Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane versus fulvestrant for hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer following progression/recurrence after endocrine therapy: a network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer recurring/progressing on or after initial (adjuvant or first-line) endocrine therapy may be treated multiple times with one of several endocrine or combinatorial targeted treatment options before initiating chemotherapy. In the absence of direct head-to-head comparisons of these treatment options, an indirect comparison can inform treatment choice. This network meta-analysis compared the efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane with that of fulvestrant 250 and 500 mg in the advanced breast cancer setting following adjuvant or first-line endocrine therapy. The reported hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression from six studies that formed a network to compare everolimus plus exemestane (BOLERO-2 trial) with fulvestrant were analyzed by means of a Bayesian network meta-analysis. In the primary comparison (PFS analysis based on the local review of disease progression from BOLERO-2 with the data from the other studies), everolimus plus exemestane appeared to be more efficacious than both fulvestrant 250 mg (HR = 0.47; 95 % credible interval [CrI] 0.38-0.58) and 500 mg (HR = 0.59; 95 % CrI 0.45-0.77). Similar results were obtained in an alternate comparison based on central review of disease progression from BOLERO-2 with the data from the other studies (HR = 0.40; 95 % CrI 0.31-0.51 and HR = 0.50; 95 % CrI 0.37-0.67, respectively), and in a subgroup analysis of patients who had received prior aromatase inhibitor therapy (HR = 0.47; 95 % CrI 0.38-0.58 and HR = 0.55; 95 % CrI 0.40-0.76, respectively). These results suggest that everolimus plus exemestane may be more efficacious than fulvestrant in patients with advanced breast cancer who progress on or after adjuvant or first-line therapy with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor.

SUBMITTER: Bachelot T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3889833 | biostudies-other | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane versus fulvestrant for hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer following progression/recurrence after endocrine therapy: a network meta-analysis.

Bachelot Thomas T McCool Rachael R Duffy Steven S Glanville Julie J Varley Danielle D Fleetwood Kelly K Zhang Jie J Jerusalem Guy G

Breast cancer research and treatment 20131124 1

Postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer recurring/progressing on or after initial (adjuvant or first-line) endocrine therapy may be treated multiple times with one of several endocrine or combinatorial targeted treatment options before initiating chemotherapy. In the absence of direct head-to-head comparisons of these treatment options, an indirect comparison can inform treatment choice. This network meta-analysis compared the efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane with that of fulvestr ...[more]

PMID: 24272078

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The prognostic and predictive value of the two nonluminal (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-enriched and basal-like) subtypes within advanced hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer is currently unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This study retrospectively analyzed 261 tumors (80.7% primary; 19.3% metastatic) from the BOLERO-2 study; BOLERO-2 randomized 724 patients with advanced HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer to everolimus plus exemestane or placebo plus exemestane. Tumors were classified using a PAM50 subtype predictor. Multivariable Cox regression analyses tested the independent prognostic significance of PAM50, and associations between PAM50 subtypes and treatment upon progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated. RESULTS:Subtype distribution was 46.7% luminal A (n = 122), 21.5% HER2-enriched (n = 56), 15.7% luminal B (n = 41), 14.2% normal-like (n = 37), and 1.9% basal-like (n = 5); HER2-enriched subtypes were more common in metastatic versus primary tumors (32.0% vs. 18.7%; p = .038). Median PFS differences between luminal and nonluminal (6.7 vs. 5.2 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.94; p = .020) and HER2-enriched and non-HER2-enriched subtypes (5.2 vs. 6.2 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.07-2.19; p = .019) were significant. Everolimus plus exemestane significantly improved median PFS versus placebo plus exemestane among patients with HER2-enriched tumors (5.8 vs. 4.1 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.90; p = .034); however, the association between HER2-enriched tumors and everolimus benefit was nonsignificant (p = .433). CONCLUSION:The HER2-enriched subtype was identified in a substantial proportion of advanced HR+/HER2-negative breast tumors, and was a consistent biomarker of poor prognosis. Tailored therapies are therefore needed for HER2-enriched tumors in the advanced HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Using 261 tumor samples from the BOLERO-2 phase III clinical trial, this study shows that a substantial proportion (20%-30%) of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancers do not have a luminal A or B gene expression profile. This group of patients with nonluminal disease has a poor survival outcome regardless of the addition of everolimus to exemestane. This is the second study that confirms the prognostic value of this biomarker. Overall, these findings indicate a necessity to design novel clinical trials targeting nonluminal disease within HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer.

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: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.

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:Male breast cancer is a rare event, accounting for approximately 1% of all breast carcinomas. Although men with breast cancer had poorer survival when compared with women, data on prognosis principally derive from retrospective studies and from extrapolation of female breast cancer series. We reported the case of a very long survival patient.A caucasian 42-year-old man underwent radical mastectomy with axillary dissection for breast cancer in 1993. Pathologic stage was pT4pN0M0 infiltrating ductal carcinoma of right breast without lymph nodes metastases. Biological characterization was not available. He received adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy, six cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil, then endocrine therapy with tamoxifen for 5 years and complementary radiotherapy. Then he began clinical-instrumental follow up. In May 1996, a computed tomography scan showed multiple lung metastases. Hereafter he received several oncologic treatment including seven chemotherapy and five endocrine therapy lines with two re-challenge of endocrine therapy. In October 2007 further lung progression was showed and a biopsy was performed to characterize the disease. Histological examination confirmed breast cancer metastases, immunohistochemistry showed positive staining for estrogen receptor, negative for progesterone receptor and human epithelial growth factor receptor 2, proliferative index was 21%. In April 2013, bone disease progression was evident and he received radiant treatment to sacral spine. In May 2014 an off-label treatment with exemestane and everolimus combination was approved by Ethics Committee of the Marche Region. The patient received treatment for 3 months with evident clinical benefit to subcutaneous lesions of the chest wall that were not visible nor palpable on physical examination after 1 month of treatment.That is the case of long survival male breast cancer patient with luminal B subtype and no BRCA mutations. He achieved higher progression free survival with endocrine therapy creating the rationale for last line treatment with everolimus and exemestane combination. Attending conclusive results from ongoing studies, everolimus and exemestane should not be used routinely in male metastatic breast cancer patients, but taking into account for selected cases. At the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of male beast cancer treated with exemestane and everolimus combination.

Project description:Resistance to endocrine therapy in breast cancer is associated with activation of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) intracellular signaling pathway. In early studies, the mTOR inhibitor everolimus added to endocrine therapy showed antitumor activity.In this phase 3, randomized trial, we compared everolimus and exemestane versus exemestane and placebo (randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio) in 724 patients with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who had recurrence or progression while receiving previous therapy with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in the adjuvant setting or to treat advanced disease (or both). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included survival, response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed by an independent data and safety monitoring committee after 359 progression-free survival events were observed.Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two study groups. The median age was 62 years, 56% had visceral involvement, and 84% had hormone-sensitive disease. Previous therapy included letrozole or anastrozole (100%), tamoxifen (48%), fulvestrant (16%), and chemotherapy (68%). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were stomatitis (8% in the everolimus-plus-exemestane group vs. 1% in the placebo-plus-exemestane group), anemia (6% vs. <1%), dyspnea (4% vs. 1%), hyperglycemia (4% vs. <1%), fatigue (4% vs. 1%), and pneumonitis (3% vs. 0%). At the interim analysis, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with everolimus plus exemestane and 2.8 months with placebo plus exemestane, according to assessments by local investigators (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.54; P<0.001). Median progression-free survival was 10.6 months and 4.1 months, respectively, according to central assessment (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.47; P<0.001).Everolimus combined with an aromatase inhibitor improved progression-free survival in patients with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer previously treated with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. (Funded by Novartis; BOLERO-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00863655.).

Project description:Background:Breast cancer and its treatments are associated with a detrimental effect on bone health. Here we report the results of an exploratory analysis assessing changes in levels of biomarkers of bone metabolism in patients enrolled in the phase IIIb 4EVER study. Methods:The 4EVER trial investigated everolimus in combination with exemestane in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. In this prespecified exploratory analysis, changes in biomarkers of bone turnover were assessed in patients from baseline to weeks 4, 12, and 24. The serum bone markers assessed were procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP), C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX), osteocalcin, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH-vitamin D). On-treatment changes in bone markers over time were described per subgroup of interest and efficacy outcomes. Results:Bone marker data were available for 241 of 299 enrolled patients. At the final assessment, P1NP, osteocalcin, PTH, 25-OH-vitamin D (all P?<?0.001), and CTX (P?=?0.036) were significantly decreased from baseline values per the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. At the last assessment (24 weeks or earlier), levels of serum CTX and PTH were significantly lower (P?=?0.009 and P?=?0.034, respectively) among patients with vs. without prior antiresorptive treatment (ART). Serum CTX levels were significantly lower (P?<?0.001), and 25-OH-vitamin D concentrations significantly higher (P?=?0.029), at the last postbaseline assessment in patients receiving concomitant ART vs. those without ART. Changes from baseline in PTH and 25-OH-vitamin D concentrations to the final assessment were significantly smaller in patients with prior ART. Lower baseline serum concentrations of osteocalcin and PTH were associated with clinical response (partial vs. non-response) at 24 weeks. High serum levels of CTX and P1NP at baseline were risk factors for progression at 12 weeks. Conclusions:These exploratory analyses support use of everolimus plus exemestane for the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer, and add to the body of evidence suggesting a potentially favorable impact of everolimus on bone turnover. Trial registration:NCT01626222. Registered 22 June 2012, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01626222.

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane versus fulvestrant for hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer following progression/recurrence after endocrine therapy: a network meta-analysis.

Publications

Comparative efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane versus fulvestrant for hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer following progression/recurrence after endocrine therapy: a network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets