Dataset Information

Secondary endpoints analysis in patients with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer treated with everolimus and exemestane enrolled in Oral Care-BC.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Oral Care BC-trial reported that professional oral care (POC) reduces the incidence and severity of oral mucositis in patients receiving everolimus (EVE) and exemestane (EXE). However, the effect of POC on clinical response among patients receiving EVE and EXE was not established. We compared outcomes for estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer patients who received POC to those who had not, and evaluated clinical prognostic factors. All patients simultaneously received EVE and EXE.

Methods

Between May 2015 and Dec 2017, 174 eligible patients were enrolled in the Oral Care-BC trial. The primary endpoint was the comparative incidence of grade 1 or worse oral mucositis, as evaluated for both the groups over 8?weeks by an oncologist. The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Data were collected after a follow-up period of 13.9?months.

Results

There were no significant differences in PFS between the POC and Control Groups (P?=?0.801). A BMI?2 and non-visceral metastasis were associated with longer PFS (P?=?0.018 and P?=?0.003, respectively) and the use of bone modifying agents (BMA) was associated with shorter PFS (P?=?0.028). The PFS and OS between the POC and control groups were not significantly different in the Oral-Care BC trial.

Conclusions

POC did not influence the prognosis of estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer patients. Patients with non-visceral metastasis, a BMI?2, and who did not receive BMA while receiving EVE and EXE may have better prognoses.

Trial registration

The study protocol was registered online at the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN), Japan (protocol ID 000016109), on January 5, 2015 and at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02376985 ).

SUBMITTER: Nakatsukasa K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7791872 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Secondary endpoints analysis in patients with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer treated with everolimus and exemestane enrolled in Oral Care-BC.

Nakatsukasa Katsuhiko K Niikura Naoki N Kashiwabara Kosuke K Amemiya Takeshi T Watanabe Ken-Ichi KI Hata Hironobu H Kikawa Yuichiro Y Taniike Naoki N Yamanaka Takashi T Mitsunaga Sachiyo S Nakagami Kazuhiko K Adachi Moriyasu M Kondo Naoto N Shibuya Yasuyuki Y Hayashi Naoki N Naito Mariko M Yamashita Toshinari T Umeda Masahiro M Mukai Hirofumi H Ota Yoshihide Y

BMC cancer 20210107 1

<h4>Background</h4>The Oral Care BC-trial reported that professional oral care (POC) reduces the incidence and severity of oral mucositis in patients receiving everolimus (EVE) and exemestane (EXE). However, the effect of POC on clinical response among patients receiving EVE and EXE was not established. We compared outcomes for estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer patients who received POC to those who had not, and evaluated clinical prognostic factors. All patients simultaneously ...[more]

PMID: 33413212

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The incidence of oral mucositis (any grade) after everolimus treatment is 58% in the general population and 81% in Asian patients. This study hypothesized that professional oral care (POC) before everolimus treatment could reduce the incidence of everolimus-induced oral mucositis. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III study evaluated the efficacy of POC in preventing everolimus-induced mucositis. Patients were randomized into POC and control groups (1:1 ratio) and received everolimus with exemestane. Patients in the POC group underwent teeth surface cleaning, scaling, and tongue cleaning before everolimus initiation and continued to receive weekly POC throughout the 8-week treatment period. Patients in the control group brushed their own teeth and gargled with 0.9% sodium chloride solution or water. The primary endpoint was the incidence of all grades of oral mucositis. We targeted acquisition of 200 patients with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% and 80% power to detect 25% risk reduction. RESULTS:Between March 2015 and December 2017, we enrolled 175 women from 31 institutions, of which five did not receive the protocol treatment and were excluded. Over the 8?weeks, the incidence of grade 1 oral mucositis was significantly different between the POC group (76.5%, 62 of 82 patients) and control group (89.7%, 78 of 87 patients; p = .034). The incidence of grade 2 (severe) oral mucositis was also significantly different between the POC group (34.6%, 28 of 82 patients) and control group (54%, 47 of 87 patients; p = .015). As a result of oral mucositis, 18 (22.0%) patients in the POC group and 28 (32.2%) in the control group had to undergo everolimus dose reduction. CONCLUSION:POC reduced the incidence and severity of oral mucositis in patients receiving everolimus and exemestane. This might be considered as a treatment option of oral care for patients undergoing this treatment. Clinical trial identification number: NCT02069093. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:The Oral Care-BC trial that prophylactically used professional oral care (POC), available worldwide, did not show a greater than 25% difference in mucositis. The 12% difference in grade 1 or higher mucositis and especially the ?20% difference in grade 2 mucositis are likely clinically meaningful to patients. POC before treatment should be considered as a treatment option of oral care for postmenopausal patients who are receiving everolimus and exemestane for treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and metastatic breast cancer. However, POC was not adequate for prophylactic oral mucositis in these patients, and dexamethasone mouthwash prophylaxis is standard treatment before everolimus.

Project description:BackgroundOral mucositis is a clinically significant adverse event linked to cancer therapy; it reduces the quality of life of patients and may result in the discontinuation of treatment and a poorer prognosis. Based on level 3 evidence, the Mucositis Study Group of Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer and the International Society of Oral Oncology recommend oral care for all patients receiving cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy, although no data from large-scaled randomized controlled trials support the efficacy of oral care in preventing oral mucositis. Therefore, this randomized, controlled, multicenter, open-label, phase III study sought to determine whether professional oral care reduces oral mucositis in everolimus and exemestane-treated estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer patients.MethodsAltogether, 169 patients were randomized into the professional oral care (n=82) and control (n=87) groups. The professional oral care group received oral health instruction, professional mechanical tooth and tongue cleaning, gargling with a benzethonium chloride mouthwash, and dexamethasone ointment when grade 1 mucositis manifested. The control group received oral health instruction and gargling. Eight weeks after the everolimus and exemestane administration, the oral status (Oral Assessment Guide criteria) and oral mucositis status (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events functional and clinical examinations) were evaluated.ResultsThe incidence of oral mucositis of any grade and grade 2 severe mucositis was significantly lower in the professional oral care group, based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events functional and clinical examinations. The total Oral Assessment Guide score, total Oral Assessment Guide grade, and Oral Assessment Guide score of teeth/dentures and mucous membranes were significantly different between the two groups. The Oral Assessment Guide grade for swallow, lip, teeth/dentures, mucous membrane, tongue, and saliva significantly correlated to oral mucositis severity.ConclusionsProfessional oral care may prevent oral mucositis and improve teeth/denture conditions in patients receiving everolimus and exemestane.

Project description:Importance:Everolimus plus exemestane and capecitabine are approved second-line therapies for advanced breast cancer. Objective:A postapproval commitment to health authorities to estimate the clinical benefit of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus or capecitabine monotherapy for estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Design:Open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial of treatment effects in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer that had progressed during treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. Interventions:Patients were randomized to 3 treatment regimens: (1) everolimus (10 mg/d) plus exemestane (25 mg/d); (2) everolimus alone (10 mg/d); and (3) capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m2 twice daily). Main Outcomes and Measures:Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone (primary objective) or capecitabine alone (key secondary objective). Safety was a secondary objective. No formal statistical comparisons were planned. Results:A total of 309 postmenopausal women were enrolled, median age, 61 years (range, 32-88 years). Of these, 104 received everolimus plus exemestane; 103, everolimus alone; and 102, capecitabine alone. Median follow-up from randomization to the analysis cutoff (June 1, 2017) was 37.6 months. Estimated HR of PFS was 0.74 (90% CI, 0.57-0.97) for the primary objective of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone and 1.26 (90% CI, 0.96-1.66) for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine alone. Between treatment arms, potential informative censoring was noted, and a stratified multivariate Cox regression model was used to account for imbalances in baseline characteristics; a consistent HR was observed for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus (0.73; 90% CI, 0.56-0.97), but the HR was closer to 1 for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine (1.15; 90% CI, 0.86-1.52). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more frequent with capecitabine (74%; n?=?75) vs everolimus plus exemestane (70%; n?=?73) or everolimus alone (59%; n?=?61). Serious adverse events were more frequent with everolimus plus exemestane (36%; n?=?37) vs everolimus alone (29%; n?=?30) or capecitabine (29%; n?=?30). Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that everolimus plus exemestane combination therapy offers a PFS benefit vs everolimus alone, and they support continued use of this therapy in this setting. A numerical PFS difference with capecitabine vs everolimus plus exemestane should be interpreted cautiously owing to imbalances among baseline characteristics and potential informative censoring. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01783444.

Project description:BackgroundThere is currently no clinical trial data regarding the efficacy of everolimus exemestane (EE) following prior treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i). This study assesses the use and efficacy of everolimus exemestane in patients with metastatic HR+ HER2- breast cancer previously treated with endocrine therapy (ET) or endocrine therapy + CDK4/6i.MethodsRetrospective analysis of electronic health record-derived data for HR+ HER2- metastatic breast cancer from 2012 to 2018. The proportion of patients receiving EE first-line, second-line, or third-line, and the median duration of EE prior to next line of treatment (TTNT) by line of therapy was calculated. OS for patients receiving EE first-line, second-line, or third-line, indexed to the date of first-line therapy initiation and stratified by prior treatment received, was calculated with Kaplan-Meier method with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.ResultsSix hundred twenty-two patients received EE first-line (n?=?104, 16.7%), second-line (n?=?273, 43.9%) or third-line (n?=?245, 39.4%). Median TTNT was 8.3?months, 5.5?months, and 4.8?months respectively. Median TTNT of EE second-line was longer following prior ET alone compared to prior ET + CDK4/6i (6.2?months (95% CI 5.2, 7.3) vs 4.3?months (95% CI 3.2, 5.7) respectively, p?=?0.03). Similarly, EE third-line following ET alone vs ET + CDK4/6i in first- or second-line resulted in median TTNT 5.6?months (95% CI 4.4, 6.9) vs 4.1?months (95% CI 3.6, 6.1) respectively, although this was not statistically significant (p?=?0.08). Median OS was longer for patients who received EE following prior ET + CDK4/6i. EE second-line following ET + CDK 4/6i vs ET alone resulted in median OS 37.7?months vs. 32.7?months (p?=?0.449). EE third-line following ET + CDK4/6i vs prior ET alone resulted in median OS 59.2?months vs. 40.8?months (p?<?0.010). This difference in OS was not statistically significant when indexed to the start of EE therapy.ConclusionThis study suggests that EE remains an effective treatment option after prior ET or ET + CDK4/6i use. Median TTNT of EE was longer for patients who received prior ET, whereas median OS was longer for patients who received prior ET + CDK4/6i. However, this improvement in OS was not statistically significant when indexed to the start of EE therapy suggesting that OS benefit is primarily driven by prior CDK4/6i use. EE remains an effective treatment option regardless of prior treatment option.

Dataset Information

Secondary endpoints analysis in patients with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer treated with everolimus and exemestane enrolled in Oral Care-BC.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Secondary endpoints analysis in patients with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer treated with everolimus and exemestane enrolled in Oral Care-BC.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets