term response to ET, with a total treatment duration before chemotherapy ≥43.6 months., Conclusions: Median PFS in our HR+/HER2- real-life cohort is similar to median first-line PFS reported in clinical trials, regardless of ET used as second- and third-line treatment. Despite the international consensus on early initiation of ET, the latter is not prescribed in most of the cases. Patients with a low tumour burden may achieve prolonged response on ET., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Real-life analysis of overall survival (OS) trends among metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients may help define medical needs and evaluate the impact of public health investments. The present study aimed to evaluate the independent impact of the year of MBC diagnosis on OS in the Epidemio-Strategy-Medical-Economical (ESME)-MBC cohort., Methods: ESME-MBC (NCT03275311) is a French, national, multicentre, observational cohort including 16,702 consecutive newly diagnosed MBC patients (01 January 2008-31 December 2014). Of 16,680 eligible patients, 15,085 had full immunohistochemistry data, allowing classification as hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-, N = 9907), HER2-positive (HER2+, N = 2861) or triple-negative (HR-/HER2-, N = 2317) subcohorts. Multivariate analyses of OS were conducted among the full ESME cohort and subcohorts., Results: Median OS of the whole cohort was 37.22 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.3-38.04). Year of diagnosis was an independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio 0.98 [95% CI, 0.97-1.00], P = .01) together with age, subtype, disease-free interval, visceral metastases and number of organs involved. Median OS of HR+/HER2-, HER2+ and HR-/HER2- subcohorts was, respectively, 42.12 (95% CI, 40.90-43.10), 44.91 (95% CI, 42.51-47.90) and 14.52 (95% CI, 13.70-15.24) months. Year of diagnosis was a strong independent predictor of OS in HER2+ subcohort (hazard ratio 0.91 [95% CI, 0.88-0.94], P < .001), but not in HR+/HER2- nor HR-/HER2- subcohorts (hazard ratio 1.00 [95% CI, 0.98-1.01], P = .80 and 1.00 [95% CI, 0.97-1.02], P = .90, respectively)., Conclusions: The OS of MBC patients has slightly improved over the past decade. However, this effect is confined to HER2+ cases, highlighting the need of new strategies in the other subtypes., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: For hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2-) negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC), international guidelines recommend endocrine therapy as first-line treatment, except in case of 'visceral crisis'. In the latter case, chemotherapy is preferred. Few studies have compared these two strategies. We used the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) programme, UNICANCER, a large national observational database (NCT03275311), to address this question., Methods: All patients who initiated treatment for a newly diagnosed HR+ HER2-negative MBC between January 2008 and December 2014 in any of the 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centers participating to ESME were selected. Patients should be aromatase inhibitor (AI)-sensitive (no previous AI or relapse occurring more than 1 year after last adjuvant AI). Objectives of the study were evaluation of progression-free and overall survival (OS) according to the type of first-line treatment adjusted on main prognostic factors using a propensity score., Results: Six thousand two hundred sixty-five patients were selected: 2733 (43.6%) received endocrine therapy alone, while 3532 (56.4%) received chemotherapy as first-line therapy. Among the latter, 2073 (58.7%) received maintenance endocrine therapy. Median OS was 60.78 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 57.16-64.09) and 49.64 months (95% CI, 47.31-51.64; p < 0.0001) for patients receiving endocrine therapy alone and chemotherapy ± maintenance endocrine therapy, respectively. However, this difference was not significant after adjusting on the propensity score (hazard ratio: 0.943, 95% CI 0.863-1.030, p = 0.19)., Conclusion: In this large retrospective cohort of patients with AI-sensitive metastatic luminal BC, OS was similar, whether first-line treatment was chemotherapy or endocrine therapy. In agreement with international guidelines, endocrine therapy should be the first choice for first-line systemic treatment for MBC in the absence of visceral crisis., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Since response to chemotherapy is a major determinant of survival in metastatic breast cancer, the purpose of our study was to analyse the predictive factors of response. 1426 patients enrolled into eight consecutive randomised trials of anthracycline-based first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer, between 1977 and 1992, were analysed. A forward stepwise logistic regression analysis was used. The objective response rate (ORR) to chemotherapy in the total population was 63.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 61.5-67.7). The complete response rate was 17.5%. Multivariate analysis defined adjuvant chemotherapy, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), Karnofsky index (KI), and pleural and lung metastases to be the five main variables correlated with ORR. A predictive score was calculated using the coefficient of these five variables, The score was established as follows: -1.32+0.54 (if prior adjuvant chemotherapy) +0.80 (low KI) +0.75 (raised LDH) +0.49 (lung metastases) +0.51 (pleural metastases). A low score (less than -0.78) was associated with an ORR greater than 70.0%, representing 41.2% of our population. An intermediate score (between -0.78 and 0) was associated with an ORR of 50 to 70%, representing 37.5% of our population and a positive score was associated with an ORR of less than 50%, representing 21.3% of our population. This score can be used to predict objective response rates to first-line anthracycline-based chemotherapy. This method now needs to be evaluated prospectively in phase II trials. Identification of various risk groups may also be useful for interpretation and design of clinical trials.