Search

Background: Eribulin provided significant overall survival (OS) benefit in heavily pretreated advanced breast cancer patients in the EMBRACE trial. We investigated the use of eribulin in daily clinical practice, the relative effectiveness of eribulin versus non-eribulin chemotherapy, and the safety of eribulin in real-world patients included in the SOutheast Netherlands Advanced BREast cancer (SONABRE) registry. Material and methods: Patients treated with eribulin and eligible patients for eribulin who received a different chemotherapy (i.e., non-eribulin group) in ten hospitals in 2013–2017 were included. A multivariate matching algorithm was applied to correct for differences in baseline characteristics between the groups, including the number of previous treatment lines. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS of eribulin were compared with the matched non-eribulin group through Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. The occurrence of dose delay and reduction was described. Results: Forty-five patients received eribulin according to its registration criteria and 74 patients were eligible for eribulin but received non-eribulin chemotherapy. Matching increased the similarity in baseline characteristics between the eribulin and non-eribulin groups. Median PFS was 3.5 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7–5.5) in the eribulin group and 3.2 months (95% CI: 2.0–4.8) in the matched non-eribulin group (adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.83, 95% CI: 0.49–1.38). Median OS was 5.9 months (95% CI: 4.6–11.0) and 5.2 months (95% CI: 4.6–9.5) in the eribulin and non-eribulin groups, respectively (adjusted HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.38–1.13). Dose delay or reduction occurred in 14 patients (31%) receiving eribulin. Conclusions: No difference in PFS and OS was observed between eribulin and non-eribulin treated patients. Eribulin had a manageable toxicity profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:We aimed to determine the prognostic impact of time between primary breast cancer and diagnosis of distant metastasis (metastatic-free interval, MFI) on the survival of metastatic breast cancer patients.Methods:Consecutive patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer in 2007-2009 in eight hospitals in the Southeast of the Netherlands were included and categorised based on MFI. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the prognostic impact of de novo metastatic breast cancer vs recurrent metastatic breast cancer (MFI ⩽24 months and >24 months), adjusted for age, hormone receptor and HER2 status, initial site of metastasis and use of prior (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy.Results:Eight hundred and fifteen patients were included and divided in three subgroups based on MFI; 154 patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer, 176 patients with MFI <24 months and 485 patients with MFI >24 months. Patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer had a prolonged survival compared with patients with recurrent metastatic breast cancer with MFI <24 months (median 29.4 vs 9.1 months, P<0.0001), but no difference in survival compared with patients with recurrent metastatic breast cancer with MFI >24 months (median, 29.4 vs 27.9 months, P=0.73). Adjusting for other prognostic factors, patients with MFI <24 months had increased mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.97, 95% CI 1.49-2.60, P<0.0001) compared with patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer. When comparing recurrent metastatic breast cancer with MFI >24 months with de novo metastatic breast cancer no significant difference in mortality risk was found. The association between MFI and survival was seen irrespective of use of (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy.Conclusion:Patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer had a significantly better outcome when compared with patients with MFI <24 months, irrespective of the use of prior adjuvant systemic therapy in the latter group. However, compared with patients with MFI >24 months, patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer had similar outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective of this study was to present initial systemic treatment choices and the outcome of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer. Patients and methods: All the 815 consecutive patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer in 2007-2009 in eight participating hospitals were identified. From the 611 patients with HR+ disease, a total of 520 patients with HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer were included. Initial palliative systemic treatment was registered. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) per initial palliative systemic therapy were obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: From the total of 520 patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, 482 patients (93%) received any palliative systemic therapy. Patients that received initial chemotherapy (n = 116) were significantly younger, had less comorbidity, had received more prior adjuvant systemic therapy and were less likely to have bone metastasis only compared with patients that received initial endocrine therapy (n = 366). Median PFS of initial palliative chemotherapy was 5.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.2-6.2] and of initial endocrine therapy 13.3 months (95% CI 11.3-15.5), with a median OS of 16.1 and 36.9 months, respectively. Initial chemotherapy was also associated with worse outcome in terms of PFS and OS after adjustment for prognostic factors. Conclusions: A high percentage of patients with HR+ disease received initial palliative chemotherapy, which was associated with worse outcome, even after adjustment of relevant prognostic factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]