Search

Background: Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is a medical emergency complicating the treatment of many cancer patients. It is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, as well as impacting on healthcare resources.Methods: A prospective study of all cases of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in the South West London Cancer Network was conducted over a 4-month period. Factors including demographics, treatment history, management of febrile neutropenia and outcome were recorded.Results and Conclusion: Our results reflect those of the recent National Chemotherapy Advisory Group (NCEPOD, 2008)/National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcomes and Death reports (NCAG, 2009) and highlight the need for network-wide clinical care pathways to improve outcomes in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND AKT pathway activation is implicated in endocrine-therapy resistance. Data on the efficacy and safety of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib, as an addition to fulvestrant therapy, in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer are limited. METHODS In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial, we enrolled eligible pre-, peri-, and postmenopausal women and men with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer who had had a relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive capivasertib plus tor-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with AKT pathway-altered (PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN) tumors. Safety was assessed. RESULTS Overall, 708 patients underwent randomization; 289 patients 040.8°6) had AKT pathway alterations, and 489 (69.1%) had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously for advanced breast cancer. In the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.6 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.60; 95% confidence interval ICI], 0.51 to 0.71; P<0.001). In the AKT pathway-altered population, the median progression-free survival was 7.3 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.1 months in the placebofulvestrant group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in patients receiving capivasertibfulvestrant were rash (in 12.1% of patients, vs. in 0.3% of those receiving placebofulvestrant) and diarrhea (in 9.396 vs. 0.396). Adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 13.0% of the patients receiving capivasertib and in 2.3°6 of those receiving placebo. CONCLUSIONS Capivasertib-fulvestrant therapy resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with fulvestrant alone among patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer whose disease had progressed during or after previous aromatase inhibitor therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the National Cancer Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Imlunestrant is a next-generation oral selective estrogen receptor degrader designed to deliver continuous estrogen receptor (ER) target inhibition. EMBER is a phase 1a/b trial of imlunestrant, as monotherapy and combined with targeted therapy, in patients with ER+ advanced breast cancer or endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC). This report focuses on patients with ER+ EEC., Methods: EMBER used an i3 + 3 dose-escalation design to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) followed by dose-expansion cohorts (1:1 randomization): imlunestrant monotherapy and imlunestrant plus abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily). Eligible patients had measurable disease and progression or recurrence after platinum-containing chemotherapy. Prior fulvestrant or aromatase inhibitor was not allowed. Secondary endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetics and antitumor activity., Results: In total, 72 patients with a median of 2 prior anticancer therapies were treated. Among the 39 patients who received imlunestrant (400 mg [RP2D], n = 33; 800 mg, n = 6), the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were grade 1-2 nausea (35.9 %), diarrhea (25.6 %), urinary tract infection (25.6 %), and abdominal pain (20.5 %). Overall response rate (ORR) was 10.3 %, clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 33.3 %, and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 3.8 months (95 % CI, 1.8-6.7). Among the 33 patients who received imlunestrant (400 mg [RP2D], n = 29; 800 mg, n = 4) plus abemaciclib, the most common TEAEs were diarrhea (87.9 %), nausea (66.7 %), fatigue (48.5 %), and anemia (45.5 %). ORR was 18.2 %, CBR was 42.4 %, and mPFS was 6.8 months (95 % CI, 2.1-12)., Conclusion: Imlunestrant, as monotherapy and combined with abemaciclib, has a manageable safety profile with preliminary evidence of antitumor activity in patients with ER+ EEC., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Kan Yonemori: Institutional research support:MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Merck Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Taiho, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Chugai, Ono, Sanofi, Seattle genetics, Eisai, Eli Lilly and company, Genmab, Boeringer Ingelheim, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Nihon Kayaku, Haihe. Honoraria: Pfizer, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Takeda, Chugai, Fuji Film Pharma, PDR pharma, MSD, Boeringer Ingelheim, Ono, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bayer, Jansen, Asteras, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, Merk Biopharma. Advisory board: Eisai, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, Genmab, Gliad, OncXerna, Takeda, Novartis, MSD, Henlius. Other: Principal investigator (to institution): MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Genmab, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Taiho, Merk Biopharma Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Chugai, Ono, Sanofi, Seattle genetics, Eisai, Eli Lilly and company, Genmab, Boeringer Ingelheim, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Nihon Kayaku, Haihe. Valentina Boni: Institutional research support: Abbvie; ACEO; Adaptaimmune; Amcure; AMGEN; Amunix, AstraZeneca; Bycicle; BMS CytomX; GSK; Genentech/Roche; Genmab; Incyte; Ipsen; Janssen; Kura; Lilly; Loxo Therapeutics; Nektar; Macrogenics; Menarini; Merck; Merus; Nanobiotix; Novartis; Pfizer; PharmaMar; Principia; Puma; Ryvu; Ribbon; Sanofi; Taiho; Tesaro; BeiGene; Transgene; Takeda; Incyte; Innovio; MSD; PsiOxus; Seattle Genetics; Mersana; Daiichi; Nektar; Astellas; ORCA; Boston Therapeutics; Dynavax; DebioPharm; Boehringer Ingelheim; Regeneron; Rigontec; Millennium; Seagen; Synthon; Spectrum; Urogen; Zenith. Consulting fees: Puma Biotechnology; Ideaya Biosciences; Loxo Therapeutics, CytomX Therapeutics; Guidepoint; Oncoart, Lilly; Janssen; EMD Serono; IDMC Nanobiotix NANORAY-312/Novartis; Steering Committee CytomX Therapeutics. Honoraria (speaking): Eli Lilly and Company; MSD; SOLTI; TACTICS; Getthi; Gedefo. Attending meeting and/or travel: Bayer (ESMO GI). Stock/Ownership: 1TRIALSP. Tarek M. Meniawy: Research funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Roche, BeiGene, MSD, Regeneron, Incyte, GSK. Advisory board: Novartis, GSK, MSD, Sanofi, Eisai, BMS. Attending meeting and/or travel: Bristol Myers Squibb. Peter A. Kaufman: Consulting fees: Eli Lilly and Company. Honoraria: Eli Lilly and Company. Attending meeting and/or travel: Eli Lilly and Company. Debra L. Richardson: Advisory board: Mersana, AstraZeneca, GSK, Immunogen, Eisai, ProfoundBio, Daiichi-Sankyo. Koji Matsumoto: Research funding: Daichi-Sankyo, MSD, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Eisai. Honoraria: MSD, Kyowa Kirin, Daichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly and Company, Chugai. Karthik V. Giridhar: Research funding: Guardant Health; Advisory board: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Neogenomics, TerSera Therapeutics, Puma Biotechnology. Attending meeting and/or travel: Eli Lilly and Company, Grail Inc. José Angel García-Sáenz: Grants or contracts: Stemline Menarini, Jazz Pharmaceutical. Consulting fees: Stemline Menarini, Eli Lilly and Company. Advisory Board: Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Gilead. Speaker's bureau: Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Astrofarma. Research funding: AstraZeneca. Attending meeting and/or travel: Roche, Novartis, Daiichi-Sankyo. Don S. Dizon: Consulting fees: GSK, Clovis and Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Kronos Biotech. Stock: Doximity, Midi Health. Els Van Nieuwenhuysen: Research funding: Eli Lilly and Company. Yujia Li; Shawn T. Estrem; Bastien Nguyen; Francesca Bacchion; Roohi Ismail-Khan are employees and stock owners of Eli Lilly and Company. Komal Jhaveri: Institutional research funding:Novartis, Genentech, Debiopharm group, ADC therapeutics, Pfizer, Novita Pharmaceuticals, Clovis oncology, Eli Lilly and Company, Zymeworks, Immunomedics, Puma Biotechnology, VelosBio/Merck, AstraZeneca, Context Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapeutics, Blueprint Medicines. Consulting fees: Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Jounce Therapeutics, Synthon, Intellisphere, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genetench, Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, BluePrint Medicines, Seagen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Biotheranostics, Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company, Taiho Oncology, Sanofi, Gilead Sciences, Scorpion Therapeutics. Attending meeting and/or travel: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Jounce therapeutics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Intellisphere, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Genetench/Roche. Kalyan Banda: Institutional research funding: Eli Lilly and Company, MorphoSys, Regeneron, Kineta, Pfizer; Honoraria: American Society for Clinical Oncology; Advisory Board: Astra Zeneca, Immunogen; Attending meeting and/or travel: American Society for Clinical Oncology. The other authors have completed conflict of interest forms and do not have potential conflicts of interest related to subject matter discussed in this manuscript to declare., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: CAPItello-291 is an ongoing phase 3 trial in which capivasertib-fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo-fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after aromatase inhibitor treatment, in both the overall population and in patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. This study further explored patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functioning, symptoms, and symptom tolerability in CAPItello-291., Methods: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which was conducted across 193 hospitals and cancer centres in 19 countries, enrolled women with any menopausal status or men, aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Japan), with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or 6 inhibitor therapy. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 and could have received up to two previous lines of endocrine therapy and up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (stratified according to the presence or absence of liver metastases, previous use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor [yes vs no], and geographical region) to receive oral capivasertib 400 mg (twice daily for 4 days, followed by 3 days off) plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (every 14 days for the first three injections, then every 28 days) or placebo with matching fulvestrant dosing. The dual primary endpoint of the trial was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module (QLQ-C30) and breast module (QLQ-BR23), Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Tolerability (PGI-TT) questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 were secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints, and these endpoints are the subject of analysis in this Article. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified timepoints. Patient-reported outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients with an evaluable baseline assessment and at least one evaluable post-baseline assessment. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed model with repeated measures for EORTC QLQ-C30 and summarised for QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle. Patient-reported outcomes were not prospectively powered for statistical comparison. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04305496., Findings: Between June 2, 2020, and Oct 13, 2021, 901 patients were enrolled, of whom 708 patients were randomly assigned to receive capivasertib-fulvestrant (n=355) or placebo-fulvestrant (n=353). The median age of the patients was 59 years (IQR 51-67) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 58 years (IQR 49-66) in the placebo-fulvestrant group. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2022), the median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival in censored patients was 13·0 months (IQR 9·1-16·7) for capivasertib-fulvestrant and 12·7 months (IQR 2·0-16·4) for placebo-fulvestrant in the overall population. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) scores were maintained from baseline and were similar between treatment groups throughout the study period (difference in mean change from baseline of -2·5 [95% CI -4·5 to -0·6] with capivasertib-fulvestrant vs -5·6 [-7·9 to -3·4] with placebo-fulvestrant; treatment difference 3·1 [95% CI 0·2 to 6·0]). Median time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL was 24·9 months (95% CI 13·8 to not reached) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 12·0 months (10·2 to 15·7) in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·53 to 0·92). Time to deterioration HRs for all EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 subscale scores showed little difference between the treatment groups, except for diarrhoea, which was worse in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group (HR 2·75, 95% CI 2·01-3·81). In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting loose and watery stools "frequently" or "almost constantly" was 29% higher at cycle 1, day 15 in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group, decreasing at subsequent cycles. Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, itchy skin, and numbness or tingling in hands or feet) were absent or mild in most patients in both groups throughout treatment. According to the PGI-TT, most patients in both groups reported "not at all" or "a little bit" of bother from treatment side-effects., Interpretation: Patient-reported outcomes from CAPItello-291 demonstrated that capivasertib-fulvestrant delayed time to deterioration of GHS/QOL and maintained other dimensions of HRQOL (except symptoms of diarrhoea) similarly to fulvestrant. With the clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these exploratory results further support the positive benefit-risk profile of capivasertib-fulvestrant in this population., Funding: AstraZeneca., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MOl has received honoraria from Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Libbs, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, AstraZeneca Taiwan, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Seagen, Zenith Epigenetics, Gilead Sciences, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, and Genentech; has received travel grants from Eisai and Gilead Sciences; has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, ITeos Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Relay Therapeutics, Roche, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; and serves as the head on the board of directors for the SOLTI Breast Cancer Research Group. HSR has served as a consultant or advisor for Napo Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Mylan, Eisai, and Daiichi Sankyo, and has received research funding from OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Astellas Pharma, Taiho Oncology, Veru, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, and Stemline Therapeutics. SJH has received institutional grants from Eli Lilly; has served as a consultant for Pfizer; has received payments to their institution per patient from AstraZeneca (study sponsor); has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Eli Lilly; has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZeneca; and has received support for attending meetings and travel from Novartis. FD has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and AstraZeneca and has received travel grants from Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Gilead Sciences, and Pfizer. JC has served as a consultant or advisor for Celgene, Cellestia Biotech, AstraZeneca, Roche, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, ERYTECH Pharma, Polyphor, Athenex Oncology, Eli Lilly, SERVIER, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Leuko, Clovis Oncology, Bioasis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, HiberCell, Bioinvent, GEMoaB Monoclonals, Gilead Sciences, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Bridgebio, and BioNTech; has received travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Stemline Therapeutics; holds stock in Leuko and MAJ3 Capital; holds two patents, WO 2014/199294 A and US 2019/ 0338368 A1; has received honoraria from Novartis, Eisai, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, and Stemline Therapeutics; and has received research funding from ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta, Bayer, Eisai, Guardant Health, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Queen Mary University of London, Roche, and Piqur. HLG has served as a consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca; has received research funding from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and has served on speakers’ bureaus for Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Technofarma, and Novartis. MT has served on advisory boards for Athenex Oncology, Bertis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Kansai Medical Net, and Terumo; has received compensation as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Bertis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Devicore Medical Japan, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Science, Kyowa-Kirin, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nippon-Kayaku, Novartis, Pfizer, Shimadzu, Sysmex, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult; has received research funding from AFI Technology, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GL Science, Kansai Medical Net, Luxonus, Pfizer, Sanwa Shurui, Shimadzu, Takeda, The Japan Breast Cancer Research Group association, The Kyoto Breast Cancer Research Network association, and Yakult; has served on steering committees for AstraZeneca, Chugai, and Daiichi Sankyo; and serves as a member of the board of directors for the Organisation for Oncology and Translational Research, The Japan Breast Cancer Research Group association, The Japanese Onco-Cardiology Society, The Kyoto Breast Cancer Research Network association, and The Japanese Breast Cancer Society. KJ has served on advisory boards for Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Jounce Therapeutics, Synthon, Intellisphere, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BluePrint Medicines, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Biotheranostics, Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company, Taiho Oncology, Sanofi, Gilead Sciences, and Scorpion Therapeutics; has received research funding from Novartis, Genentech, Debiopharm Group, ADC Therapeutics, Pfizer, Novita Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Zymeworks, Immunomedics, Puma Biotechnology, VelosBio/Merck, AstraZeneca, Context Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapeutics, and Blueprint Medicines; and has received travel grants from Taiho Pharmaceutical, Jounce Therapeutics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Intellisphere, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and Genentech/Roche. SL has served as a consult or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, EirGenix, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Olema, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Relay Therapeutics, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and AGO (German Gynecological Oncology Group) Kommission Mamma; has served as an invited speaker at AstraZeneca, DSI, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Stemline-Menarini, and Medscape; is a full or part-time employee at GBG Forschungs GmbH; has received licensing or royalties from VMscope GmbH, and research funding from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Greenwich Life Sciences, Immunomedics/Gilead Sciences, Molecular Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and has served as a principal investigator at PI Aphinity. YHP has received research funding from MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gencurix, and Genome Insight; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, MSD, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Gilead Sciences; has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Eisai, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Menarini, Everest, and Novartis; has received travel grants from Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Menarini, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; and has received equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Dong-A ST, Sanofi, Roche, and Pfizer. JHS has received research funding from MSD, Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Seagen, Qurient, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Eikon Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Celcuity, Bristol Myers Squibb, HLB Pharmaceutical, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Olema Oncology, Hanmi, Ildong Pharmaceutical, and Samyang Holdings. ET has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Chugai. NCT has served on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Repare Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Inivata, Guardant Health, and Exact Sciences and received research funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, MSD, Invitae, Inivata, Personalis, and Natera. CD’C, HA, MF, and IW are employees of AstraZeneca, and may hold AstraZeneca stocks or shares. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

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).)

Importance: Patients selected to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) are usually those at higher risk of relapse, and there is a need to find better therapeutic options for these patients., Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety outcomes for patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-, high-risk early breast cancer enrolled in the randomized clinical trial monarchE who received NAC., Design, Setting, and Participants: The monarchE randomized clinical trial was a multicenter, phase 3, open-label study that evaluated adjuvant treatment with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) compared with ET alone in patients with HR+, ERBB2-, and node-positive early breast cancer who were at high risk of recurrence. Patients were recruited between July 2017 and August 2019 from 603 sites in 38 countries. This subgroup analysis was performed with primary outcome data, with a cutoff date of July 8, 2020., Intervention: Enrolled patients were randomized (1:1) to receive standard of care ET for at least 5 years with or without treatment with abemaciclib (150 mg, twice daily) for 2 years (treatment period) or until criteria were met for discontinuation., Main Outcomes and Measures: Prior chemotherapy (NAC vs adjuvant vs none) was a stratification factor in monarchE, and and a prespecified exploratory analysis included outcomes in patients who received NAC. The data presented in this article are from the primary outcome analysis (395 invasive disease-free survival [IDFS] events; cutoff date, July 8, 2020; median follow-up 19 months [IQR, 15.6-23.9 months]). Invasive disease-free survival (the primary end point of monarchE) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Of the 5637 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.9 [10.6] years; 2046 women [99.5%]; 462 Asian [22.8%], 54 Black [2.7%], and 1473 White participants [70.8%]) enrolled in monarchE, 2056 (37%) received treatment with NAC. In this subgroup, treatment with abemaciclib and ET demonstrated clinically meaningful benefit in IDFS (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.80) and DRFS (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.81), which corresponded with an absolute improvement of 6.6% in 2-year IDFS rates and 6.7% in 2-year DRFS rates. A consistent treatment benefit was observed across subgroups of pathological breast tumor size or number of positive lymph nodes at surgery., Conclusions and Relevance: In the randomized clinical trial monarchE, treatment with adjuvant abemaciclib combined with ET demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in IDFS and DRFS for patients with HR+, ERBB2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer who received NAC before trial enrollment., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03155997.

Purpose: In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR + ), HER2 - advanced breast cancer. This exploratory analysis assessed the efficacy of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant across subgroups of patients receiving study therapy as first- or second-line treatment for metastatic disease., Patients and Methods: Improvements were estimated using Cox models, and a test of interactions of subgroups with treatment was performed., Results: The benefit in PFS [first-line, HR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-0.73; second-line, HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36-0.64] and OS (first-line, HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.14; second-line, HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.94) was observed across both subgroups, consistent with the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. In first-line patients (abemaciclib arm, n = 265; placebo arm, n = 133), the numerically largest effect on PFS and OS was observed in patients with primary resistance to endocrine therapy (ET; PFS, HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26-0.63; OS, HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.97) and visceral disease (PFS, HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.73; OS, HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20). In second-line patients (abemaciclib arm, n = 170; placebo arm, n = 86), a numerical benefit in PFS and OS was observed across primary and secondary ET resistance, with numerically more pronounced effects observed in patients with visceral disease (PFS, HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57; OS, HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.81). Prolongation of time to second disease progression, time to chemotherapy, and chemotherapy-free survival was observed in both subgroups., Conclusions: Consistent with the ITT population, a benefit in PFS and OS was observed across the first- and second-line subgroups in MONARCH 2., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Abemaciclib in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) has demonstrated significant efficacy benefits in HR+ , HER2- advanced breast cancer patients in the Phase 3 studies MONARCH 2 (fulvestrant as ET) and MONARCH 3 (letrozole or anastrozole as ET). Here, we report age-specific safety and efficacy outcomes., Methods: Exploratory analyses of MONARCH 2 and 3 were performed for 3 age groups (<65, 65-74, and ≥75 years). For safety, data were pooled from both studies; for efficacy, a subgroup analysis of PFS was performed for each trial independently., Results: Pooled safety data were available for 1152 patients. Clinically relevant diarrhea (Grade 2/3) was higher in older patients receiving abemaciclib + ET (<65, 39.5%; 65-74, 45.2%; ≥75, 55.4%) versus placebo + ET (<65, 6.8%; 65-74, 4.5%; ≥75, 16.0%). Nausea, decreased appetite, and venous thromboembolic events were all moderately higher in older patients. Neutropenia (Grade ≥ 3) did not differ as a function of age in the abemaciclib + ET arm (<65, 25.8%; 65-74, 27.4%; ≥75, 18.1%). Dose adjustments and discontinuation rates were slightly higher in older patients. Abemaciclib + ET improved PFS compared with placebo + ET independent of patient age, with no significant difference in abemaciclib treatment effect between the 3 age groups (MONARCH 2: interaction p-value, 0.695; MONARCH 3: interaction p-value, 0.634). Estimated hazard ratios ranged from 0.523-0.633 (MONARCH 2) and 0.480-0.635 (MONARCH 3)., Conclusions: While higher rates of adverse events were reported in older patients, they were manageable with dose adjustments and concomitant medication. Importantly, a consistent efficacy benefit was observed across all age groups., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02107703 (first posted April 8, 2014) and NCT02246621 (first posted September 23, 2014).

Importance: Statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefits of CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitors in combination with fulvestrant for hormone receptor (HR)-positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) in patients regardless of menopausal status after prior endocrine therapy (ET) has not yet been demonstrated., Objective: To compare the effect of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant on OS at the prespecified interim of MONARCH 2 (338 events) in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer that progressed during prior ET., Design, Setting, and Participants: MONARCH 2 was a global, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for treatment of premenopausal or perimenopausal women (with ovarian suppression) and postmenopausal women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative ABC that progressed during ET. Patients were enrolled between August 7, 2014, and December 29, 2015. Analyses for this report were conducted at the time of database lock on June 20, 2019., Interventions: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo, 150 mg, every 12 hours on a continuous schedule plus fulvestrant, 500 mg, per label. Randomization was stratified based on site of metastasis (visceral, bone only, or other) and resistance to prior ET (primary vs secondary)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Overall survival was a gated key secondary end point. The boundary P value for the interim analysis was .02., Results: Of 669 women enrolled, 446 (median [range] age, 59 [32-91] years) were randomized to the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm and 223 (median [range] age, 62 [32-87] years) were randomized to the placebo plus fulvestrant arm. At the prespecified interim, 338 deaths (77% of the planned 441 at the final analysis) were observed in the intent-to-treat population, with a median OS of 46.7 months for abemaciclib plus fulvestrant and 37.3 months for placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.757; 95% CI, 0.606-0.945; P = .01). Improvement in OS was consistent across all stratification factors. Among stratification factors, more pronounced effects were observed in patients with visceral disease (HR, 0.675; 95% CI, 0.511-0.891) and primary resistance to prior ET (HR, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.451-1.043). Time to second disease progression (median, 23.1 months vs 20.6 months), time to chemotherapy (median, 50.2 months vs 22.1 months), and chemotherapy-free survival (median, 25.5 months vs 18.2 months) were also statistically significantly improved in the abemaciclib arm vs placebo arm. No new safety signals were observed for abemaciclib., Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful median OS improvement of 9.4 months for patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative ABC who progressed after prior ET regardless of menopausal status. Abemaciclib substantially delayed the receipt of subsequent chemotherapy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107703.

This randomized, open-label, active-controlled study investigated the safety and efficacy of three doses of Rolontis (eflapegrastim), a novel, long-acting myeloid growth factor, versus pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients being treated with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC). The primary efficacy endpoint was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during the first cycle of treatment. Patients who were candidates for adjuvant/neoadjuvant TC chemotherapy were eligible for participation. TC was administered on Day 1, followed by 45, 135, or 270 μg/kg Rolontis or 6 mg pegfilgrastim on Day 2. Complete blood counts were monitored daily when the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) fell to <1.5 × 10 9 /L. Up to four cycles of TC were investigated. The difference in DSN (time from ANC <0.5 × 10 9 /L to ANC recovery ≥2.0 × 10 9 /L) between the Rolontis and pegfilgrastim groups was -0.28 days (confidence interval [CI]: -0.56, -0.06) at 270 μg/kg, 0.14 days (CI: -0.28, 0.64) at 135 μg/kg, and 0.72 days (CI: 0.19, 1.27) at 45 μg/kg. Noninferiority to pegfilgrastim was demonstrated at 135 μg/kg (P = 0.002) and 270 μg/kg (P < .001), with superiority demonstrated at 270 μg/kg (0.03 days; P = 0.023). The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were bone pain, myalgia, arthralgia, back pain, and elevated white blood cell counts, with similar incidences across groups. All doses of Rolontis were well tolerated, and no new or significant treatment-related toxicities were observed. In Cycle 1, Rolontis demonstrated noninferiority at the 135 μg/kg dose and statistical superiority in DSN at the 270 μg/kg dose when compared to pegfilgrastim., (© 2018 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose MONARCH 2 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107703) compared the efficacy and safety of abemaciclib, a selective cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, plus fulvestrant with fulvestrant alone in patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Patients and Methods MONARCH 2 was a global, double-blind, phase III study of women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative ABC who had progressed while receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET), ≤ 12 months from the end of adjuvant ET, or while receiving first-line ET for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo (150 mg twice daily) on a continuous schedule and fulvestrant (500 mg, per label). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and key secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, clinical benefit rate, quality of life, and safety. Results Between August 2014 and December 2015, 669 patients were randomly assigned to receive abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (n = 446) or placebo plus fulvestrant (n = 223). Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly extended PFS versus fulvestrant alone (median, 16.4 v 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.553; 95% CI, 0.449 to 0.681; P < .001). In patients with measurable disease, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant achieved an ORR of 48.1% (95% CI, 42.6% to 53.6%) compared with 21.3% (95% CI, 15.1% to 27.6%) in the control arm. The most common adverse events in the abemaciclib versus placebo arms were diarrhea (86.4% v 24.7%), neutropenia (46.0% v 4.0%), nausea (45.1% v 22.9%), and fatigue (39.9% v 26.9%). Conclusions Abemaciclib at 150 mg twice daily plus fulvestrant was effective, significantly improving PFS and ORR and demonstrating a tolerable safety profile in women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative ABC who progressed while receiving ET.

Purpose: We aimed to prospectively assess the incidence, severity and patients' perceptions of side-effects induced by radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin., Patients and Methods: This multinational survey included patients with a diagnosis of gynaecological or head and neck cancer scheduled to receive radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin. Patients completed a questionnaire prior to anti-cancer treatment and after 3 weeks of treatment. Baseline frequency and severity of symptoms were compared to frequency and severity after 3 weeks of treatment, and patients were asked to rank the five most severe symptoms experienced., Results: An increase in the severity as well as in the mean number of symptoms (18 compared to 24) was observed during treatment. Patients ranked 7 of the 10 most feared baseline symptoms as non-physical, whereas 8 of the 10 most feared symptoms after 3 weeks of treatment were physical. Nausea was ranked as the 5th most severe symptom during treatment, despite 98% of patients receiving antiemetic prophylaxis., Conclusion: Patients with head and neck cancer or gynaecological cancer suffer from a number of primarily non-physical symptoms before starting combined chemo-radiotherapy. After 3 weeks of treatment patients score 8 of the 10 most feared symptoms as physical. Future trials focusing on the prevention of side-effects in patients receiving radiotherapy and concomitant chemotherapy are highly warranted., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Four cases previously treated with ipilimumab with a total of six histologically confirmed symptomatic lesions of RNB without any sign of active tumour following stereotactic irradiation of MBM are reported. These lesions were all originally thought to be disease recurrence. In two cases, ipilimumab was given prior to SRT; in the other two ipilimumab was given after SRT. The average time from first ipilimumab to RNB was 15 months. The average time from SRT to RNB was 11 months. The average time from first diagnosis of MBM to last follow-up was 20 months at which time three patients were still alive, one with no evidence of disease. These cases represent approximately three percent of the total cases of melanoma and ten percent of those cases treated with ipilimumab irradiated in our respective centres collectively. We report this to highlight this new problem so that others may have a high index of suspicion, allowing, if clinically warranted, aggressive surgical salvage, possibly resulting in increased survival. Further studies prospectively collecting data to understand the denominator of this problem are needed to determine whether this problem is just the result of longer survival or whether there is some synergy between these two modalities that are increasingly being used together.

Objective: To determine the frequency of nuclear factor κB (NFκB) and the chemokine receptor CXCR4 co-expression in prostate cancer specimens from men with locally advanced disease., Patients and Methods: Paraffin-embedded samples from patients enrolled on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 8610 trial underwent immunohistochemical staining for NFκB and CXCR4. The amount of NFκB and CXCR4 was scored by a 'blinded' pathologist for the percentage of cells stained (0-100%) and staining intensity (0-3 +). Cox proportional hazard models were used for overall survival and disease-free survival to examine if NFκB and/or CXCR4 expression were associated with patient outcomes with and without adjustment for covariates., Results: Available material and successful staining allowed NFκB and CXCR4 status to be determined for 55 and 63 patients, respectively. Both NFκB and CXCR4 status were available for 51 patients. Of these, 53% were 2/3 + for cytoplasmic NFκB staining and 56% were 2/3 + for CXCR4. In all, 18 of the 51 patients were 2/3 + for both NFκB and CXCR4 (P = 0.129). Ten of 11 patients with 3 + NFκB had 2/3 + CXCR4 (P= 0.004). In this small study, neither NFκB nor CXCR4 were associated with prostate cancer outcomes., Conclusions: High NFκB expression is associated with CXCR4 expression and they are co-expressed in about one third of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Larger studies to accurately determine the frequency of co-expression and prognostic utility of NFκB and CXCR4 alone and in combination are warranted., (© 2010 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2010 BJU INTERNATIONAL.)

The introduction of molecularly targeted anticancer therapies has brought the promise of longer survival times for select patients with cancers previously considered untreatable. However, it has also brought new toxicities that require understanding and management, sometimes for long periods of time. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors are associated with a broad range of adverse effects, with vascular toxicity being particularly serious. This review focuses on the current understanding of the pathophysiology and mechanisms of macrovascular toxicities (hypertension, hemorrhage, and thromboembolism), their incidence and severity, the current clinical management, and implications in the advanced cancer setting. Movement of these agents into the early disease setting will alter the impact of these toxicities. Search Strategy and Selection Criteria. Information for this review was collected by searching PubMed/Medline and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstract databases. The medical subject heading terms used included toxicity, hypertension, thromboembolism, hemorrhage, intestinal perforation, risk factors, pharmacokinetics, and metabolism, combined with free text search terms including, but not limited to, VEGF inhibitor*, bevacizumab, sunitinib, and sorafenib. Articles published in English before March 2010 were included, in addition to information from case reports and pharmaceutical agent package inserts.