Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (23) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (23) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (23)
Keywords
- breast cancer (6)
- Breast cancer (3)
- brain metastases (3)
- Diagnostik (2)
- Früherkennung (2)
- Mammakarzinom (2)
- Nachsorge (2)
- Richtlinie (2)
- diagnosis (2)
- follow‑up (2)
- guideline (2)
- screening (2)
- BRCA1 (1)
- BRCA2 (1)
- Bone metastases (1)
- C3M (1)
- C4M (1)
- CDK4/6 inhibitors (1)
- Central nervous system metastases (1)
- Early setting (1)
- Endocrine therapy (1)
- Exosomes (1)
- First site of metastatic disease (1)
- HER2-positive (1)
- HER2/neu (1)
- Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (1)
- Hormone receptor positive breast cancer (1)
- MicroRNAs (1)
- Neoadjuvant therapy (1)
- Pathological complete response (1)
- RNA interference (1)
- TGFB-induced factor homeobox 1 (1)
- TGIF (1)
- Triple negative (1)
- Triple-negative breast cancer (1)
- antiproliferative activity (1)
- apoptosis (1)
- asymptomatic (1)
- collagen degradation marker (1)
- lapatinib (1)
- neoadjuvant therapy (1)
- pattern (1)
- prognostic scores (1)
- radiological (1)
- siRNA (1)
- trastuzumab (1)
Institute
- Medizin (23)
- Georg-Speyer-Haus (2)
CDK4/6 inhibitors have an established role in the treatment of hormone receptor positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. All studies conducted in metastatic breast cancer showed a benefit in delaying progression when added to standard endocrine therapy, regardless of therapy line, pretreatment, menopausal status, site of metastasis, CDK4/6 inhibitor used and associated endocrine therapy. A benefit in overall survival has also been demonstrated. In early breast cancer, only the MonarchE study has shown an improved invasive disease-free survival with abemaciclib taken for 2 years, whereas the Penelope-B did not meet the primary endpoint and the PALLAS study was terminated early for futility. Studies conducted in the neoadjuvant setting might help to explain the discordant results.
Following publication of the data presented by von Minckwitz and colleagues it has been brought to our attention that some patients should be scored differently. Stable disease was seen in three of the eighteen patients instead of two of the eighteen patients: one patient with transitional cell carcinoma treated at 4 µg/kg scFv(FRP5)-ETA per day, and two breast cancer patients treated at 4 and 12.5 µg/kg scFv(FRP5)-ETA per day. Disease progression occured in 9 of the eighteen patients evaluated (see corrected Table 2 overleaf). This does not affect the conclusions of our study. In addition we would like to correct the following errors: patient IDs for patients U01 and U02 in the original Table 2 were interchanged. In addition, patient N03 had a grade 3 elevation of gamma-glutamyl transferase, and not grade 2 (see corrected Table 2 overleaf).
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) for breast cancer improves relapse-free survival (BCRFS) and overall survival. Differences in terms of efficacy and toxicity could partly be explained by the significant interpatient variability in pharmacokinetics which cannot be captured by dosing according to body surface area. Consequently, tailored dosing was prospectively evaluated in the PANTHER trial.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: PANTHER is a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial which compared tailored, dose-dense (DD) epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (E/C) and tailored docetaxel (D) (tDD) with standard interval 5-fluorouracil/E/C and D. The primary end point was BCRFS and the primary efficacy analysis has been previously published. In this secondary analysis, we aimed to retrospectively explore the concept of dose tailoring. Our two hypotheses were that BCRFS would not vary depending on the cumulative administered epirubicin dose; and that dose tailoring would lead to appropriate dosing and improved outcomes for obese patients, who are known to have worse prognosis and increased toxicity after DD ACT.
RESULTS: Patients treated with tDD had similar BCRFS regardless of the cumulative epirubicin dose (P = 0.495), while obese patients in this group [body mass index (BMI) ≥30] had improved BCRFS compared with nonobese ones (BMI <30) [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.89, P = 0.02]. Moreover, tDD was associated with improved BCRFS compared with standard treatment only in obese patients (HR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.90, P = 0.022) but not in nonobese ones (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.60-1.04, P = 0.089). The differences were not formally statistically significant (P for interaction 0.175). There were no differences in terms of toxicity across the epirubicin dose levels or the BMI groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Dose tailoring is a feasible strategy that can potentially improve outcomes in obese patients without increasing toxicity and should be pursued in further clinical studies.