RESUMO
AIM: To 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. METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: In 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). CONCLUSION: The 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.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The expression of tumor biomarkers may change after chemotherapy. However, whether secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC) expression changes after chemotherapy in gastric cancer (GC) is unclear. This study investigated the influence of chemotherapy on SPARC expression in GC. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry was used to analyze SPARC expression in 132 GC cases (including 54 cases with preoperative chemotherapy and 78 cases without preoperative chemotherapy). SPARC expression of postoperative specimens with and without preoperative chemotherapy was assessed to analyze the influence of chemotherapy on SPARC expression. RESULTS: SPARC was highly expressed in GC compared with the desmoplastic stroma surrounding tumor cells and noncancerous tissues. High SPARC expression was correlated with invasion depth, lymph node, and TNM stage. After chemotherapy, a lower proportion of high SPARC expression was observed in patients with preoperative chemotherapy than in the controls. For 54 patients with preoperative chemotherapy, gross type, histology, depth of invasion, lymph node, TNM stage, and SPARC expression were related to overall survival. Further multivariate analysis showed that lymph node, histology, and SPARC expression after chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: SPARC expression may change after chemotherapy in GC. SPARC expression should be reassessed for patients with GC after chemotherapy.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations play essential roles in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients using EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Detection of EGFR mutations in blood cell-free DNA (cfDNA) seems promising. However, the mutation status in the plasma/serum is not always consistent with that in the tissues. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to compare the mutation statuses in plasma to those in tissues and thus to determine the specific subgroups of NSCLC patients who may be the best candidates for EGFR mutation analyses using blood cfDNA. METHODS: A total of 111 pairs of tissue and plasma samples were collected. Mutant-enriched PCR and sequencing analyses were performed to detect EGFR exon 19 deletions and exon 21 L858R mutations. RESULTS: Mutations were discovered in 43.2% (48/111) of the patients. The overall rate of consistency of the EGFR mutation statuses for the 111 paired plasma and tissue samples was 71.2% (79/111). The sensitivity and specificity rates of detecting EGFR mutations in the plasma were 35.6% (16/45) and 95.5% (63/66), respectively. The disease stage and tumor differentiation subgroups showed significantly different detection sensitivities; the sensitivity was 10% in early-stage patients and 56% in advanced-stage patients (p = 0.0014). For patients with poorly differentiated tumors, the sensitivity was 77.8%, which was significantly different from those with highly differentiated (20%; p = 0.0230) and moderately differentiated tumors (19%; p = 0.0042). CONCLUSION: Blood analyses for EGFR mutations may be effectively used in advanced-stage patients or patients with poorly differentiated tumors.
