Dataset Information

Efficacy of Fulvestrant in Women with Hormone-Resistant Metastatic Breast Cancer (mBC): A Canadian Province Experience.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

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.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study assessed Saskatchewan women with HR+ mBC who received fulvestrant between 2003-2019. A multivariate Cox proportional survival analysis was performed.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

SUBMITTER: Andrahennadi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8391338 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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.

Project description:Purpose The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus targets aberrant signaling through the PI3K/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway, a mechanism of resistance to anti-estrogen therapy in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. We hypothesized that everolimus plus the selective ER downregulator fulvestrant would be more efficacious than fulvestrant alone in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Patients and Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study included 131 postmenopausal women with ER-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, AI-resistant metastatic breast cancer randomly assigned to fulvestrant (500 mg days 1 and 15 of cycle 1, then day 1 of cycles 2 and beyond) plus everolimus or placebo. The study was designed to have 90% power to detect a 70% improvement in median progression-free survival from 5.4 months to 9.2 months. Secondary end points included objective response and clinical benefit rate (response or stable disease for at least 24 weeks). Prophylactic corticosteroid mouth rinses were not used. Results The addition of everolimus to fulvestrant improved the median progression-free survival from 5.1 to 10.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.92]; stratified log-rank P = .02), indicating that the primary trial end point was met. Objective response rates were similar (18.2% v 12.3%; P = .47), but the clinical benefit rate was significantly higher in the everolimus arm (63.6% v 41.5%; P = .01). Adverse events of all grades occurred more often in the everolimus arm, including oral mucositis (53% v 12%), fatigue (42% v 22%), rash (38% v 5%), anemia (31% v. 6%), diarrhea (23% v 8%), hyperglycemia (19% v 5%), hypertriglyceridemia (17% v 3%), and pneumonitis (17% v 0%), although grade 3 to 4 events were uncommon. Conclusion Everolimus enhances the efficacy of fulvestrant in AI-resistant, ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of targeted therapy plus fulvestrant for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. METHODS:Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science databases were systematically searched on February 26, 2018. Eligible studies were screened according to selection criteria, and two reviewers independently extracted outcome data which included progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, clinical benefit rate and toxicities. RevMan 5.3 and STATA 11.0 software were used to conduct meta-analysis. RESULTS:Thirteen articles including twelve randomized-control trials fulfilled selection criteria. There was no evidence regarding the existence of publication bias and high-risk bias of quality in the selected studies. In previously endocrine therapy-treated postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor positive advanced breast cancer, the PFS (HR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.66-0.91) and ORR (RR = 1.78, 95%CI: 1.35-2.34) of combination therapy group were significantly higher than that from fulvestrant monotherapy group. Besides, a statistically significant difference in PFS was found across the two arms in postmenopausal women with PIK3CA-mutant ctDNA tumor (HR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.39-0.69). Moreover, the risk of adverse events (RR = 1.09, 95%CI: 1.05-1.13), CTCAE?3 (RR = 1.97, 95%CI: 1.49-2.60) and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR = 4.91, 95%CI: 3.37-7.15) were also significantly different between two treatment groups. Sensitivity analysis showed PLOMA-3 trial was an important factor of heterogeneity. DISCUSSION:Even though the combination of targeted therapy plus fulvestrant improved PFS and increased ORR in advanced breast cancer patients, the toxicities of combination therapy were also higher than fulvestrant monotherapy. Further studies related to inhibitors targeting the specific signaling pathway or receptors are urgently needed, and more efforts concerning precision medicine of targeted therapy plus endocrine therapy should be taken to improve the clinical benefits.