Background: Endocrine therapy (ET) plus cyclin-dependent-kinases 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) represents the standard treatment for luminal-metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, prospective head-to-head comparisons are still lacking for 1st line (L) options, and it is still crucial to define the best strategy between 1st and 2nd L. Materials and methods: 717 consecutive luminal-MBC pts treated between 2008 and 2020 were analyzed at the Oncology Department of Aviano and Udine, Italy. Differences about survival outcomes (OS, PFS and PPS) were tested by log-rank test. The attrition rate (AR) between 1st and 2ndL was calculated. Results: At 1stL, pts were treated with ET (49%), chemotherapy (CT) (31%) and ET-CDKi (20%) while, at 2ndL, 33% received ET, 33% CT and 8% ET-CDKi. Overall AR was 10%, 7% for CT, 8% for ET and 17% for ET-CDKi. By multivariate analysis, 1stL ET-CDK4/6i showed a better mPFS1 and OS. Moreover, 2ndL ET-CDK4/6i demonstrated better mPFS2 compared to ET and CT. Notably, 1stL ET-CDKi resulted in higher mPFS than 2ndL ET-CDKi. Intriguingly, 1stL ET-CDK4/6i was associated with worse mPPS compared to CT and ET. Secondarily, 1stL ET-CDK4/6i followed by CT had worse OS compared to 1stL ET-CDK4/6i followed by ET. Notably, none of baseline characteristics at 2ndL influenced 2ndL treatment choice (ET vs. CT) after ET-CDKi. Conclusion: Our real-world data demonstrated that ET-CDKi represents the best option for 1stL luminal-MBC compared to ET and CT. Also, the present study pointed out that 2ndL ET, potentially combined with other molecules, could be a feasible option after CDK4/6i failure, postponing CT on later lines.

First- and second-line treatment strategies for hormone-receptor (HR)-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: A real-world study

Gerratana L.;Puglisi F.
2021-01-01

Abstract

Background: Endocrine therapy (ET) plus cyclin-dependent-kinases 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) represents the standard treatment for luminal-metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, prospective head-to-head comparisons are still lacking for 1st line (L) options, and it is still crucial to define the best strategy between 1st and 2nd L. Materials and methods: 717 consecutive luminal-MBC pts treated between 2008 and 2020 were analyzed at the Oncology Department of Aviano and Udine, Italy. Differences about survival outcomes (OS, PFS and PPS) were tested by log-rank test. The attrition rate (AR) between 1st and 2ndL was calculated. Results: At 1stL, pts were treated with ET (49%), chemotherapy (CT) (31%) and ET-CDKi (20%) while, at 2ndL, 33% received ET, 33% CT and 8% ET-CDKi. Overall AR was 10%, 7% for CT, 8% for ET and 17% for ET-CDKi. By multivariate analysis, 1stL ET-CDK4/6i showed a better mPFS1 and OS. Moreover, 2ndL ET-CDK4/6i demonstrated better mPFS2 compared to ET and CT. Notably, 1stL ET-CDKi resulted in higher mPFS than 2ndL ET-CDKi. Intriguingly, 1stL ET-CDK4/6i was associated with worse mPPS compared to CT and ET. Secondarily, 1stL ET-CDK4/6i followed by CT had worse OS compared to 1stL ET-CDK4/6i followed by ET. Notably, none of baseline characteristics at 2ndL influenced 2ndL treatment choice (ET vs. CT) after ET-CDKi. Conclusion: Our real-world data demonstrated that ET-CDKi represents the best option for 1stL luminal-MBC compared to ET and CT. Also, the present study pointed out that 2ndL ET, potentially combined with other molecules, could be a feasible option after CDK4/6i failure, postponing CT on later lines.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S0960977621000291-main.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo principale
Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 939.71 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
939.71 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11390/1207516
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 7
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact