Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in East Asian women with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer: Overall survival from MONARCH 2.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Toi M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9807498 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in East Asian women with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer: Overall survival from MONARCH 2.
Toi Masakazu M Huang Chiun-Sheng CS Im Young-Hyuck YH Sohn Joohyuk J Zhang Wei W Sakaguchi Sachi S Haddad Nadine N van Hal Gertjan G Sledge George W GW
Cancer science 20221012 1
MONARCH 2 is a global, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of abemaciclib/placebo + fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. The East Asian population comprised 212 (31.7%) of the 669 intent-to-treat population in the MONARCH 2 trial. Consistent with the primary analysis, this subpopulation analysis of East Asian patients indicated progression-free survival benefit in the abemaciclib arm. The median over ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:This post hoc analysis of MONARCH 2 and MONARCH 3 assesses the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of abemaciclib in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) in East Asian patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer. MONARCH 2 and MONARCH 3 are global, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 studies of abemaciclib/placebo + fulvestrant and abemaciclib/placebo + nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI, anastrozole or letrozole), respectively. The East Asian population comprised 212 (31.7%) of the 669 intent-to-treat (ITT) population in the MONARCH 2 trial and 144 (29.2%) of the 493 ITT patients in the MONARCH 3 trial. In the East Asian population, median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly prolonged in the abemaciclib arm compared with placebo in both MONARCH 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.520; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.362 to 0.747; P < .001; median: 21.2 vs 11.6 months) and MONARCH 3 (HR, 0.326; 95% CI, 0.200 to 0.531, P < .001; median: not reached vs 12.82 months). Diarrhea (MONARCH 2: 90%; MONARCH 3: 88%) and neutropenia (MONARCH 2: 68%; MONARCH 3: 58%) were the most frequent adverse events observed in the East Asian populations. Abemaciclib exposures and PK were similar in East Asians and the non-East Asian populations of both trials. Abemaciclib in combination with ET in the East Asian populations of MONARCH 2 and MONARCH 3 provided consistent results with the ITT populations, demonstrating improvements in efficacy with generally tolerable safety profiles for patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer.
| S-EPMC8177785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) versus ET alone in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) from China, Brazil, India, and South Africa.MethodsThis randomized, double-blind, phase III study was conducted between 9 December 2016 and 29 March 2019. Postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative ABC with no prior systemic therapy in an advanced setting (cohort A) or progression on prior ET (cohort B) received abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily) or placebo plus: anastrozole (1 mg/day) or letrozole (2.5 mg/day) (cohort A) or fulvestrant (500 mg per label) (cohort B). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in cohort A, analyzed using the stratified log-rank test. Secondary endpoints were PFS in cohort B (key secondary endpoint), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. This interim analysis was planned after 119 PFS events in cohort A.ResultsIn cohort A, 207 patients were randomly assigned to the abemaciclib arm and 99 to the placebo arm. Abemaciclib significantly improved PFS versus placebo (median: not reached versus 14.7 months; hazard ratio 0.499; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.346-0.719; p = 0.0001). ORR was 65.9% in the abemaciclib arm and 36.1% in the placebo arm (p < 0.0001, measurable disease population). In cohort B, 104 patients were randomly assigned to the abemaciclib arm and 53 to the placebo arm. Abemaciclib significantly improved PFS versus placebo (median: 11.5 versus 5.6 months; hazard ratio 0.376; 95% CI 0.240-0.588; p < 0.0001). ORR was 50.0% in the abemaciclib arm and 10.5% in the placebo arm (p < 0.0001, measurable disease population). The most frequent grade ⩾3 adverse events in the abemaciclib arms were neutropenia, leukopenia, and anemia (both cohorts), and lymphocytopenia (cohort B).ConclusionThe addition of abemaciclib to ET demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS and ORR, without new safety signals observed in this population.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02763566.
| S-EPMC7586037 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:MONARCH 3, a phase III trial (NCT02246621) of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC), previously demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival in patients receiving abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). This study evaluated patient-reported outcomes, including global health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, and symptoms. METHODS:Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily; n =?328) or placebo (n =?165), plus 1 mg anastrozole or 2.5 mg letrozole daily. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Breast Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire HRQoL instruments were administered at baseline, every two cycles during cycles 2 through 19 (each cycle being 28?days), every three cycles thereafter, and once at a short-term posttherapy follow-up visit (approximately 30?days after discontinuation). Longitudinal mixed regression and Cox proportional hazards models evaluated postbaseline change and time to sustained deterioration (TTSD), respectively. RESULTS:Baseline scores were similar between treatment arms. Although select scores statistically favored the placebo arm, global HRQoL, most symptoms, and functioning scales did not meet the threshold for clinically meaningful differences between treatment arms. Only diarrhea favored the placebo arm with statistically and clinically meaningful differences. There were no TTSD differences between treatment arms for global HRQoL, most symptoms (except diarrhea), or functioning. CONCLUSION:Over a 2-year period, there were no clinically meaningful differences in global HRQoL, functioning, and most symptoms for patients receiving abemaciclib plus NSAI compared with NSAI alone. Only diarrhea favored the placebo arm, consistent with prior safety data, which has been shown to be manageable and reversible. Combined with clinical efficacy, results support treatment with abemaciclib plus NSAI for postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:The addition of abemaciclib to a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) was not associated with a clinically meaningful detriment in patient-reported global health-related quality of life, functioning, and most symptoms in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Prior studies have also demonstrated clinical efficacy of abemaciclib plus NSAI compared with NSAI alone, including improved progression-free survival and objective response rate. These results also complement previously reported toxicity data, as measured by investigator-assessed adverse events. Taken together, these results support treatment with abemaciclib plus NSAI for postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC.
| S-EPMC7485333 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In the phase III MONARCH 2 study (NCT02107703), abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study assessed patient-reported pain, global health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, and symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Abemaciclib or placebo (150 p.o. mg twice daily) plus fulvestrant (500 mg, per label) were randomly assigned (2:1). The modified Brief Pain Inventory, Short Form (mBPI-sf); European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Core 30 (QLQ-C30); and Breast Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-BR23) assessed outcomes. Data were collected at baseline, cycle 2, every two cycles 3-13, thereafter at every three cycles, and 30?days postdiscontinuation. Longitudinal mixed regression and Cox proportional hazards models assessed postbaseline change and time to sustained deterioration (TTSD) by study arm. RESULTS:On-treatment HRQoL scores were consistently maintained from baseline and similar between arms. Patients in the abemaciclib arm (n =?446) experienced a 4.9-month delay in pain deterioration (mBPI-sf), compared with the control arm (n =?223), and significantly greater TTSD on the mBPI-sf and analgesic use (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and QLQ-C30 pain item (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79). TTSD for functioning and most symptoms significantly favored the abemaciclib arm, including fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and cognitive and social functioning. Only diarrhea significantly favored the control arm (hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.20-2.10). CONCLUSION:HRQoL was maintained on abemaciclib plus fulvestrant. Alongside superior PFS and manageable safety profile, results support treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in a population of patients with endocrine-resistant HR+, HER2-negative ABC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant demonstrated superior efficacy and a manageable safety profile for patients with in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important to consider, given the palliative nature of ABC treatment. In this study, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, significantly delayed sustained deterioration of pain and other patient-reported symptoms (including fatigue, nausea, vomiting), and social and cognitive functioning. Combined with demonstrated clinical benefit and tolerability, the stabilization of patient-reported symptoms and HRQoL further supports abemaciclib plus fulvestrant as a desirable treatment option in endocrine resistant, HR+, HER2- ABC.
| S-EPMC7011625 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8206485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe phase III MONALEESA-3 trial included first- (1L) and second-line (2L) patients and demonstrated a significant overall survival (OS) benefit for ribociclib + fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) in the final protocol-specified and exploratory (longer follow-up) OS analyses. At the time of these analyses, the full OS benefit of 1L ribociclib was not completely characterized because the median OS (mOS) was not reached. As CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) + endocrine therapy (ET) is now a preferred option for 1L HR+/HER2- ABC, we report an exploratory analysis (median follow-up, 70.8 months; 14.5 months longer than the prior analysis) to fully elucidate the OS benefit in the MONALEESA-3 1L population.MethodsPostmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC were randomized 2:1 to 1L/2L fulvestrant + ribociclib or placebo. OS in 1L patients (de novo disease or relapse > 12 months from completion of [neo]adjuvant ET) was assessed by Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier methods. Progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) and chemotherapy-free survival (CFS) were analyzed. MONALEESA-3 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02422615).ResultsAt data cutoff (January 12, 2022; median follow-up time, 70.8 months), mOS was 67.6 versus 51.8 months with 1L ribociclib versus placebo (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.90); 16.5% and 8.6% of ribociclib and placebo patients, respectively, were still receiving treatment. PFS2 (HR 0.64) and CFS (HR 0.62) favored ribociclib versus placebo. Among those who discontinued treatment, 16.7% and 35.0% on ribociclib or placebo, respectively, received a subsequent CDK4/6i. No new safety signals were observed.ConclusionsThis analysis of MONALEESA-3 reports the longest mOS thus far (67.6 months) for 1L patients in a phase III ABC trial. These results in a 1L population show that the OS benefit of ribociclib was maintained through extended follow-up, further supporting its use in HR+/HER2- ABC.
| S-EPMC10469877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceStatistically 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsMONARCH 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.InterventionsPatients 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsOf 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 relevanceTreatment 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107703.
| S-EPMC6777264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although early breast cancer (BC) is highly curable, advanced or metastatic disease poses numerous challenges in terms of medical management and treatment decisions and is associated with significantly worse prognosis. Among the new targeted agents, anticancer drugs exploiting the cell-cycle machinery have shown great potential in preclinical studies. CDK4/6 inhibitors target the cyclin D/CDK/retinoblastoma signaling pathway, inducing cell-cycle arrest, reduced cell viability and tumor shrinking. As the cyclin D/CDK complex is activated downstream of estrogen signaling, the combination of CDK4/6 inhibitors with standard endocrine therapies represents a rational approach to elicit synergic antitumor activity in hormone receptor-positive BC. The results of clinical trials have indeed confirmed the superiority of the combination of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapies over endocrine therapy alone. Currently approved are three compounds that exhibit similar structural characteristics as well as biological and clinical activities. Abemaciclib is the latest CDK4/6 inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in view of the results of the MONARCH 1 and 2 trials. Further trials are ongoing as other important questions await response. In this review, we focus on abemaciclib to examine preclinical and clinical results, describing current therapeutic indications, open questions and ongoing clinical trials.
| S-EPMC5818877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS, 16.4 vs 9.3 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.553) and overall survival (OS, 46.7 vs 37.3 months; HR 0.757) compared with placebo plus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-negative) advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients who were endocrine therapy (ET) resistant, regardless of menopausal status. Here, we report findings in the premenopausal subgroup of the MONARCH 2 trial.MethodsThe premenopausal subgroup included patients with natural menstrual bleeding who received a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist at least 4 weeks prior to study treatment start date and for the entire study duration. Of the 669 patients enrolled in the MONARCH 2 trial, 114 were premenopausal (abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, n = 72; placebo plus fulvestrant, n = 42), and were included in this analysis. The primary objective was investigator-assessed PFS and secondary objectives were OS, objective response rate, and safety and tolerability. Exploratory analyses included time to second disease progression (PFS2), time to chemotherapy (TTC), and chemotherapy-free survival (CFS).ResultsAt the primary objective cutoff (February 14, 2017), median PFS was not reached for the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm versus 10.52 months for the placebo plus fulvestrant arm (HR 0.415; 95% CI 0.246-0.698). At the pre-specified OS interim cutoff (20-June-2019), median PFS was 28.6 months in the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm compared with 10.26 months in the placebo plus fulvestrant arm (HR 0.477; 95% CI 0.302-0.755). A numerical OS benefit was observed with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant compared to fulvestrant alone (HR 0.689; 95% CI 0.379-1.252, median, not reached vs 47.3 months). Improvements were also observed for the exploratory outcomes of PFS2 (HR 0.599), TTC (HR 0.674), and CFS (HR 0.642) with the addition of abemaciclib to fulvestrant. The safety profile was generally consistent with results disclosed previously.ConclusionsResults of the premenopausal subgroup in the MONARCH 2 trial were consistent with the improved clinical outcomes observed in the intent-to-treat population. The analysis provides support for the use of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (with ovarian suppression) as an effective treatment option for premenopausal patients with HR+, HER2- ABC who are ET-resistant.Clinical trial registrationNCT02107703. Registered April 08, 2014- Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02107703 .
| S-EPMC8381581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this article is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy (ABE + ET) vs. ET as adjuvant treatment for high-risk hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer in China.MethodsFrom the perspective of the Chinese health care system, a 5-state Markov model was developed with a lifetime horizon. Data of the monarchE phase III clinical trial were used to model the invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and standard parameters models were used for data extrapolation. Costs were obtained from national data sources, expert opinions and published literature using 2023 US dollars and discounted by 5%. The results were evaluated in terms of life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the basic results.ResultsIn the base-case analysis result, the model projected improved outcomes (by 0.65 LYs and 0.72 QALYs) and increased costs (by $16,057.72) for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $24,841/LY and $22,385/QALY for ABE + ET vs. ET patients. The results in scenario analysis estimated the ICERs of ABE + ET treatment to be $16,959/LY and $15,264/QALY in a mixture cure model, and $13,560/LY and $12,191/QALY in a non-mixture cure model. The model was sensitive to outcome discount rate and utility of iDFS.ConclusionABE + ET might not have an economic advantage over ET at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of one time the per capita GDP in China, but was expected to be more cost-effective at a WTP threshold of three times the per capita GDP. Further analysis will be conducted once data from longer-term studies become available.
| S-EPMC10683222 | biostudies-literature