Search

Purpose: Abemaciclib, a CDK4 & 6 inhibitor, is indicated for advanced breast cancer treatment. Diarrhea is a frequently associated adverse event of abemaciclib. The study objective was to investigate if food intake impacts local gastrointestinal toxicity., Methods: This Phase 2 study (I3Y-MC-JPCP, NCT03703466) randomized 72 patients 1:1:1 to receive abemaciclib 200 mg monotherapy twice daily (1) with a meal, (2) in a modified fasting state or (3) without regard to food. Primary endpoints included: incidence of investigator assessed severe (≥ Grade 3), prolonged (> 7 days) Grade 2 diarrhea, treatment discontinuation, dose modifications, and loperamide utilization during the first 3 cycles of treatment. Patient outcomes were captured via a daily electronic diary. Pharmacokinetics (PK) are reported., Results: Incidence of investigator assessed severe diarrhea (Grade ≥ 3) was 1.4% (1 patient in Arm 1). Median duration of Grade 3 diarrhea was 1 day by both investigator assessment (1 patient in Arm 1) and patient-reported assessment (1 patient each in Arms 1 and 3). Median duration of investigator-assessed Grade 2 diarrhea was 2 days overall. No patient discontinued treatment due to diarrhea. Nine patients (12.7%) had a dose reduction, and 7 patients (9.9%) had a dose omission due to diarrhea. Ninety-four percent of patients used loperamide at least once. Abemaciclib PK was comparable across the 3 arms., Conclusion: The results suggest that diarrhea incidence associated with abemaciclib was unrelated to timing of food intake, was predominantly low grade, of short duration and well managed with loperamide and dose modifications., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To examine the real-world incidence and management of select adverse events (AEs) among female patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), receiving a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4 and 6) inhibitor (palbociclib, abemaciclib, or ribociclib)., Methods: This retrospective study analyzed data from the US Oncology Network iKnowMed electronic health record database for 396 patients with an initial MBC diagnosis on/after 1 January 2014 and receipt of first CDK4 and 6 regimen between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018. In this descriptive study, the proportion of patients who experienced select AEs and associated dose modifications or discontinuations were reported. The occurrence of select healthcare resource utilization categories was also reported., Results: Median follow-up time was 451, 262, and 355 days for patients in the palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib cohorts, respectively. The most common AEs were neutropenia (palbociclib, 44.8%; abemaciclib, 10.6%; ribociclib, 36.3%), diarrhea (palbociclib, 8.0%; abemaciclib, 43.0%; ribociclib, 8.8%), and fatigue (palbociclib, 12.9%; abemaciclib, 17.6%; ribociclib, 16.5%). AEs resulted in a treatment hold among 91 (23.0%), a dose reduction among 86 (21.7%), and permanent discontinuation among 48 (12.1%) patients overall., Conclusions: This real-world study provides insight into the occurrence of AEs which varied by CDK4 and 6 inhibitor. Compared to clinical trials, frequencies of AEs were numerically lower but dose reductions due to AEs were numerically higher. It is possible these differences reflect proactive management of AEs on the part of clinicians to help patients remain on therapy.

Background: This study explored the impact of multiple prognostic factors on patient overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) for patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR + )/human epidermal growth factor 2 negative (HER2 - ) metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Materials and Methods: This retrospective study used electronic health record data of patients in the United States from community oncology practices from January 1, 2008 to April 30, 2017. Eligibility included HR + /HER2 - MBC diagnosis in 2008 or later and prior systemic therapy for MBC. An index variable was created to assess the effect of multiple clinical prognostic factors collectively, including liver metastases (LM), primary endocrine resistance (PER), negative progesterone receptor (PR - ) status, and high tumor grade (TG). Patients were grouped based on the number of prognostic factors present at MBC diagnosis: 0, 1, and 2+. Differences in rwPFS and OS from start of first-line therapy were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression., Results: Approximately 29.1% of the 378 eligible patient sample had 0, 36.0% had 1, and 34.9% had 2+ prognostic factors. For the patients with 1 of the prognostic factors, 24.3% had high TG, 14.7% were LM+, 39.7% had PER, and 21.3% were PR - . Univariate and multivariate results showed that rwPFS and OS were significantly (P < .05) shorter in patients with 1 and 2+ prognostic factors compared with patients with 0., Conclusions: The individual prognostic factors and the prognostic factor index may enable early identification of patients with a less favorable prognosis across the HR + /HER2 - MBC population and help inform treatment decisions in difficult-to-treat populations., (Copyright © 2021 Eli Lilly and Company. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Real-world evidence specific to HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) prior to introduction of CDK4/6 inhibitors is limited. In an effort to provide context for the introduction of new treatments, we assessed treatment patterns, adverse events, productivity loss, and direct/indirect economic burden in a privately insured population of patients with HR+/HER2- MBC., Research Design and Methods: Using a retrospective cohort design, patients aged 18-64 years, selected from MarketScan databases (2007-2014), were analyzed using descriptive and multivariable methods., Results: Among 5,563 eligible patients, endocrine therapy was the most common first-line (1L) therapy; its utilization trended downward from 63% (1L) to 23% (4L), with a simultaneous increase in chemotherapy use, 25% (1L) to 50% (4L). Two hundred and seventy-eight unique treatment regimens were used in the 1L setting. The average per patient monthly all-cause costs were $14,424. The 12-month indirect costs for short-term disability were substantially higher in MBC patients ($10,397) than in matched noncancer patients ($394)., Conclusion: The increasing use of chemotherapy as patients progressed to second and later lines and the substantial direct/indirect economic burden underscore an unmet need. The high number of 1L regimens highlights significant heterogeneity and a lack of consensus related to the management of HR+/HER2- MBC in routine practice.

Background: Endocrine therapy (ET)-based regimens are the mainstay of treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer. With the introduction of new treatment classes, it is important to examine patient symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at the start of this changing therapeutic landscape. This real-world study describes the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer receiving ET-based regimens who were naïve to systemic treatment in the advanced setting across five European countries (EU5)., Methods: Data were collected between March and July 2017 from surveyed oncologists and their patients at a single time point using the multinational Adelphi Advanced Breast Cancer Disease Specific Programme™. Patients completed PRO questionnaires on HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30), pain severity and interference, and work and activity impairment. A multiple linear regression model explored factors associated with HRQoL., Results: Across EU5, 226 physicians provided data on 781 women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer taking their first ET-based regimen for advanced disease, of whom 252 provided PRO data. This subset had a mean age of 67.1 years, 94% were postmenopausal, 89% were diagnosed with advanced breast cancer at initial presentation, 79% had stage IV disease (66% of these patients had bone metastases and 38% had visceral metastases, including 18% with liver metastases) and 77% were on endocrine-only therapy as their initial treatment for advanced disease. The mean EORTC QLQ-C30 global health score (50.9) was worse than the reference value for patients with advanced breast cancer (60.2). Fatigue, pain, and insomnia were the most severe symptoms, and mean functioning scores were also worse than reference values. "Worst pain" and "pain interference" were moderate/severe for 42 and 80% of patients. Mean activity impairment was 44%, and greater activity impairment was associated with poorer HRQoL., Conclusions: Despite receiving first-line ET-based regimens for advanced disease, these women had a poor HRQoL and high levels of symptoms, pain, pain interference and activity impairment. New treatments that maintain a stable disease state and reduce activity impairment may have a positive effect on the HRQoL of those living with advanced breast cancer.

Background: MONARCH 3, a phase III trial (NCT02246621) of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC), previously demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival in patients receiving abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). This study evaluated patient-reported outcomes, including global health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, and symptoms., Methods: Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily; n = 328) or placebo (n = 165), plus 1 mg anastrozole or 2.5 mg letrozole daily. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Breast Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire HRQoL instruments were administered at baseline, every two cycles during cycles 2 through 19 (each cycle being 28 days), every three cycles thereafter, and once at a short-term posttherapy follow-up visit (approximately 30 days after discontinuation). Longitudinal mixed regression and Cox proportional hazards models evaluated postbaseline change and time to sustained deterioration (TTSD), respectively., Results: Baseline scores were similar between treatment arms. Although select scores statistically favored the placebo arm, global HRQoL, most symptoms, and functioning scales did not meet the threshold for clinically meaningful differences between treatment arms. Only diarrhea favored the placebo arm with statistically and clinically meaningful differences. There were no TTSD differences between treatment arms for global HRQoL, most symptoms (except diarrhea), or functioning., Conclusion: Over a 2-year period, there were no clinically meaningful differences in global HRQoL, functioning, and most symptoms for patients receiving abemaciclib plus NSAI compared with NSAI alone. Only diarrhea favored the placebo arm, consistent with prior safety data, which has been shown to be manageable and reversible. Combined with clinical efficacy, results support treatment with abemaciclib plus NSAI for postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC., Implications for Practice: The addition of abemaciclib to a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) was not associated with a clinically meaningful detriment in patient-reported global health-related quality of life, functioning, and most symptoms in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Prior studies have also demonstrated clinical efficacy of abemaciclib plus NSAI compared with NSAI alone, including improved progression-free survival and objective response rate. These results also complement previously reported toxicity data, as measured by investigator-assessed adverse events. Taken together, these results support treatment with abemaciclib plus NSAI for postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC., (© 2020 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who have received two or more previous therapies for advanced disease have few effective treatment options. The monarcHER trial aimed to compare the efficacy of abemaciclib plus trastuzumab with or without fulvestrant with standard-of-care chemotherapy of physician's choice plus trastuzumab in women with advanced breast cancer., Methods: This phase 2, three-group, open-label trial was done across 75 hospitals, clinics, and medical centres in 14 countries. Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older, who had hormone receptor-positive, HER2-positive advanced breast cancer with unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had previously received at least two HER2-targeted therapies for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to the abemaciclib, trastuzumab, and fulvestrant (group A), abemaciclib and trastuzumab (group B), or standard-of-care chemotherapy and trastuzumab (group C). Oral abemaciclib 150 mg 12 hourly was administered on days 1-21 of a 21-day cycle, intravenous trastuzumab 8 mg/kg on cycle 1 day 1, followed by 6 mg/kg on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle, and intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1, 15, and 29 and once every 4 weeks thereafter. Standard-of-care chemotherapy was administered as specified by the product label. Randomisation was by a computer-generated random sequence by means of an interactive web-response system and stratified by number of previous systemic therapies for advanced breast cancer and measurable versus non-measurable disease. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, first testing group A versus group C and, if this result was significant, then group B versus group C. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02675231) and is ongoing for long-term survival follow-up., Findings: Between May 31, 2016, and Feb 28, 2018, 325 patients were screened, of whom 237 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups A (n=79), B (n=79), and C (n=79). Median follow-up was 19·0 months (IQR 14·7-25·1). The study met its primary endpoint, showing a significant difference at the prespecified two-sided α of 0·2 in median progression-free survival between group A (8·3 months, 95% CI 5·9-12·6) and group C (5·7 months, 5·4-7·0; HR 0·67 [95% CI 0·45-1·00]; p=0·051). No difference was observed between median progression-free survival in group B (5·7 months, 95% CI 4·2-7·2) and group C (HR 0·94 [0·64-1·38]; p=0·77). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse event in groups A, B, and C was neutropenia (21 [27%] of 78 patients, 17 [22%] of 77, and 19 [26%] of 72). The most common serious adverse events were: in group A, pyrexia (three [4%]), diarrhoea (two [3%]), urinary tract infection (two [3%]), and acute kidney injury (two [3%]); in group B, diarrhoea (two [3%]) and pneumonitis (two [3%]); and in group C, neutropenia (four [6%]) and pleural effusion (two [3%]). Two deaths were attributed to treatment: one due to pulmonary fibrosis in group B and one due to febrile neutropenia in group C., Interpretation: The combination of abemaciclib, fulvestrant, and trastuzumab significantly improved progression-free survival versus standard-of-care chemotherapy plus trastuzumab while showing a tolerable safety profile. Our results suggest that a chemotherapy-free regimen might potentially be an alternative treatment option for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-positive advanced breast cancer., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the phase III MONARCH 2 study (NCT02107703), abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study assessed patient-reported pain, global health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, and symptoms., Materials and Methods: Abemaciclib or placebo (150 p.o. mg twice daily) plus fulvestrant (500 mg, per label) were randomly assigned (2:1). The modified Brief Pain Inventory, Short Form (mBPI-sf); European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Core 30 (QLQ-C30); and Breast Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-BR23) assessed outcomes. Data were collected at baseline, cycle 2, every two cycles 3-13, thereafter at every three cycles, and 30 days postdiscontinuation. Longitudinal mixed regression and Cox proportional hazards models assessed postbaseline change and time to sustained deterioration (TTSD) by study arm., Results: On-treatment HRQoL scores were consistently maintained from baseline and similar between arms. Patients in the abemaciclib arm (n = 446) experienced a 4.9-month delay in pain deterioration (mBPI-sf), compared with the control arm (n = 223), and significantly greater TTSD on the mBPI-sf and analgesic use (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and QLQ-C30 pain item (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79). TTSD for functioning and most symptoms significantly favored the abemaciclib arm, including fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and cognitive and social functioning. Only diarrhea significantly favored the control arm (hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.20-2.10)., Conclusion: HRQoL was maintained on abemaciclib plus fulvestrant. Alongside superior PFS and manageable safety profile, results support treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in a population of patients with endocrine-resistant HR+, HER2-negative ABC., Implications for Practice: In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant demonstrated superior efficacy and a manageable safety profile for patients with in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important to consider, given the palliative nature of ABC treatment. In this study, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, significantly delayed sustained deterioration of pain and other patient-reported symptoms (including fatigue, nausea, vomiting), and social and cognitive functioning. Combined with demonstrated clinical benefit and tolerability, the stabilization of patient-reported symptoms and HRQoL further supports abemaciclib plus fulvestrant as a desirable treatment option in endocrine resistant, HR+, HER2- ABC., (© 2019 Eli Lilly and Company. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Endocrine therapy (ET) remains a foundation of systemic therapy for HR+/ HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC), although chemotherapy (CT) is used in select patients. In this "real-world" study, we explored treatment patterns, health care resource use (HCRU), costs, adverse events (AEs) and overall survival (OS) in Medicare-enrolled, older patients with HR+/HER2- MBC. Methods: Patients with HR+/HER2- MBC (2007-2011) and aged >66 years were retrospectively analyzed using the SEER-Medicare data. Treatment patterns, HCRU, costs, AEs and OS after MBC diagnosis through end of study period (31 December 2013) were examined using descriptive and multivariable analyses. Results: Among 3622 eligible patients, ET was the most common treatment (77%), followed by CT (50%), radiation (48%) and surgery (19%). The proportion of patients treated with ET monotherapy decreased across therapy lines, from 74% in first line (1 L) to 35% in 4 L. The total number of unique therapy regimens used was 181 in 1 L, 171 in 2 L, 128 in 3 L, and 95 in 4 L. The median OS from MBC diagnosis was 25.3 months (95% CI, 24.0-26.7). In multivariable analyses, receipt of CT and combination CT + ET (versus ET monotherapy) in 1 L, metastatic disease at initial diagnosis, larger tumor size, and presence of visceral and brain metastases at MBC diagnosis significantly predicted receipt of 2 L therapy. Conclusions: ET was the most common first-line treatment for study patients, but its use decreased gradually in the subsequent lines. The heterogeneity in the treatment selection highlights a lack of consensus for the management of HR+/HER2- MBC in routine practice.