Search

Background: This study evaluated efficacy and safety of palbociclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, in heavily-pretreated hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR + /HER2 - ) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients during the compassionate use program in Spain from February 2015 to November 2017., Patients and Methods: Patient data were collected retrospectively from 35 hospitals in Spain. Patients with HR + /HER2 - mBC who had progressed on ≥4 treatments for advanced disease were eligible., Results: A total of 219 patients received palbociclib in combination with aromatase inhibitors (110; 50.2%), fulvestrant (87; 39.7%), tamoxifen (8; 3.6%) or as single agent (10; 4.6%). Mean age of the patients was 58 years; 31 patients (16.1%) were premenopausal and 162 (83.9%) were postmenopausal at the beginning of treatment with palbociclib. Patients had received a median of 3 previous lines of endocrine therapy (ET) for advanced disease. Real-world tumor response (rwTR) and clinical benefit rate were 5.9% (n = 13) and 46.2% (n = 101), respectively. The median real world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was 6.0 months (95% CI 5.7-7.0) and the median overall survival was 19.0 months (95% CI 16.4-21.7). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in median rwPFS in patients treated with palbociclib plus fulvestrant depending on the duration of prior treatment with fulvestrant monotherapy (>6 versus ≤6 months; HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.37-2.73, p < 0.001). The most frequently reported toxicities were neutropenia, asthenia, thrombopenia and anemia., Conclusions: Palbociclib can be an effective and safe treatment option in patients with heavily pretreated endocrine-sensitive mBC, especially in those with longer PFS to previous ET., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest L. Manso reports consulting or advisory roles from Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Tesaro, and Pfizer; speaker’s bureau participation from Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Tesaro, and Pfizer; research funding from Tesaro; travel expenses from Roche, Novartis, and Tesaro. M. Oliveira reports receiving speaking and advisory honoraria as from Roche and Seattle Genetics; speaking fees from Novartis; and advisory honoraria from GSK, PUMA Biotechnology and AstraZeneca; and financial support from AstraZeneca, Philips, Genentech, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Zenith Epigenetics, GSK, Immunomedics, Novartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and PUMA Biotechnology. M. Ruiz-Borrego reports speaker grants and advisory fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Co., and Novartis. Iñaki Álvarez-Busto reports consultant or advisory roles from Kyowa Kirin and Pharma Mar; speaker honoraria from Angelini, Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, EISAI, Grunenthal pharma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, and Roche; financial support for attending symposia from Roche; and financial support for educational programs from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Roche. E. Aguirre reports financial support for attending symposiafrom Roche and MSD; financial support for educational programs from Astra Zeneca and MSD; and participation in advisory board from Roche, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. J. E. Alés-Martínez reports speaking honoraria from Roche, MSD and BMS; consulting honoraria from Tesaro and Pfizer; and travel grants from MSD, BMS, and Roche. D. Malón reports participation in advisories, formative activities, and financial support for attending symposia from Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Eisai, and Ipsen. I. Echevarría reports receiving travel grants from Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly; and speaking honoraria from Novartis. S. Servitja reports receiving speaking honoraria from Roche and Pfizer; advisory board participation with Genomichealth, AstraZeneca, and MSD; and financial support for attending symposia from Roche, Pfizer, and MSD. F. Moreno reports receiving financial support for attending symposia from Pfizer, Roche, Novartis; support from Pfizer as project sponsor; and positions on advisory board or board of directors or other type of management relationships from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and MSD. Other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess palbociclib in combination with trastuzumab with or without endocrine therapy in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer., Patients and Methods: PATRICIA is a prospective, open-label, multicenter phase II trial. Patients had received 2-4 prior lines of anti-HER2-based regimens. Treatment consisted of palbociclib 200 mg daily for 2 weeks and 1 week off plus trastuzumab. The study was based on a Simon two-stage design comprising three cohorts: estrogen receptor (ER)-negative (cohort A), ER-positive (cohort B1), and ER-positive with letrozole (cohort B2). ER-positive patients were randomized to cohorts B1 or B2. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS6). Secondary objectives included safety and evaluation of the PAM50 intrinsic subtypes., Results: Seventy-one patients were recruited ( n = 15 in cohort A and 28 in each cohort B). The PFS6 rate in cohorts A, B1, and B2 was 33.3% (5/15), 42.8% (12/28), and 46.4% (13/28), respectively. Regarding safety, grade 1-2 and 3-4 toxicities occurred in 97.7% and 84.4% of patients, respectively. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (66.4%) and thrombocytopenia (11.3%). Regarding PAM50, 59 (83.1%) tumors were profiled. Luminal disease defined by PAM50 was found independently associated with longer PFS compared with non-luminal disease (10.6 vs. 4.2 months median PFS; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.40; P = 0.003)., Conclusions: Palbociclib in combination with trastuzumab is safe and exhibits promising survival outcomes in trastuzumab pretreated ER-positive/HER2-positive advanced breast cancer with a PAM50 Luminal A or B subtype. The enrollment was stopped prematurely, and a new randomized cohort was opened in this population., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: We compared patients' preferences for intravenous (IV-t) versus subcutaneous (SC-t) trastuzumab administration., Methods: Phase III, open-label, multicentre study in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Patients were receiving IV-t for at least 4 months without progression. Randomisation was 1:1 to administer 2 cycles of SC-t with vial followed by 2 cycles with single injection device (SID) or the reverse sequence (600mg SC-t every 3 weeks for 4 cycles)., Primary Objective: patients' preference for IV-t versus SC-t; secondary objectives: patients' preference for vial versus SID, healthcare professional (HCP) preference and safety., Results: We randomised 166 patients in 26 sites. Median number of previous lines of chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy was 1 (1-7). Median duration of prior IV-t was 1.8 years (0.3-14). Of the159 patients completing the questionnaires, 86.2% preferred SC-t, 6.9% preferred IV-t, and 6.9% had no preference. Patients preferred SID (59.2%) over vial (26.3%). Most (87.2%) HCP preferred SC-t of whom 51.3% and 28.2% preferred SID and vial respectively. Related adverse events included G1-2 injection site reactions in 18 patients (10.8%), G1 pain in 8 (4.8%), G1-2 allergic reaction in 2 (1.2%), one G3 heart failure and 1 G2 ejection fraction decrease., Conclusions: SC-t is preferred with no safety impact., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: This study aimed to characterize the neurotoxicity of three different regimens of nab-paclitaxel compared with a standard regimen of solvent-based (sb) paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer based on the Total Neurotoxicity Score (TNS), a tool specifically developed to assess chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity., Materials and Methods: This was a randomized, open-label study testing 4-week cycles of 80 mg/m 2 sb-paclitaxel (PACL80/w) on days 1, 8, and 15; 100 mg/m 2 nab-paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 (NAB100/w); 150 mg/m 2 nab-paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 (NAB150/w); and 150 mg/m 2 nab-paclitaxel on days 1 and 15 (NAB150/2w). In addition to the TNS, neuropathy was assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE). Tumor response and quality of life were also evaluated., Results: Neurotoxicity, as evaluated by the TNS, did not significantly differ between the sb-paclitaxel group and any of the nab-paclitaxel groups. The frequency of (any grade) polyneuropathy, as measured by the NCI-CTCAE, was lower in the PACL80/w ( n = 7, 50%) and NAB150/2w ( n = 10, 62.5%) groups than in the NAB100/w ( n = 13, 81.3%) or NAB150/w ( n = 11, 78.6%) group. Although the differences were not statistically significant, compared with the other groups, in the NAB150/w group, the time to occurrence of grade ≥2 polyneuropathy was shorter, and the median time to recovery from grade ≥2 polyneuropathy was longer. Dose delays and reductions due to neurotoxicity and impact of neurotoxicity on the patients' experience of symptoms and functional limitations was greater with NAB150/w. Among the seven polymorphisms selected for genotyping, the variant alleles of EPHA5 -rs7349683, EPHA6 -rs301927, and EPHA8 -rs209709 were associated with an increased risk of paclitaxel-induced neuropathy., Conclusion: The results of this exploratory study showed that, regardless of the dose, nab-paclitaxel did not differ from sb-paclitaxel in terms of neurotoxicity as evaluated with the TNS. However, results from NCI-CTCAE, dose delays and reductions, and functional tools consistently indicate that NAB150/w regimen is associated with a greater risk of chemotherapy-induced neuropathy. Thus, our results question the superiority of the TNS over NCI-CTCAE for evaluating chemotherapy-induced neuropathy and guiding treatment decisions in this context. The selection of the nab-paclitaxel regimen should be individualized based on the clinical context and potentially supported by pharmacogenetic analysis. Registry: EudraCT, 2012-002361-36; NCT01763710 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results of this study call into question the superiority of the Total Neurotoxicity Score over the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events for evaluating chemotherapy-induced neuropathy and guiding treatment decisions in this context and suggest that a regimen of 150 mg/m 2 nab-paclitaxel administered on days 1, 8, and 15 is associated with a greater risk of chemotherapy-induced neuropathy and hematological toxicity compared with other lower-dose nab-paclitaxel regimens or a standard regimen of solvent-based paclitaxel. The selection of the nab-paclitaxel regimen should be individualized based on the clinical context and could benefit from pharmacogenetics analysis., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2019.)

Surgery and radiotherapy are the standard treatment options for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Chemoradiotherapy is an alternative for patients with locally advanced disease. In recurrent/metastatic disease and after progression to platin-based regimens, no standard treatments other than best supportive care are currently available. Most SCCHN tumours overexpress the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). This receptor is a tyrosine-kinase membrane receptor that has been implicated in angiogenesis, tumour progression and resistance to different cancer treatments. In this review, we analysed the different drugs and pathways under development to treat SCCHN, especially recurrent/metastatic disease. Until now, the EGFR signalling pathway has been considered the most important target with respect to new drugs; however, new drugs, such as immunotherapies, are currently under study. As new treatments for SCCHN are developed, the influence of therapies with respect to overall survival, progression free survival and quality of life in patients with this disease is changing.

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the prognostic and predictive value of the nucleotide excision repair-related gene GTF2H5, which is localized at the 6q24.2-26 deletion previously reported by our group to predict longer survival of high-grade serous ovarian cancer patients., Methods: In order to test if protein levels of GTF2H5 are associated with patients' outcome, we performed GTF2H5 immunohistochemical staining in 139 high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas included in tissue microarrays. Upon stratification of cases into high- and low-GTF2H5 staining categories (> and ≤ median staining, respectively) Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test were used to estimate patients' survival and assess statistical differences. We also evaluated the association of GTF2H5 with survival at the transcriptional level by using the on-line Kaplan-Meier plotter tool, which includes gene expression and survival data of 855 high-grade serous ovarian cancer patients from 13 different datasets. Finally, we determined whether stable short hairpin RNA-mediated GTF2H5 downregulation modulates cisplatin sensitivity in the SKOV3 and COV504 cell lines by using cytotoxicity assays., Results: Low expression of GTF2H5 was associated with longer 5-year survival of patients at the protein (hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.93; p=0.024) and transcriptional level (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.97; p=0.023) in high-grade serous ovarian cancer patients. We confirmed the association with 5-year overall survival (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.78; p=0.0007) and also found an association with progression-free survival (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.96; p=0.026) in a homogenous group of 388 high-stage (stages III-IV using the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system), optimally debulked high-grade serous ovarian cancer patients. GTF2H5-silencing induced a decrease of the half maximal inhibitory concentration upon cisplatin treatment in GTF2H5-silenced ovarian cancer cells., Conclusion: Low levels of GTF2H5 are associated with enhanced prognosis in high-grade serous ovarian cancer patients and may contribute to cisplatin sensitization.

Objective: During clinical practice, it can be challenging, given the lack of response biomarkers, to identify the patients with metastatic breast cancer (mbca) who would benefit most from the addition of bevacizumab to first-line standard chemotherapy. The aim of the present review was to summarize the relevant scientific evidence and to discuss the experience of a group of experts in using bevacizumab to treat mbca., Methods: A panel of 17 Spanish oncology experts met to discuss the literature and their experience in the use of bevacizumab as first-line treatment for mbca. During the meeting, discussions focused on three main issues: the profile of the patients who could benefit most from bevacizumab, the optimal bevacizumab treatment duration, and the safety profile of bevacizumab., Results: The subset of mbca patients who would benefit the most from the addition of bevacizumab to first-line standard chemotherapy are those with clinically defined aggressive disease. Treatment with bevacizumab should be maintained until disease progression or the appearance of unacceptable toxicity. In the mbca setting, the toxicity profile of bevacizumab is well known and can be managed in clinical practice after adequate training., Conclusions: This expert group recommends administering bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with clinically aggressive disease.

Aim: To study the HER2 gene amplification or overexpression in patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC) and their association with patient characteristics and patient survival., Patients and Methods: Tumour tissue samples from 148 patients with advanced GC were studied for HER2 by immunohistochemistry (IHC), fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) and dual colour silver enhanced in situ hybridisation (dc-SISH) methods. Clinicopathological data from all patients were collected. Progression free survival and overall survival were also analysed., Results: Mean age was 67 (33-83) years; 75% were male subjects, and 51% had intestinal histological type. HER2+ rates were 10.1% (15/148) by IHC, 18.2% (27/148) by FISH+ or 21.6% (32/148) by dc-SISH+. There were significant differences in HER2+ rates according to histological type when FISH (intestinal, 23%; no intestinal, 4%; p<0.0001) or dc-SISH (intestinal, 26%; no intestinal, 6%; p<0.0001) amplification techniques were used. Median overall survival was significantly longer in HER2+ patients despite the determination technique used: IHC (21.4 vs 9.8 months, HR 0.42; p=0.005); FISH (19.6 vs 9.7 months, HR 0.49; p=0.007) or dc-SISH (19.6 vs 9.7 months, HR 0.53; p=0.009). Factors associated with favourable survival in the multivariate analysis were intestinal type and Her2+ determination by IHC, FISH or dc-SISH., Conclusion: HER2 gene amplification is significantly associated with patient survival. HER2 gene amplification approaches might be an optimal HER2/neu testing strategy for the selection of HER2+ GC patients who are candidates to be treated with anti-HER2 therapies.

Major changes in the treatment of head and neck cancer are possible today because of the knowledge that we have on the molecular biology of these tumors. Different pathways are active in the development of this cancer and field cancerization is a major problem for the cure in early stage disease. Epidermal growth factor signal transduction pathway is now the principal target for this disease. New therapeutic strategies such as monoclonal antibodies and small molecules have appeared, however no more than 20% of the patients have objective responses with these therapies. Consequently, new alternatives of treatment in the basis of the understanding of molecular biology are necessary to increase the number of patients that can be cured in the future.