Palbociclib as single agent or in combination with the endocrine therapy received before disease progression for estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: TREnd trial.

Background: The activity of palbociclib as a single agent in advanced breast cancer has not been extensively studied, with the only available clinical data limited to heavily pretreated patients. Preclinical data suggests palbociclib may partially reverse endocrine resistance, though this hypothesis has not been evaluated in previous clinical studies. This phase II, open-label, multicenter study examined the activity of palbociclib monotherapy, as well as palbociclib given in combination with the same endocrine therapy (ET) that was received prior to disease progression, in postmenopausal women with moderately pretreated, estrogen receptor-positive, HER2 negative advanced breast cancer. Patients and methods: Eligible women with advanced disease which had progressed on one or two prior ETs were randomized 1 : 1 to receive either palbociclib alone, or palbociclib in combination with the ET as previously received. Primary end point was clinical benefit rate (CBR); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Between October 2012 and July 2016, a total of 115 patients were randomized. The CBR was 54% [95% confidence interval (CI): 41.5-63.7] for combination therapy, and 60% (95% CI: 47.8-72.9) for monotherapy. Median PFS was 10.8 months (95% CI: 5.6-12.7) for combination therapy, and 6.5 months (95% CI: 5.4-8.5) for monotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69; 95% CI: 0.4-1.1, exploratory P-value = 0.12]. Exploratory analyses revealed the PFS advantage for combination therapy was seen in the subgroup of patients who received prior ET for >6 months (HR 0.53; 95% CI: 0.3-0.9, exploratory P-value = 0.02), but not in those who received prior ET for ≤6 months. Conclusion: Palbociclib has clinical activity as a single agent in women with moderately pretreated, oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Palbociclib may have potential to reverse endocrine resistance in patients with a history of previous durable response to ET. Clinical trial information: NCT02549430.

Feasibility and safety of dose-dense docetaxel after conventional epirubicin and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Although dose-dense chemotherapy may reduce breast cancer recurrence and death, phase II studies show that dose-dense docetaxel is poorly tolerated following administration of dose-dense anthracycline-based chemotherapy mainly because of cutaneous toxicity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This pilot study was designed to explore feasibility and safety of dose-dense docetaxel after conventional anthracycline-based therapy. Treatment consisted of sequential administration of 4 cycles of 3-weekly epirubicin (90 mg/m(2)) plus cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m(2)), followed by 4 cycles of bi-weekly docetaxel with pelfilgrastim on day 2 of each docetaxel cycle. Two docetaxel dose levels were planned: 75 mg/m(2) (D75) and 100 mg/m(2) (D100). Patients could only be assigned to the higher docetaxel dose if no early treatment discontinuations due to toxicity were seen, and a median relative dose intensity of docetaxel >90% among the first 5 evaluable patients was achieved. RESULTS: Fifty three patients received 4 cycles of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (EC). Six patients withdrew from study before commencing docetaxel: four for toxicity, and two who declined further study participation. Eight patients, 2 in the first dose level and 6 in the second dose level, stopped treatment for toxicity after the first cycle of docetaxel and before densification. Therefore these events were not considered early treatment discontinuations. No patients required dose interruption after the second docetaxel administration. Overall 5 patients in the first dose level and 34 patients in the second dose level received 4 cycles of accelerated (dose-dense) docetaxel. No grade 3 or grade 4 toxicities occurred at the first dose level. No grade 4 toxicities occurred at the second dose level, while grade 3 toxicities occurring in >2 patients were myalgia and bone pain (5 and 8 patients respectively, 13% and 20%) and skin-nail toxicity (7 patients, 21%). No dose-reductions or significant treatment delays were required, translating to median relative dose intensity of 100% for docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), and 99% for 100 mg/m(2). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) bi-weekly after conventional EC is feasible in selected early breast cancer patients. Lack of prior exposure to dose-dense anthracycline, as well as the use of stringent criteria implemented in the treatment protocol, might explain the improved safety profile and high treatment compliance observed in this study.

Evaluation of the cardiovascular health study (CHS) instrument and the Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) in elderly cancer patients. Are we still missing the right screening tool?

BACKGROUND: A geriatric screening tool would be valuable to identify elderly cancer patients who might benefit from a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). This study evaluated the accuracy of the cardiovascular health study (CHS) instrument in predicting abnormality in CGA. The vulnerable elders' survey-13 (VES-13) was also evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 70 years with solid tumors underwent a CGA after being screened with the CHS and VES-13. Analyses were conducted for the overall population and according to the disease status (early or advanced) and type of early cancer (breast or gastrointestinal, GI). RESULTS: Of 259 patients, 75% were impaired according to the CHS and 47% according to the VES-13. CGA impairment was reported in 171 patients (66%). In the overall population, overall accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of CHS in identifying CGA impairments were 74%, 87% and 49%, respectively. The corresponding figures for the VES-13 were 68%, 62% and 81%. Sensitivity and specificity of CHS in predicting CGA impairments in subgroups were early 81% and 55%, advanced 98% and 29%; early breast 78% and 69%, early GI 87.5% and 19%. CONCLUSIONS: The CHS compared favourably with VES-13 for sensitivity. However, the great variability in specificity observed with the CHS within subgroups limits its applicability in the global population.