Top

Published in:

01-06-2017 | Clinical trial

Outcomes of fulvestrant therapy among japanese women with advanced breast cancer: a retrospective multicenter cohort study (JBCRG-C06; Safari)

Authors: H. Kawaguchi, N. Masuda, T. Nakayama, K. Aogi, K. Anan, Y. Ito, S. Ohtani, N. Sato, S. Saji, E. Tokunaga, S. Nakamura, Y. Hasegawa, M. Hattori, T. Fujisawa, S. Morita, M. Yamaguchi, T. Yamashita, Y. Yamamoto, S. Ohno, M. Toi

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2017

Abstract

Purpose

This retrospective study evaluated the effect of clinical background and treatment line on time to treatment failure (TTF) in advanced/metastatic breast cancer (AMBC) patients receiving F500 in Japan (UMIN 000015168).

Methods

Patients who commenced F500 treatment were registered at 16 sites in Japan. Correlations between baseline clinicopathological factors, treatment line, and TTF were investigated by Kaplan–Meier analysis. TTF data were analyzed using univariate analysis and multivariate analysis with a Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

Data for 1072 patients were available; 1031 patients (96.2%) were evaluable for efficacy. F500 was administered as first-line treatment in 2.0%, second-line in 22.7%, third-line in 26.7%, and ≥fourth-line in 48.6% patients. Median TTF was 5.4 months. Multivariate analysis found that earlier F500 use (first and second vs. third vs. ≥fourth line; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74–0.86; P < 0.001), longer period from AMBC diagnosis to F500 use (≥3 vs. <3 years; HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51–0.70; P < 0.001), and no prior palliative chemotherapy administered for unresectable or metastatic breast cancer (no vs. yes; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60–0.80; P < 0.001) were associated with significantly longer TTF. Among 691 patients, where information on histologic/nuclear grade was available, a low grade was also associated with a longer TTF, but this finding was not maintained among patients with recurrent breast cancer (N = 558). Among women with recurrent breast cancer, a longer DFI between a patient’s initial breast cancer diagnosis and their recurrence was associated with a longer TTF on F500 therapy.

Conclusions

Our study showed that treatment period of F500 was longer when used in earlier-line treatment. For patients on F500, TTF was also longer for patients who had not received prior palliative chemotherapy and for those who had a longer period from their AMBC diagnosis to F500 use.

Available only for authorised users

Osborne CK, Schiff R (2011) Mechanisms of endocrine resistance in breast cancer. Annu Rev Med 62:233–247. doi:10.1146/annurev-med-070909-182917 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hortobagyi GN (1998) Treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 339:974–984. doi:10.1056/nejm199810013391407 CrossRefPubMed

Thurlimann B, Robertson JF, Nabholtz JM et al (2003) Efficacy of tamoxifen following anastrozole (‘Arimidex’) compared with anastrozole following tamoxifen as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Eur J Cancer 39:2310–2317CrossRefPubMed

Lonning PE, Bajetta E, Murray R et al (2000) Activity of exemestane in metastatic breast cancer after failure of nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors: a phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 18:2234–2244. doi:10.1200/jco.2000.18.11.2234 CrossRefPubMed

Wakeling AE (2000) Similarities and distinctions in the mode of action of different classes of antioestrogens. Endocr Relat Cancer 7:17–28CrossRefPubMed

Chia S, Gradishar W, Mauriac L et al (2008) Double-blind, randomized placebo controlled trial of fulvestrant compared with exemestane after prior nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer: results from EFECT. J Clin Oncol 26:1664–1670. doi:10.1200/jco.2007.13.5822 CrossRefPubMed

Robertson JF, Nicholson RI, Bundred NJ et al (2001) Comparison of the short-term biological effects of 7alpha-[9-(4,4,5,5,5-pentafluoropentylsulfinyl)-nonyl]estra-1,3,5, (10)-triene-3,17beta-diol (Faslodex) versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. Cancer Res 61:6739–6746PubMed

Di Leo A, Jerusalem G, Petruzelka L et al (2010) Results of the CONFIRM phase III trial comparing fulvestrant 250 mg with fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:4594–4600. doi:10.1200/jco.2010.28.8415 CrossRefPubMed

Di Leo A, Jerusalem G, Petruzelka L et al (2014) Final overall survival: fulvestrant 500 mg vs 250 mg in the randomized CONFIRM trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 106:djt337. doi:10.1093/jnci/djt337 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Ellis MJ, Llombart-Cussac A, Feltl D et al (2015) Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg for the first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer: overall survival analysis from the phase II FIRST study. J Clin Oncol 33:3781–3787. doi:10.1200/jco.2015.61.5831 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Robertson JF, Bondarenko IM, Trishkina E et al (2016) Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (FALCON): an international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet 388:2997–3005. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32389-3 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Barrios C, Forbes JF, Jonat W et al (2012) The sequential use of endocrine treatment for advanced breast cancer: where are we? Ann Oncol 23:1378–1386. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr593 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Roche H, Vahdat LT (2011) Treatment of metastatic breast cancer: second line and beyond. Ann Oncol 22:1000–1010. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq429 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Cardoso F, Costa A, Norton L et al (2014) ESO-ESMO 2nd international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC2). Breast 23:489–502. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2014.08.009 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD et al (2009) Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 20:1319–1329. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdp322 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Roberti NE (1997) The role of histologic grading in the prognosis of patients with carcinoma of the breast: is this a neglected opportunity? Cancer 80:1708–1716CrossRefPubMed

17.

Lundin J, Lundin M, Holli K et al (2001) Omission of histologic grading from clinical decision making may result in overuse of adjuvant therapies in breast cancer: results from a nationwide study. J Clin Oncol 19:28–36. doi:10.1200/jco.2001.19.1.28 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Ohno S, Rai Y, Iwata H et al (2010) Three dose regimens of fulvestrant in postmenopausal Japanese women with advanced breast cancer: results from a double-blind, phase II comparative study (FINDER1). Ann Oncol 21:2342–2347. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq249 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Kuter I, Gee JM, Hegg R et al (2012) Dose-dependent change in biomarkers during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with fulvestrant: results from NEWEST, a randomized Phase II study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133:237–246. doi:10.1007/s10549-011-1947-7 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Pritchard KI, Rolski J, Papai Z et al (2010) Results of a phase II study comparing three dosing regimens of fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer (FINDER2). Breast Cancer Res Treat 123:453–461. doi:10.1007/s10549-010-1022-9 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Howell A, Sapunar F (2011) Fulvestrant revisited: efficacy and safety of the 500-mg dose. Clin Breast Cancer 11:204–210. doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2011.02.002 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Outcomes of fulvestrant therapy among japanese women with advanced breast cancer: a retrospective multicenter cohort study (JBCRG-C06; Safari)
Authors: H. Kawaguchi
N. Masuda
T. Nakayama
K. Aogi
K. Anan
Y. Ito
S. Ohtani
N. Sato
S. Saji
E. Tokunaga
S. Nakamura
Y. Hasegawa
M. Hattori
T. Fujisawa
S. Morita
M. Yamaguchi
T. Yamashita
Y. Yamamoto
S. Ohno
M. Toi
Publication date: 01-06-2017
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4212-x

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 compared to paclitaxel in early high-risk breast cancer. Results from the neoadjuvant randomized GeparSepto study (GBG 69)

FOXM1 transcriptionally regulates expression of integrin β1 in triple-negative breast cancer

Aromatase expression in atypical ductal hyperplasia in women

A83-01 inhibits TGF-β-induced upregulation of Wnt3 and epithelial to mesenchymal transition in HER2-overexpressing breast cancer cells

Management of the positive axilla in 2017

Is breast compression associated with breast cancer detection and other early performance measures in a population-based breast cancer screening program?

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer