Economic and Humanistic Burden of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

Triple-Negative Breast Cancer; Economic burdenCáncer de mama triple negativo; Carga económicaCàncer de mama triple negatiu; Càrrega econòmicaBackground Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for 10–20% of all breast cancers (BCs). It is more commonly diagnosed in younger women and often has a less favorable prognosis compared with other BC subtypes. Objective The objective of this study was to provide a literature-based extensive overview of the economic and humanistic burden of TNBC to assist medical decisions for healthcare payers, providers, and patients. Methods A systematic literature review was performed using multiple databases, including EMBASE, MEDLINE, Econlit, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from database inception to 16 May 2021. In addition, a targeted search was performed in the Northern Light Life Sciences Conference Abstracts database from 2016 through June 2021. The bibliographies of included articles were reviewed to identify other potentially relevant publications. Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted. Results The review identified 19 studies assessing the economic burden and 10 studies assessing the humanistic burden of TNBC. Studies varied widely in study design, settings, patient populations, and time horizons. The estimates of mean per-patient annual direct medical costs ranged from around $20,000 to over$100,000 in stage I–III TNBC and from $100,000 to$300,000 in stage IV TNBC. Healthcare costs and resource utilization increased significantly with disease recurrence, progression, and increased cancer stage or line of therapy. Compared with the costs of systemic anticancer therapy, cancer management costs comprised a larger portion of total direct costs. The estimates of indirect costs due to productivity loss ranged from $207 to$1573 per patient per month (all costs presented above were adjusted to 2021 US dollars). Cancer recurrence led to significantly reduced productivity and greater rates of leaving the workforce. A rapid deterioration of health utility associated with disease progression was observed in TNBC patients. Treatment with pembrolizumab or talazoparib showed significantly greater improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared with chemotherapy, as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR23, and FACT-B. Conclusion TNBC is associated with a substantial economic burden on healthcare systems and societies and considerably reduced productivity and HRQoL for patients. This study synthesized the published literature on the economic and humanistic burden of TNBC and highlighted the need for continued research due to the rapidly changing landscape of TNBC care

“New” metastases are associated with a poorer prognosis than growth of pre-existing metastases in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with chemotherapy

Introduction: Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) endpoints often only weakly correlate. This analysis investigates how different progression events impact on OS, using data from two phase 3 studies with eribulin in women with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods: In Study 301, 1102 women with ≤2 prior chemotherapies for advanced/MBC were randomized to eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 21 days) or capecitabine (1.25 g/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 every 21 days). Study 305/EMBRACE enrolled 762 patients following two to five prior chemotherapies for advanced/MBC, randomized to eribulin (as above) or treatment of physician's choice. We analyzed OS and PFS post hoc for patients whose disease progressed due to development of "new" metastases, growth of pre-existing lesions, and patients with no reported disease progression. Results: In both clinical studies, development of new metastases was associated with an increased risk of death (p < 0.0001). The time to development of new metastasis or death was significantly longer with eribulin than the comparator in Study 305 (p = 0.0017), but not in Study 301 (p = 0.46). Significantly longer OS was observed in the eribulin compared with the comparator arm for the new metastases subgroup in Study 301 (p = 0.008), but not in Study 305 (p = 0.16), compared with other progression subgroups. Conclusions: Patients with MBC progressing with new metastases have a worse prognosis than those whose disease progresses due to growth of existing lesions or patients with no reported disease progression. These findings have potentially important implications for the interpretation of clinical study data and clinical practice.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

A decade of letrozole: FACE

Third-generation nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (AIs), letrozole and anastrozole, are superior to tamoxifen as initial therapy for early breast cancer but have not been directly compared in a head-to-head adjuvant trial. Cumulative evidence suggests that AIs are not equivalent in terms of potency of estrogen suppression and that there may be differences in clinical efficacy. Thus, with no data from head-to-head comparisons of the AIs as adjuvant therapy yet available, the question of whether there are efficacy differences between the AIs remains. To help answer this question, the Femara versus Anastrozole Clinical Evaluation (FACE) is a phase IIIb open-label, randomized, multicenter trial designed to test whether letrozole or anastrozole has superior efficacy as adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)- and lymph node-positive breast cancer. Eligible patients (target accrual, N = 4,000) are randomized to receive either letrozole 2.5 mg or anastrozole 1 mg daily for up to 5 years. The primary objective is to compare disease-free survival at 5 years. Secondary end points include safety, overall survival, time to distant metastases, and time to contralateral breast cancer. The FACE trial will determine whether or not letrozole offers a greater clinical benefit to postmenopausal women with HR+ early breast cancer at increased risk of early recurrence compared with anastrozole

Phase II/III weekly nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or carboplatin versus gemcitabine/carboplatin as first-line treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (the tnAcity study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (vol 16, pg 575, 2015)

Background: Triple-negative breast cancer is an aggressive disease with unmet clinical needs. In a phase III study of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, first-line gemcitabine/carboplatin resulted in a median progression-free survival of 4.6 months. nab-Paclitaxel-based regimens (with gemcitabine or carboplatin ± bevacizumab) also demonstrated efficacy and safety in first-line phase II trials of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Trial design: In this international, multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II/III trial, the efficacy and safety of first-line nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine or with carboplatin will be compared with gemcitabine/carboplatin (control arm) for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Methods: In the phase II portion, 240 patients with measurable metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and treatment naive for metastatic disease will be randomized 1:1:1 (stratified by disease-free interval: ≤ 1 versus > 1 year) to nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 plus carboplatin area under the curve 2 mg × min/mL, or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 plus carboplatin area under the curve 2 mg × min/mL, all given on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (primary endpoint), overall response rate, overall survival, and safety will be assessed. A ranking algorithm of five efficacy and safety parameters will be used to pick the “winner” of the nab-paclitaxel regimens. In the phase III portion, 550 patients will be randomized 1:1 (stratified by disease-free interval: ≤ 1 versus > 1 year, and prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant taxane use) to the nab-paclitaxel combination arm selected from the phase II portion or to the control arm. Patients in phase II will not be part of the phase III population. The phase III primary endpoint is blinded, independently-assessed progression-free survival; secondary endpoints include blinded, independently assessed overall response rate, overall survival, disease control rate, duration of response, and safety. Biomarker and circulating tumor-cell exploratory analyses and quality-of-life assessments will also be performed. A list of approving ethical bodies was provided in Additional file 1. Discussion: The tnAcity trial aims to identify a new standard cytotoxic chemotherapy regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

Ribociclib as First-Line Therapy for HR-Positive, Advanced Breast Cancer

The inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) could potentially overcome or delay resistance to endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer that is positive for hormone receptor (HR) and negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). In this randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the selective CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib combined with letrozole for first-line treatment in 668 postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced disease. We randomly assigned the patients to receive either ribociclib (600 mg per day on a 3-weeks-on, 1-week-off schedule) plus letrozole (2.5 mg per day) or placebo plus letrozole. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed on January 29, 2016, after 243 patients had disease progression or died. Prespecified criteria for superiority required a hazard ratio of 0.56 or less with P The duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ribociclib group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.72; P=3.29×10-6 for superiority). The median duration of follow-up was 15.3 months. After 18 months, the progression-free survival rate was 63.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.6 to 70.3) in the ribociclib group and 42.2% (95% CI, 34.8 to 49.5) in the placebo group. In patients with measurable disease at baseline, the overall response rate was 52.7% and 37.1%, respectively (P Among patients receiving initial systemic treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, the duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving ribociclib plus letrozole than among those receiving placebo plus letrozole, with a higher rate of myelosuppression in the ribociclib group. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01958021 .)

Prolonged survival in patients with breast cancer and a history of brain metastases: results of a preplanned subgroup analysis from the randomized phase III BEACON trial

Purpose: Conventional chemotherapy has limited activity in patients with breast cancer and brain metastases (BCBM). Etirinotecan pegol (EP), a novel long-acting topoisomerase-1 inhibitor, was designed using advanced polymer technology to preferentially accumulate in tumor tissue including brain metastases, providing sustained cytotoxic SN38 levels. Methods: The phase 3 BEACON trial enrolled 852 women with heavily pretreated locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer between 2011 and 2013. BEACON compared EP with treatment of physician’s choice (TPC; eribulin, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, ixabepilone, or docetaxel) in patients previously treated with anthracycline, taxane, and capecitabine, including those with treated, stable brain metastases. The primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was assessed in a pre-defined subgroup of BCBM patients; an exploratory post hoc analysis adjusting for the diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment (GPA) index was also conducted. Results: In the trial, 67 BCBM patients were randomized (EP, n = 36; TPC, n = 31). Treatment subgroups were balanced for baseline characteristics and GPA indices. EP was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (HR 0.51; P < 0.01) versus TPC; median OS was 10.0 and 4.8 months, respectively. Improvement in OS was observed in both poorer and better GPA prognostic groups. Survival rates at 12 months were 44.4% for EP versus 19.4% for TPC. Consistent with the overall BEACON population, fewer patients on EP experienced grade ≥3 toxicity (50 vs. 70%). Conclusions: The significant improvement in survival in BCBM patients provides encouraging data for EP in this difficult-to-treat subgroup of patients. A phase three trial of EP in BCBM patients is underway (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02915744)

Patterns and Predictors of First-Line Taxane Use in Patients with Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in US Clinical Practice

We investigated first-line (1L) treatment patterns and predictors of taxane use to better understand the evolving metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) treatment landscape. This retrospective analysis of the Truven Health MarketScan® (Somers, NY, USA) Database included women with mTNBC who received 1L therapy within six months of diagnosis (January 2005–June 2015). Multivariate logistic regression models identified predictors of taxane use, adjusting for prognostic factors. A total of 2271 women with newly diagnosed mTNBC received 1L treatment during the study period. Half received a 1L taxane (53%), more often in combination than as monotherapy (58% versus 42%), though this varied by specific taxane. Nab-Paclitaxel monotherapy increased substantially after 2010. More recent treatment year (odds ratio, 2.16 (95% CI 1.69–2.76]) and number of metastases (≥3 versus 1: 1.73 (1.25–2.40)) predicted taxane monotherapy versus combination. Having a health maintenance organization versus a preferred provider organization plan predicted less nab-paclitaxel versus paclitaxel (0.32 (0.13–0.80)) or docetaxel (0.30 (0.10–0.89)) use. More recent index year (2011–2015 vs. 2005–2010) was the only predictor favoring nab-paclitaxel versus paclitaxel (2.01 (1.26–3.21)) or docetaxel (3.63 (2.11–6.26)). Taxane-containing regimens remained the most common 1L mTNBC treatments. Paclitaxel and nab-paclitaxel use changed substantially over time, with nab-paclitaxel use associated with insurance coverage