Showing posts with label Triple-Negative breast cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Triple-Negative breast cancer. Show all posts

Thursday, 2 March 2023

 

Cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

by Yitian Lang, Qingqing Chai, Wenqi Tao, Yahui Liao, Xiaoyan Liu, Bin Wu 

The Breast: Published: February 09, 2023

Purpose

The ASCENT trial demonstrated the efficacy of sacituzumab govitecan for the treatment of advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of receiving sacituzumab govitecan compared with standard of care chemotherapy from the United States payer perspective.

 

Methods

A partitioned survival approach was used to project the disease course of advanced or metastatic TNBC. Two survival modes were applied to analyze two groups of patients. The survival data were gathered from the ASCENT trial. Direct medical costs were derived from the data of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Utility data was collected from the published literature. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was the primary outcome that measured the cost-effectiveness of therapy regimen. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were implemented to explore the uncertainty and validate the stability of results.

 

Results

In the base-case, the ICUR of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy is $ 778,771.9/QALY and $ 702,281/QALY for full population group and brain metastatic-negative (BMN) group with the setting of classic survival mode. And in the setting of cure survival mode, the ICUR is $ 506,504.5/QALY for the full population group and $ 274,232.0/QALY for BMN population group. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the unit cost of sacituzumab govitecan and body weight were key roles that lower the ICUR value. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses also showed that reducing the unit price of sacituzumab govitecan can improve the likelihood of becoming cost-effective.

 

Conclusion

The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that from a US payer perspective, sacituzumab govitecan at current price is unlikely to be a preferred option for patients with advanced or metastatic TNBC at a threshold of $ 150,000/QALY.

 

Tuesday, 13 September 2022

 

A systematic review and meta-analysis of BRCA1/2 mutation for predicting the effect of platinum-based chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer

 

by Xiaomeng Jia, Kainan Wang, Lingzhi Xu, Ning Li, Zuowei Zhao, Man Li 

 

The Breast: September 02, 2022

Introduction

Platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) remains the mainstay of treatments for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). TNBC is a heterogeneous group, the issue of whether BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have a particular sensitivity to platinum agents is inconclusive. We conducted a meta-analysis to explore the relationship between BRCA1/2 mutation and PBC susceptibility in individuals with TNBC, aiming to gain more information on the size of the benefit of PBC in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Materials and methods

All studies applying PBC with a subgroup of BRCA1/2 status were included. All endpoints, including pCR and RCB in the neoadjuvant phase, DFS in the adjuvant phase, ORR, PFS, and OS in the advanced phase, were assessed using HRs and 95% Cl.

Results

From the 22 studies included, there were 2158 patients with TNBC, with 392 (18%) bearing the BRCA1/2 gene mutation. Based on 13 studies applying neoadjuvant PBC, we discovered that BRCA1/2 mutation was substantially associated with a 17.6% increased pCR rate (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.17–1.49, p < 0.00001; I2 = 51%). Same result was observed in RCB0/I index (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.08–1.76, P = 0.009; I2 = 0%). The meta-analysis of 6 trials addressing advanced therapy revealed that ORR rates were significantly higher in patients with BRCA1/2 mutation (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.48–2.47, p < 0.00001; I2 = 32%), as well as PFS(HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.81–1.57, P = 0.47; I2 = 0%) and OS (HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.22–2.92, P = 0.004; I2 = 0%).

Conclusion

According to our meta-analysis of 22 trials in TNBC, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were significantly more sensitive to PBC regimens, especially in neoadjuvant and advanced therapy.

Tuesday, 16 November 2021

 

Interassay and interobserver comparability study of four programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry assays in triple-negative breast cancer

By Aurelia Noske, Daniel-Christoph Wagner, Kristina Schwamborn, Sebastian Foersch, Katja Steiger, Marion Kiechle, Dirk Oettler, Siranush Karapetyan, Alexander Hapfelmeier, Wilfried Roth, Wilko Weichert 

 

The Breast: FULL LENGTH ARTICLE| VOLUME 60, P238-244, DECEMBER 01, 2021

 

Different immunohistochemical programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) assays and scorings have been reported to yield variable results in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). We compared the analytical concordance and reproducibility of four clinically relevant PD-L1 assays assessing immune cell (IC) score, tumor proportion score (TPS), and combined positive score (CPS) in TNBC. Primary TNBC resection specimens (n = 104) were stained for PD-L1 using VENTANA SP142, VENTANA SP263, DAKO 22C3, and DAKO 28–8. PD-L1 expression was scored according to guidelines on virtual whole slide images by four trained readers.

The mean PD-L1 positivity at IC-score ≥1% and CPS ≥1 ranged between 53% and 75% with the highest positivity for SP263 and comparable levels for 22C3, 28–8, and SP142. Inter-assay agreement was good between 28–8 and 22C3 across all scores and cut-offs (kappa 0.68–0.74) and for both assays with SP142 at IC-score ≥1% and CPS ≥1 (kappa 0.61–0.67). The agreement between SP263 and all other assays was substantially lower for all scores. Inter-reader agreement for each assay was good to excellent for IC-score ≥1% (kappa 0.73–0.78) and CPS ≥1 (kappa 0.68–0.74), fair to good for CPS ≥10 (kappa 0.52–0.67) and TPS ≥1% (kappa 0.53–0.72). The percentage of overlapping cases in the positive/negative category was >90% between IC-score ≥1% and CPS ≥1 but below when comparing IC-score ≥1% with CPS ≥10. We demonstrate an overall good inter-reader agreement for all PD-L1 assays in TNBC along with assay specific differences in positivity and concordances, which may aid to select the right test strategy in routine diagnostics.

Thursday, 22 July 2021

Triple-negative breast cancer outcomes: Does AJCC 8th staging improve chemotherapy decision-making

 

Triple-negative breast cancer outcomes: Does AJCC 8th staging improve chemotherapy decision-making

by Chen-Lu Lian, Guan-Qiao Li, Ping Zhou, Jun Wang, Zhen-Yu He, San-Gang Wu 

The Breast: VOLUME 59, P117-123, OCTOBER 01, 2021

Purpose

To investigate the effect of the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) pathological prognostic staging on chemotherapy decision-making for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients with T1-2N0M0 disease.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with T1-2N0M0 TNBC were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Statistical methods including Kaplan-Meier survival curve, receiver operating characteristics curve, and Cox proportional hazard model.

Results

We identified 12,156 patients, including 9371 (77.1%) patients who received chemotherapy. Overall, 57.4% of patients (n = 6975) were upstaged after being reassigned by the 8th AJCC staging. However, the 8th staging of AJCC did not have a greater prognostic value compared to the 7th staging (P = 0.064). The receipt of chemotherapy significantly improved the breast cancer-specific survival for stage T1c and T2 tumors (P < 0.001), but not for stage T1a (P = 0.188) and T1b (P = 0.376) tumors. Using AJCC 8th staging, chemotherapy benefit was only found in stage IIA patients (P = 0.002), but not for stage IA (P = 0.653) and IB (P = 0.492) patients. There were 9564 patients with stage T1c and T2 diseases and 4979 patients with 8th AJCC stage IIA disease. Therefore, approximately half of patients (47.9%, n = 4585) may be safe to omit chemotherapy using the AJCC 8th staging compared to the current chemotherapy recommendation for T1-2N0M0 TNBC.

Conclusion

The 8th AJCC staging system did not demonstrate the superior discriminatory ability of prognostic stratification than the 7th AJCC staging system in T1-2N0M0 TNBC. However, this new AJCC staging could more accurately predict the chemotherapy benefit, thereby enabling more patients to avoid unnecessary chemotherapy.

Tuesday, 6 April 2021

Anticancer Effects of Radiation Therapy Combined with Polo-Like Kinase 4 (PLK4) Inhibitor CFI-400945 in Triple Negative Breast Cancer

 

Anticancer Effects of Radiation Therapy Combined with Polo-Like Kinase 4 (PLK4) Inhibitor CFI-400945 in Triple Negative Breast Cancer

by Armen Parsyan, Jennifer Cruickshank, Kelsey Hodgson, Drew Wakeham, Sierra Pellizzari, Vasudeva Bhat, David W. Cescon 

The Breast: Published:March 31, 2021


Highlights

The first in class inhibitor of PLK4, CFI-400945, exhibits synergistic effects with radiation in cell line and patient-derived organoids in vitro. In MDA-MB-231 xenografts, CFI-400945 sensitizes to ionizing radiation and significantly improves survival to tumour endpoint compared to single agent treatments.

Abstract

Development of novel multimodality radiotherapy treatments in metastatic breast cancer, especially in the most aggressive triple negative (TNBC) subtype, is of significant clinical interest. Here we show that a novel inhibitor of Polo-Like Kinase 4 (PLK4), CFI-400945, in combination with radiation, exhibits a synergistic anti-cancer effect in TNBC cell lines and patient-derived organoids in vitro and leads to a significant increase in survival to tumor endpoint in xenograft models in vivo, compared to control or single-agent treatment. Further preclinical and proof-of-concept clinical studies are warranted to characterize molecular mechanisms of action of this combination and its potential applications in clinical practice.

Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-119): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

 

Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-119): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

 

by Eric P Winer, Oleg Lipatov, Seock-Ah Im, Anthony Goncalves, Eva Muñoz-Couselo, Keun Seok Lee, Peter Schmid, Kenji Tamura, Laura Testa, Isabell Witzel, Shoichiro Ohtani, Nicholas Turner, Stefania Zambelli, Nadia Harbeck, Fabrice Andre, Rebecca Dent, Xuan Zhou, Vassiliki Karantza, Jaime Mejia, Javier Cortes, KEYNOTE-119 investigators 

 

The Lancet Oncology:  VOLUME 22, ISSUE 4, P499-511, APRIL 01, 2021

 

Background

Pembrolizumab showed durable antitumour activity and manageable safety in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the single-arm KEYNOTE-012 and KEYNOTE-086 trials. In this study, we compared pembrolizumab with chemotherapy for second-line or third-line treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Methods

KEYNOTE-119 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 150 medical centres (academic medical centres, community cancer centres, and community hospitals) in 31 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, with centrally confirmed metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who had received one or two previous systemic treatments for metastatic disease, had progression on their most recent therapy, and had previous treatment with an anthracycline or taxane were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a block method (block size of four) and an interactive voice-response system with integrated web-response to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks for 35 cycles (pembrolizumab group), or to single-drug chemotherapy per investigator's choice of capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine (60% enrolment cap for each; chemotherapy group). Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 tumour status (positive [combined positive score (CPS) ≥1] vs negative [CPS <1]) and history of previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment versus de-novo metastatic disease at initial diagnosis. Primary endpoints were overall survival in participants with a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of 10 or more, those with a CPS of 1 or more, and all participants; superiority of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy was tested in all participants only if shown in those with a CPS of one or more. The primary endpoint was analysed in the intention-to-treat population; safety was analysed in the all-subjects-as-treated population. This Article describes the final analysis of the trial, which is now completed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02555657.

Findings

From Nov 25, 2015, to April 11, 2017, 1098 participants were assessed for eligibility and 622 (57%) were randomly assigned to receive either pembrolizumab (312 [50%]) or chemotherapy (310 [50%]). Median study follow-up was 31·4 months (IQR 27·8–34·4) for the pembrolizumab group and 31·5 months (27·8–34·6) for the chemotherapy group. Median overall survival in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more was 12·7 months (95% CI 9·9–16·3) for the pembrolizumab group and 11·6 months (8·3–13·7) for the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·78 [95% CI 0·57–1·06]; log-rank p=0·057). In participants with a CPS of 1 or more, median overall survival was 10·7 months (9·3–12·5) for the pembrolizumab group and 10·2 months (7·9–12·6) for the chemotherapy group (HR 0·86 [95% CI 0·69–1·06]; log-rank p=0·073). In the overall population, median overall survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 8·3–11·4) for the pembrolizumab group and 10·8 months (9·1–12·6) for the chemotherapy group (HR 0·97 [95% CI 0·82–1·15]). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (three [1%] patients in the pembrolizumab group vs ten [3%] in the chemotherapy group), decreased white blood cells (one [<1%] vs 14 [5%]), decreased neutrophil count (one [<1%] vs 29 [10%]), and neutropenia (0 vs 39 [13%]). 61 (20%) patients in the pembrolizumab group and 58 (20%) patients in the chemotherapy group had serious adverse events. Three (<1%) of 601 participants had treatment-related adverse events that led to death (one [<1%] in the pembrolizumab group due to circulatory collapse; two [1%] in the chemotherapy group, one [<1%] due to pancytopenia and sepsis and one [<1%] haemothorax).

Interpretation

Pembrolizumab did not significantly improve overall survival in patients with previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer versus chemotherapy. These findings might inform future research of pembrolizumab monotherapy for selected subpopulations of patients, specifically those with PD-L1-enriched tumours, and inform a combinatorial approach for the treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Thursday, 23 January 2020

[Articles] Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (IMpassion130): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial



by Peter Schmid, Hope S Rugo, Sylvia Adams, Andreas Schneeweiss, Carlos H Barrios, Hiroji Iwata, Véronique Diéras, Volkmar Henschel, Luciana Molinero, Stephen Y Chui, Vidya Maiya, Amreen Husain, Eric P Winer, Sherene Loi, Leisha A Emens, IMpassion130 Investigators

The Lancet Oncology: ARTICLES| VOLUME 21, ISSUE 1, P44-59, JANUARY 01, 2020

Consistent with the first interim analysis, this second interim overall survival analysis of IMpassion130 indicates no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population but suggests a clinically meaningful overall survival benefit with atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive disease. However, this positive result could not be formally tested due to the prespecified statistical testing hierarchy. For patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel is an important therapeutic option in a disease with high unmet need.

Wednesday, 19 September 2018

[News] New triple-negative breast cancer risk genes identified



by Elizabeth Gourd

The Lancet Oncology : News: Volume 19, issue 9 PE445, September 01, 2018
Multigene hereditary cancer panel testing could be used to identify women with an elevated risk of triple-negative breast cancer as a result of deleterious mutations in five genes, according to a recent study.

Wednesday, 20 November 2013

Another review on triple negative breast cancer

Another review on triple negative breast cancer: Are we on the right way towards the exit from the labyrinth?
The breast, Dec 2013, Vol. 22(6), p.1026-33.

Chiorean, R., et al.

http://www.thebreastonline.com/article/S0960-9776(13)00241-5/abstract?rss=yes

Triple negative breast cancer is a heterogeneous group of tumors, lacking the expression of estrogen, progesterone and HER-2 receptors. As frequency, it accounts about 15–20% of all breast cancers. Although in the last years there was a “boom” in publishing over this issue, multiple molecular classifications being elaborated, “the triple negative breast cancer odyssey ” is still far away from ending, as the complicated molecular pathways of pathogenesis and drug resistance mechanisms remain yet insufficiently explored.

Tuesday, 8 February 2011

NEJM Vol 364 Iss 3 Jan 20 2011

Access the abstract using your Athens username and password

Iniparib plus Chemotherapy in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
Joyce O'shaughnessy et al.
p. 205

More on Screening Mammography
John P Burke et al.
p. 281