Real-World Data on Newly Diagnosed BRCA-Mutated High-Grade Epithelial Ovarian Cancers: The French National Multicenter ESME Database.

BACKGROUND: In spite of the frequency and clinical impact of BRCA1/2 alterations in high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (HGEOC), real-world information based on robust data warehouse has been scarce to date. METHODS: Consecutive patients with BRCA-mutated HGEOC treated between 2011 and 2016 within French comprehensive cancer centers from the Unicancer network were extracted from the ESME database. The main objective of the study was the assessment of clinicopathological and treatments parameters. RESULTS: Out of the 8021 patients included in the ESME database, 266 patients matching the selection criteria were included. BRCA1 mutation was found in 191 (71.8%) patients, while 75 (28.2%) had a BRCA2 mutation only; 95.5% of patients received a cytoreductive surgery. All patients received a taxane/platinum-based chemotherapy (median = six cycles). Complete and partial response were obtained in 53.3% and 20.4% of the cases, respectively. Maintenance therapy was administered in 55.3% of the cases, bevacizumab being the most common agent. After a median follow up of 51.7 months, a median progression-free survival of 28.6 months (95% confidence interval (CI) [26.5; 32.7]) and an estimated 5-year median overall survival of 69.2% (95% CI [61.6; 70.3]) were reported. Notably, BRCA1- and BRCA2-mutated cases exhibited a trend towards different median progression-free survivals, with 28.0 (95% CI [24.4; 32.3]) and 33.3 months (95% CI [26.7; 46.1]), respectively (p-value = 0.053). Furthermore, five-year OS for BRCA1-mutated patients was 64.5% (95% CI [59.7; 69.2]), while it was 82.5% (95% CI [76.6; 88.5]) for BRCA2-mutated ones (p-value = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: This study reports the largest French multicenter cohort of BRCA-mutated HGEOCs based on robust data from the ESME, exhibiting relevant real-world data regarding this specific population.

Enrollment of older metastatic breast cancer patients in first-line clinical trials: 9-year experience of the large-scale real-life multicenter French ESME cohort.

PURPOSE: Older cancer patients are underrepresented in clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate the enrollment of older women aged 70 years old (yo) or over with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in clinical trials. METHODS: We used the national Epidemio-Strategy and Medical Economics MBC Data Platform, a French multi-center real-life database. We selected MBC women over 70yo, without central nervous system metastases, with at least one line of systemic treatment, between January 1st, 2008 and December 31st, 2016, and had no other cancer in the 5 years before MBC. The primary objective was to evaluate the proportion of patients enrolled in clinical trials according to their age. Secondary objective was to identify variables associated with enrollment in older ones. RESULTS: 5552 women were aged ≥ 70 (median 74yo; IQR 72-77). 14,611 were less than 70. Of the older ones, 239 (4%) were enrolled in a clinical trial during first line of treatment, compared with 1529 (10.5%) for younger ones. Multivariable analysis of variables predicting for enrollment during first line of treatment in older patients were younger age (OR 0.50 [95%CI 0.33-0.76] for the 80-85yo class; OR 0.17 [95%CI 0.06-0.39] for the 85yo and more class), good ECOG Performance Status (PS 0-1) (OR 0.15 [95%CI 0.08-0.27] for the PS 2-4 class), HER2 + disease (OR 1.78 [95%CI 1.27-2.48]), type of treatment (chemotherapy/targeted therapy/immunotherapy OR 5.01 [95%CI 3.13-8.18]), and period (OR 1.65 [95%CI 1.22-2.26] for 2012-2016, compared to 2008-2011). CONCLUSION: In this large database, few older MBC patients were enrolled in a trial compared with younger ones.

Breast cancer patients treated with intrathecal therapy for leptomeningeal metastases in a large real-life database.

BACKGROUND: Leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) is a rare complication of metastatic breast cancer (MBC), with high morbidity/mortality rates. Our study aimed to describe the largest-to-date real-life population of MBC patients treated with intrathecal (IT) therapy and to evaluate prognostic models. METHODS: The Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) MBC database (NCT03275311) includes all consecutive patients who have initiated treatment for MBC since 2008. Overall survival (OS) of patients treated with IT therapy was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic models were constructed using Cox proportional hazards models. Performance was evaluated using C-index and calibration plots. RESULTS: Of the 22 266 patients included in the database between 2008 and 2016, 312 received IT therapy and were selected for our analysis. Compared with non-IT-treated patients, IT-treated patients were younger at MBC relapse (median age: 52 years versus 61 years) and more often had lobular histology (23.4% versus 12.7%) or triple-negative subtype (24.7% versus 13.3%) (all P < 0.001). Median OS was 4.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8-5.6] and 1-year survival rate was 25.6%. Significant prognostic factors associated with poorer outcome on multivariable analysis were triple-negative subtype (hazard ratio 1.81, 95% CI 1.32-2.47), treatment line ≥3 (hazard ratio 1.88, 95% CI 1.30-2.73), ≥3 other metastatic sites (hazard ratio 1.33, 95% CI 1.01-1.74) and IT cytarabine or thiotepa versus methotrexate (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% CI 1.28-2.22), while concomitant systemic therapy was associated with better OS (hazard ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.62) (all P < 0.001). We validated two previously published prognostic scores, the Curie score and the Breast-graded prognostic assessment, both with C-index of 0.57. CONCLUSIONS: MBC patients with LM treated with IT therapy have a poor prognosis. We could identify a subgroup of patients with better prognosis, when concomitant systemic therapy and IT methotrexate were used.

Evolution of overall survival and receipt of new therapies by subtype among 20 446 metastatic breast cancer patients in the 2008-2017 ESME cohort.

BACKGROUND: Treatment strategies for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have made great strides over the past 10 years. Real-world data allow us to evaluate the actual benefit of new treatments. ESME (Epidemio-Strategy-Medico-Economical)-MBC, a nationwide observational cohort (NCT03275311), gathers data of all consecutive MBC patients who initiated their treatment in 18 French Cancer Centres since 2008. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated overall survival (OS) in the whole cohort (N = 20 446) and among subtypes: hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-; N = 13 590), HER2+ (N = 3919), and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC; N = 2937). We performed multivariable analyses including year of MBC diagnosis as one of the covariates, to assess the potential OS improvement over time, and we described exposure to newly released drugs at any time during MBC history by year of diagnosis (YOD). RESULTS: The median follow-up of the whole cohort was 65.5 months (95% CI 64.6-66.7). Year of metastatic diagnosis appears as a strong independent prognostic factor for OS [Year 2016 HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.97); P = 0.009, using 2008 as reference]. This effect is driven by the HER2+ subcohort, where it is dramatic [Year 2016 HR 0.52 (95% CI 0.42-0.66); P < 0.001, using 2008 as reference]. YOD had, however, no sustained impact on OS among patients with TNBC [Year 2016 HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.77-1.11); P = 0.41, using 2008 as reference] nor among those with HR+/HER2- MBC [Year 2016 HR 1.02 (95% CI 0.91-1.13); P = 0.41, using 2008 as reference]. While exposure to newly released anti-HER2 therapies appeared very high (e.g. >70% of patients received pertuzumab from 2016 onwards), use of everolimus or eribulin was recorded in less than one-third of HR+/HER2- and TNBC cohorts, respectively, whatever YOD. CONCLUSION: OS has dramatically improved among HER2+ MBC patients, probably in association with the release of several major HER2-directed therapies, whose penetrance was high. This trend was not observed in the other subtypes, but the impact of CDK4/6 inhibitors cannot yet be assessed.

Endocrine therapy or chemotherapy as first-line therapy in hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: For hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2-) negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC), international guidelines recommend endocrine therapy as first-line treatment, except in case of 'visceral crisis'. In the latter case, chemotherapy is preferred. Few studies have compared these two strategies. We used the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) programme, UNICANCER, a large national observational database (NCT03275311), to address this question. METHODS: All patients who initiated treatment for a newly diagnosed HR+ HER2-negative MBC between January 2008 and December 2014 in any of the 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centers participating to ESME were selected. Patients should be aromatase inhibitor (AI)-sensitive (no previous AI or relapse occurring more than 1 year after last adjuvant AI). Objectives of the study were evaluation of progression-free and overall survival (OS) according to the type of first-line treatment adjusted on main prognostic factors using a propensity score. RESULTS: Six thousand two hundred sixty-five patients were selected: 2733 (43.6%) received endocrine therapy alone, while 3532 (56.4%) received chemotherapy as first-line therapy. Among the latter, 2073 (58.7%) received maintenance endocrine therapy. Median OS was 60.78 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 57.16-64.09) and 49.64 months (95% CI, 47.31-51.64; p < 0.0001) for patients receiving endocrine therapy alone and chemotherapy ± maintenance endocrine therapy, respectively. However, this difference was not significant after adjusting on the propensity score (hazard ratio: 0.943, 95% CI 0.863-1.030, p = 0.19). CONCLUSION: In this large retrospective cohort of patients with AI-sensitive metastatic luminal BC, OS was similar, whether first-line treatment was chemotherapy or endocrine therapy. In agreement with international guidelines, endocrine therapy should be the first choice for first-line systemic treatment for MBC in the absence of visceral crisis.

Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab or paclitaxel as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in a multicenter national observational study.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab combined with paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has led to mixed results in randomized trials, with an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) but no statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. Real-life data could help in assessing the value of this combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study aimed to describe the outcome following first-line paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab in the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) database of MBC patients, established in 2014 by Unicancer. The primary and secondary end points were OS and PFS, respectively. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2013, 14 014 MBC patient files were identified, including 10 605 patients with a HER2-negative status. Of these, 3426 received paclitaxel and bevacizumab (2127) or paclitaxel (1299) as first-line chemotherapy. OS adjusted for major prognostic factors was significantly longer in the paclitaxel and bevacizumab group compared with paclitaxel [hazard ratio (HR) 0.672, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.601-0.752; median survival time 27.7 versus 19.8 months]. Results were consistent in all supportive analyses (using a propensity score for adjustment and as a matching factor for nested case-control analyses) and sensitivity analyses. Similar results were observed for the adjusted PFS, favoring the combination (HR 0.739, 95% CI 0.672-0.813; 8.1 versus 6.4 months). CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale, real-life setting, patients with HER2-negative MBC who received paclitaxel plus bevacizumab as first-line chemotherapy had a significantly better OS and PFS than those receiving paclitaxel. Despite robust methodology, real-life data are exposed to important potential biases, and therefore, results need to be treated with caution. Our data cannot therefore support extension of current use of bevacizumab in MBC.