Dataset Information

The role of abemaciclib in treatment of advanced breast cancer.

ABSTRACT: Until recently, the mainstay of treatment in the majority of hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2 receptor (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) has consisted of single-agent endocrine therapy (ET). However, as understanding of endocrine resistance has grown, newer targeted agents have come to the fore. Inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinase complexes 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) combined with ET has shown significant activity in HR+ HER2- ABC, with impressive results in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with ET alone. This review summarizes the seminal findings pertaining to CDK4/6 inhibition in this population, specifically focusing on abemaciclib, contrasted with palbociclib and ribociclib. Potential directions for future studies are discussed, as a way of addressing outstanding issues such as establishing optimal treatment sequencing and agent combinations, appropriate patient selection to derive maximal benefits, predictive biomarkers and the employment of CDK4/6 inhibition beyond the ABC setting.

SUBMITTER: McCartney A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5985604 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The role of abemaciclib in treatment of advanced breast cancer.

McCartney Amelia A Moretti Erica E Sanna Giuseppina G Pestrin Marta M Risi Emanuela E Malorni Luca L Biganzoli Laura L Di Leo Angelo A

Therapeutic advances in medical oncology 20180531

Until recently, the mainstay of treatment in the majority of hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2 receptor (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) has consisted of single-agent endocrine therapy (ET). However, as understanding of endocrine resistance has grown, newer targeted agents have come to the fore. Inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinase complexes 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) combined with ET has shown significant activity in HR+ HER2- ABC, with impressive results in ter ...[more]

PMID: 29899762

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAbemaciclib is a CDK4/6 inhibitor used to treat hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. The prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been minimally explored for treatment outcomes with CDK4/6 inhibitors. The performance of PROs compared with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) is unknown.Materials and methodsThis study pooled data from single-arm trial, MONARCH 1, and randomized trials, MONARCH 2 and 3. In total, 900 patients initiated abemaciclib and 384 comparator therapy. Pretreatment PRO association with progression-free survival (PFS) was modeled using Cox proportional hazards regression. Prediction performance was assessed via the C-statistic (c). PROs were recorded via the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30.ResultsPatient-reported physical function, pain, role function, fatigue, and appetite loss were associated with PFS on univariable and adjusted analysis (p < .05). Physical function (c = 0.55) was most predictive, superior to ECOG-PS (c = 0.54), with multivariable analysis indicating both provide independent information (p < .02). In the pooled randomized arms of MONARCH 2 and 3, the PFS treatment benefit (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) of abemaciclib (vs. comparators) was 0.75 (0.57-1.0) for low physical function, compared with 0.48 (0.40-0.59) for intermediate/high (p[interaction] = .01).ConclusionPROs were identified as prognostic factors for PFS in patients initiating abemaciclib, with patient-reported physical function containing independent predictive information beyond ECOG-PS. Low physical function was associated with a decrease in the magnitude of PFS benefit from abemaciclib. PROs should be explored as prognostic, predictive, and stratification factors for clinical use and research trials of CDK4/6 inhibitors.Implications for practiceFor the first time, pretreatment patient-reported outcomes have been shown to be independent prognostic markers for progression-free survival (PFS) in patients diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer treated with abemaciclib. Importantly, patients with low physical function had a smaller PFS benefit from abemaciclib (vs. comparator) than patients with intermediate/high physical function. The present study demonstrates patient-reported outcomes as a simple, effective, inexpensive, and independent prognostic marker for patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer treated with abemaciclib.

Project description:Introduction: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (ABE + FUL) vs. palbociclib plus fulvestrant (PAL + FUL), ribociclib plus fulvestrant (RIB + FUL) and fulvestrant monotherapy (FUL) as second-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2- negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in the US. Methods: The 3 health states partitioned survival (PS) model was used over the lifetime. Effectiveness and safety data were derived from the MONARCH 2 trial, MONALEESA-3 trial, and PALOMA-3 trial. Parametric survival models were used for four treatments to explore the long-term effect. Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services, and utility values were derived from published studies. Sensitivity analyses including one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were performed to observe model stability. Results: In the PS model, compared with PAL + FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.44 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $100,696 for an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $229,039/QALY. Compared with RIB + FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.03 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $518 for an ICUR of $19,314/QALY. Compared with FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.68 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $260,584 for ICUR of $381,450/QALY. From the PS model, the ICUR was $270,576 /QALY (ABE + FUL vs. PAL + FUL), dominated (ABE + FUL vs. RIB + FUL) and $404,493/QALY (ABE + FUL vs. FUL) in scenario analysis. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities that ABE + FUL was cost-effective vs. PAL + FUL, RIB + FUL and FUL at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per QALY gained were 0% and the probabilities that ABE + FUL was cost-effective vs. PAL + FUL and RIB + FUL at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per QALY gained were 0.2, 0.6, and 7.3%. Conclusions: The findings from the present analysis suggest that ABE + FUL might be cost-effective compared with RIB + FUL and not cost-effective compared with PAL + FUL and FUL for second-line treatment of patients with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer in the US.

Dataset Information

The role of abemaciclib in treatment of advanced breast cancer.

Publications

The role of abemaciclib in treatment of advanced breast cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets