Fulvestrant for hormone-sensitive metastatic breast cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lee CI
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6464820 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceRandomized clinical trials have demonstrated a substantial benefit of adding everolimus to endocrine therapy. Everolimus inhibits the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) complex but not mTORC2, which can set off an activating feedback loop via mTORC2. Vistusertib, a dual inhibitor of mTORC1 and mTORC2, has demonstrated broad activity in preclinical breast cancer models, showing superior activity to everolimus.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of vistusertib in combination with fulvestrant compared with fulvestrant alone or fulvestrant plus everolimus in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThe MANTA trial is an open-label, phase 2 randomized clinical trial in which 333 patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer progressing after prior aromatase inhibitor treatment underwent randomization (2:3:3:2) between April 1, 2014, and October 24, 2016, at 88 sites in 9 countries: 67 patients were assigned to receive fulvestrant, 103 fulvestrant plus vistusertib daily, 98 fulvestrant plus vistusertib intermittently, and 65 fulvestrant plus everolimus. Treatment was continued until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.InterventionsFulvestrant alone or in combination with vistusertib (continuous or intermittent dosing schedules) or everolimus.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsAmong the 333 women in the study (median age, 63 years [range, 56-70 years]), median PFS was 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.5-9.2 months) with fulvestrant, 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.9-9.4 months) with fulvestrant plus daily vistusertib, 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.6-9.9 months) with fulvestrant plus intermittent vistusertib, and 12.3 months (95% CI, 7.7-15.7 months) with fulvestrant plus everolimus. There was no significant difference in PFS between those receiving fulvestrant plus daily or intermittent vistusertib and fulvestrant alone (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.63-1.24]; P = .46; and hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.55-1.12]; P = .16).Conclusions and relevanceThe combination of fulvestrant plus everolimus demonstrated significantly longer PFS compared with fulvestrant plus vistusertib or fulvestrant alone. The trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of adding the dual mTORC1 and mTORC2 inhibitor vistusertib to fulvestrant.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02216786 and EudraCT number: 2013-002403-34.
| S-EPMC6865233 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fulvestrant has demonstrated efficacy in hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC), both in first-and second-line settings. In clinical practice, however, fulvestrant has been used as a later-line therapy. This study assessed the efficacy of fulvestrant in women with mBC in early-versus later-line therapy. This retrospective cohort study assessed Saskatchewan women with HR+ mBC who received fulvestrant between 2003-2019. A multivariate Cox proportional survival analysis was performed. One hundred and eighty-six women with a median age of 63.5 years were identified-178 (95.6%) had hormone-resistant mBC, 57.5% had visceral disease, and 43.0% had received chemotherapy before fulvestrant. 102 (54.8%) women received ≤2-line-therapy, and 84 (45.2%) received ≥3 line-therapy before fulvestrant. The median time to progression (TTP) was 12 months in the early-treatment vs. 6 months in the later-treatment group, p = 0.015. Overall survival (OS) from the start of fulvestrant was 26 months in the early-treatment group vs. 16 months in the later-treatment group, p = 0.067. On multivariate analysis, absence of visceral metastasis, HR: 0.70 (0.50-0.99), was significantly correlated with better TTP, whereas post-fulvestrant chemotherapy, HR: 0.32 (0.23-0.47), clinical benefit from fulvestrant, HR: 0.44 (0.30-0.65), and absence of visceral metastasis, HR: 0.70 (0.50-0.97), were correlated with better OS. Fulvestrant has demonstrated efficacy as both early-and later-line therapy in hormone-resistant mBC. Our results show that women with clinical benefit from fulvestrant, who received post-fulvestrant chemotherapy, or had non-visceral disease, had better survival.
| S-EPMC8391338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aromatase inhibitor anastrozole inhibits estrogen synthesis. Fulvestrant binds and accelerates degradation of estrogen receptors. We hypothesized that these two agents in combination might be more effective than anastrozole alone in patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer.MethodsPostmenopausal women with previously untreated metastatic disease were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive either 1 mg of anastrozole orally every day (group 1), with crossover to fulvestrant alone strongly encouraged if the disease progressed, or anastrozole and fulvestrant in combination (group 2). Patients were stratified according to prior or no prior receipt of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Fulvestrant was administered intramuscularly at a dose of 500 mg on day 1 and 250 mg on days 14 and 28 and monthly thereafter. The primary end point was progression-free survival, with overall survival designated as a prespecified secondary outcome.ResultsThe median progression-free survival was 13.5 months in group 1 and 15.0 months in group 2 (hazard ratio for progression or death with combination therapy, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.94; P=0.007 by the log-rank test). The combination therapy was generally more effective than anastrozole alone in all subgroups, with no significant interactions. Overall survival was also longer with combination therapy (median, 41.3 months in group 1 and 47.7 months in group 2; hazard ratio for death, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.00; P=0.05 by the log-rank test), despite the fact that 41% of the patients in group 1 crossed over to fulvestrant after progression. Three deaths that were possibly associated with treatment occurred in group 2. The rates of grade 3 to 5 toxic effects did not differ significantly between the two groups.ConclusionsThe combination of anastrozole and fulvestrant was superior to anastrozole alone or sequential anastrozole and fulvestrant for the treatment of HR-positive metastatic breast cancer, despite the use of a dose of fulvestrant that was below the current standard. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca; SWOG ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00075764.).
| S-EPMC3951300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAndrogen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the backbone of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer since the 1940s. We assessed whether concomitant treatment with ADT plus docetaxel would result in longer overall survival than that with ADT alone.MethodsWe assigned men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer to receive either ADT plus docetaxel (at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks for six cycles) or ADT alone. The primary objective was to test the hypothesis that the median overall survival would be 33.3% longer among patients receiving docetaxel added to ADT early during therapy than among patients receiving ADT alone.ResultsA total of 790 patients (median age, 63 years) underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 28.9 months, the median overall survival was 13.6 months longer with ADT plus docetaxel (combination therapy) than with ADT alone (57.6 months vs. 44.0 months; hazard ratio for death in the combination group, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001). The median time to biochemical, symptomatic, or radiographic progression was 20.2 months in the combination group, as compared with 11.7 months in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.72; P<0.001). The rate of a prostate-specific antigen level of less than 0.2 ng per milliliter at 12 months was 27.7% in the combination group versus 16.8% in the ADT-alone group (P<0.001). In the combination group, the rate of grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia was 6.2%, the rate of grade 3 or 4 infection with neutropenia was 2.3%, and the rate of grade 3 sensory neuropathy and of grade 3 motor neuropathy was 0.5%.ConclusionsSix cycles of docetaxel at the beginning of ADT for metastatic prostate cancer resulted in significantly longer overall survival than that with ADT alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00309985.).
| S-EPMC4562797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe S0226 trial demonstrated that the combination of half-dose fulvestrant (FUL) and anastrozole (ANA) (F&A) caused a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) versus ANA monotherapy for first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (PMW-MBC (HR+)). The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of F&A in the first-line treatment for PMW-MBC (HR+) in China.DesignWe constructed a Markov model over a life-time horizon. The clinical outcomes and utility data were obtained from published literature. Cost data were obtained from official Chinese websites. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test result uncertainty.SettingChinese healthcare system perspective.PopulationA hypothetical cohort of adult patients presenting with PMW-MBC (HR+).InterventionsF&A compared with full-dose FUL and ANAmonotherapy.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY).ResultsANA was estimated to have the lowest cost and minimum life-years. The ICER of F&A versus ANA was US$15 665.891/QALY with incremental cost and QALY of US$12 401.120 and 0.792, respectively, which was less than the willingness-to-pay of US$29 383/QALY. Compared with F&A, FUL yielded a higher cost and a shorter lifetime; hence, it was identified as a dominated strategy. The univariate sensitivity analysis indicated the price of FUL was the most influential factor in our study. The probability that F&A was cost-effective at a threshold of US$29 383/QALY in China was 86.5%.ConclusionF&A is a cost-effective alternative to FUL and ANA monotherapy for the first-line treatment of PMW-MBC (HR+) in China. F&A is a promising first-line treatment for PMW-MBC (HR+), and more research is needed to evaluate the economy of using F&A in other countries.
| S-EPMC7462248 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Fulvestrant produces a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of approximately 45% in tamoxifen-resistant, hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and 32% in aromatase inhibitor (AI)-resistant disease. The farnesyltransferase inhibitor tipifarnib inhibits Ras signaling and has preclinical and clinical activity in endocrine therapy-resistant disease. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of tipifarnib-fulvestrant combination in HR-positive MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Postmenopausal women with no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease received i.m. fulvestrant 250 mg on day 1 plus oral tipifarnib 300 mg twice daily on days 1-21 every 28 days. The primary end point was CBR. RESULTS:The CBR was 51.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 34.0% to 69.2%] in 31 eligible patients and 47.6% (95% CI 26.3% to 69.0%) in 21 patients with AI-resistant disease. A futility analysis indicated that it was unlikely to achieve the prespecified 70% CBR. Tipifarnib dose modification was required in 8 of 33 treated patients (24%). CONCLUSIONS:The target CBR of 70% for the tipifarnib-fulvestrant combination in HR-positive MBC was set too high and was not achieved. The 48% CBR in AI-resistant disease compares favorably with the 32% CBR observed with fulvestrant alone in prior studies and merit further clinical and translational evaluation.
| S-EPMC2660860 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDarolutamide is a potent androgen-receptor inhibitor that has been associated with increased overall survival among patients with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Whether a combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel would increase survival among patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is unknown.MethodsIn this international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive darolutamide (at a dose of 600 mg [two 300-mg tablets] twice daily) or matching placebo, both in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel. The primary end point was overall survival.ResultsThe primary analysis involved 1306 patients (651 in the darolutamide group and 655 in the placebo group); 86.1% of the patients had disease that was metastatic at the time of the initial diagnosis. At the data cutoff date for the primary analysis (October 25, 2021), the risk of death was significantly lower, by 32.5%, in the darolutamide group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.80; P<0.001). Darolutamide was also associated with consistent benefits with respect to the secondary end points and prespecified subgroups. Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and the incidences of the most common adverse events (occurring in ≥10% of the patients) were highest during the overlapping docetaxel treatment period in both groups. The frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 66.1% in the darolutamide group and 63.5% in the placebo group; neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event (in 33.7% and 34.2%, respectively).ConclusionsIn this trial involving patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, overall survival was significantly longer with the combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel than with placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel, and the addition of darolutamide led to improvement in key secondary end points. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. (Funded by Bayer and Orion Pharma; ARASENS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02799602.).
| S-EPMC9844551 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor palbociclib in combination with letrozole has become a standard first-line treatment for patients with endocrine-sensitive, hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer. Meanwhile, the antiestrogen fulvestrant was shown to be superior to anastrozole in the absence of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibition for this patient population.ObjectiveTo assess whether fulvestrant is superior to letrozole when combined with palbociclib in the first-line scenario.Design, setting, and participantsIn this international, randomized, open-label, phase 2 clinical study conducted from July 30, 2015, to January 8, 2018, patients with hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer with no prior therapy in the metastatic setting and endocrine-sensitive criteria were recruited from 47 centers in 7 countries. Data were analyzed from February 11 to May 15, 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive palbociclib with either fulvestrant or letrozole. Stratification factors were type of disease presentation (de novo vs recurrent) and the presence of visceral involvement (yes vs no).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.ResultsA total of 486 women (median age, 63 years [range, 25-90 years]; 3 Asian women [0.6%]; 4 Black women [0.8%]; 461 White women [94.9%]; 18 women of unknown race [3.7%]) were randomized (243 to fulvestrant-palbociclib and 243 to letrozole-palbociclib). Median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 27.9 months (95% CI, 24.2-33.1 months) in the fulvestrant-palbociclib group vs 32.8 months (95% CI, 25.8-35.9 months) in the letrozole-palbociclib group (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.89-1.45; P = .32). This result was consistent across the stratification factors. No significant differences were observed in objective response rate (46.5% vs 50.2%) and 3-year overall survival rate (79.4% vs 77.1%) for fulvestrant-palbociclib and letrozole-palbociclib, respectively. Grade 3-4 adverse events were comparable among treatment groups, and no new safety signals were identified. No treatment-related deaths were reported.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough fulvestrant-palbociclib demonstrated significant antitumor activity, this randomized clinical trial failed to identify an improvement in progression-free survival with this regimen over letrozole-palbociclib in patients with endocrine-sensitive, hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02491983.
| S-EPMC8498933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeEndocrine-based therapy is the initial primary treatment option for hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). However, patients eventually experience disease progression due to resistance to endocrine therapy. Molibresib (GSK525762) is a small-molecule inhibitor of bromodomain and extraterminal (BET) family proteins (BRD2, BRD3, BRD4, and BRDT). Preclinical data suggested that the combination of molibresib with endocrine therapy might overcome endocrine resistance. This study aimed to investigate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy [objective response rate (ORR)] of molibresib combined with fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2- mBC.Patients and methodsIn this phase I/II dose-escalation and dose-expansion study, patients received oral molibresib 60 or 80 mg once daily in combination with intramuscular fulvestrant. Patients enrolled had relapsed/refractory, advanced/metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer with disease progression on prior treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor.ResultsThe study included 123 patients. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AE) were nausea (52%), dysgeusia (49%), and fatigue (45%). At a 60-mg dosage of molibresib, >90% of patients experienced treatment-related AE. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related AE were observed in 47% and 48% of patients treated with molibresib 60 mg and molibresib 80 mg, respectively. The ORR was 13% [95% confidence interval (CI), 8-20], not meeting the 25% threshold for proceeding to phase II. Among 82 patients with detected circulating tumor DNA and clinical outcome at study enrollment, a strong association was observed between the detection of copy-number amplification and poor progression-free survival (HR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.73-4.83; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsMolibresib in combination with fulvestrant did not demonstrate clinically meaningful activity in this study.
| S-EPMC10792358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The number of treatment options for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer has increased substantially in recent years. The classic treatment approach for these patients-androgen-deprivation therapy alone-is now considered suboptimal. Several randomized phase III clinical trials have demonstrated significant clinical benefits-including significantly better overall survival and quality of life-for treatments that combine androgen-deprivation therapy with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, apalutamide, and/or radiotherapy to the primary tumour. As a result, these approaches are now included in treatment guidelines and considered standard of care. However, the different treatment strategies have not been directly compared, and thus treatment selection remains at the discretion of the individual physician or, ideally, a multidisciplinary team. Given the range of available treatment approaches with varying toxicity profiles, treatment selection should be individualized based on the patient's clinical characteristics and preferences, which implies active patient participation in the decision-making process. In the present document, we discuss the changing landscape of the management of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in the context of several recently-published landmark randomized trials. In addition, we discuss several unresolved issues, including the optimal sequencing of systemic treatments and the incorporation of local treatment of the primary tumour and metastases.
| S-EPMC7918528 | biostudies-literature